Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Feb 1962

Vol. 193 No. 1

Private Members' Business. - Local Authorities (Works) Act: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
"That Dáil Éireann is of the opinion that, as a practical step to stimulate increased production through the improvement of the fertility of our land by badly needed drainage schemes and at the same time to help to relieve unemployment in rural areas, the necessary moneys to put the Local Authorities (Works) Act into operation should be provided immediately." (Deputies Browne and McQuillan.)

When we adjourned the discussion on this motion on 29th November last, I had dealt with the reasons why, in my opinion, it would be well if the Government decided to resume the allocation of moneys for expenditure under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. This motion does not require the introduction of fresh legislation. The legislation is there. All that would be necessary would be a Ministerial Order making available to the local authorities throughout the country the moneys necessary to resume operations under that scheme.

I have no intention of repeating the arguments I advanced on the last occasion. I had almost exhausted them when the House rose. I wish to emphasise for the last time the need there is in the rural parts of the country for operations such as were carried out when the scheme was formerly in operation. Today there is a need to give employment to the men who were at one time employed on such schemes and to the men who have been displaced on road work, not alone for the purpose of giving them employment but for the purpose of providing work of a character which would relieve flooding on much productive land which at the moment is incapable of being used to its maximum capacity because of the dangers attendant upon periodic flooding. Public roadways are also affected in very many instances because of flooding.

It is not only the non-availability of funds that is involved in this but the legal powers enshrined in the Local Authorities (Works) Act to permit of work of such a character to be undertaken. On the last occasion I cited instances where individuals and local authorities were desirous of carrying out such works but could not go in upon the land because they had not the right to enter property. If the Local Authorities (Works) Act were in operation that difficulty would not exist.

Even since the House rose a particular instance has come to my attention of a village in West Cork which has been seriously affected by flooding on the upper reaches of the River Lee. The local authority and various committees looked into this question and found they had no rights to go into this case of flooding which seriously affected not only lands but the houses in the village itself. Bridges and a roadway were also affected by the flooding. In fact, it went so far that members of the Minister's own Party on the council enquired whether, if the council itself advanced the money, the provisions of the Local Authorities (Works) Act would permit them to go in to do this work. They were informed by the Manager that they could not as the money had not been voted by the local authority under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. Consequently, it could not be done. I merely cite that as just another instance of very many we can bring to mind where work is waiting to be done and cannot be done because the authority is not there to embark upon it.

There is also the financial obligation. Every member of this House who is a member of a local authority knows very well, particularly in these weeks, how important local expenditure is becoming in the eyes of the people and how difficult it is becoming for the ratepayers to meet the charges levied upon them. We know how much work is awaiting any expenditure which can be embarked upon by local authorities, such as drainage, sanitary services, the provision of water supplies and so on.

Here was a scheme in which there was no charge on local rates and in which the very minimum of supervisory staff was necessary to carry out the scheme and in which the very maximum was spent in direct payment to the men engaged in doing the work. That was one of the most attractive features of the work done under the Local Authorities (Works) Act.

There are many men today who, unfortunately, have had to have recourse to labour exchanges because they were of an age at which they could not emigrate. They had lost employment on the roads. They could be employed on schemes such as this. Some Deputies support the Government in an effort to bolster up whatever case the Government may have in their obstinacy in refusing to implement this scheme, in complete opposition to the expressions voiced at the Ard-Fheis and in complete contradiction of the views expressed by their own members on local authorities. They continue, despite the frequent appeals to resume this scheme, to be almost adamant in their decision.

Let us hope that reason will prevail and that they will decide to resume these operations. Deputies who have tried to make a case in support of the Government in their attitude up to now have said that some money was not properly spent; there was not a proper return for the money involved. If that is the argument used, there is not a single measure ever introduced in this House by any Government where that argument could not be raised. There is not an Act in operation in the State today which should not be repealed if that argument holds good for all. In the expenditure of moneys some cases are more isolated than others. If there were instances in which money was not properly spent under the Local Authorities (Works) Act they were extremely few. Not alone did that Act bring employment to the rural parts and increased production and employment in rural areas but it also relieved the charges on the local authorities by preserving local authority property from the ravages of flooding.

I earnestly appeal to the Minister and the Government to accept this motion and re-allocate the moneys in the coming financial year. They should bear in mind the measure of support that exists both in the House and in every local authority throughout the country for the Minister to resume the Local Authorities (Works) Act that was so effective in the past. I am confident that if they do that they will find no better outlet for the expenditure of the relatively little amount of money which would give employment to so many and effect such good not alone in relation to the people directly involved but in regard to the communities in the areas served by schemes under the Local Authorities (Works) Act—schemes which would have to wait for many a long year if they were to be done under the arterial drainage scheme or any other existing scheme.

It is for those reasons that we in the Fine Gael Party feel it would be an excellent thing if these works were reopened and if the moneys were reallocated. We have the staffs ready in the county council offices. There would be complete co-operation on the part of the members of local authorities, no matter what Party they belong to, in order to ensure that whatever money is allocated for the works would be properly spent. The works that would be selected in co-operation with the local engineering staff would be such that the Government would be satisfied that the moneys spent would bring to local authorities and the country at large increased production and employment and help considerably the people who at the moment face great obstacles in trying to work small farms and road-side holdings. For this reason, we whole-heartedly support the motion.

Deputy Blowick.

It is peculiar, Sir, that you object to calling a member of the Labour Party.

I do not know what the Deputy said.

Perhaps, it is just as well. The Labour Party has 16 members and you give preference to a Party with two members.

Surely a Deputy has the right to speak, irrespective of the strength of his Party.

It might be no harm to give a very brief account of how the Local Authorities (Works) Act came into being. When the first inter-Party Government came into office in 1948——

Forget about it— we have had enough of it.

I certainly will not forget it. We are proud of it.

We suffered enough.

We found that there was an Arterial Drainage Act passed that was never put into operation, because many people were being driven from the land by flooding. We found there was no employment in the rural areas. We had the Land Reclamation Act introduced about that time by the first inter-Party Minister for Agriculture and, in many cases, the work of land reclamation could not proceed because the outfall drains were choked. The Local Authorities (Works) Act was introduced and put into effect and tremendously good work was done under it for the two years it existed.

Fianna Fáil came into power in 1951 and did not cut out the Act completely. They went half way. For the three years they were in office until 1954, they reduced by half each year the amount of money that we had been spending on it. We came back in 1954 and put the Act into full operation again until 1957. When Fianna Fáil got an overall majority in 1957——

The Deputy did enough damage.

I should like to be allowed to continue without interruption.

Deputy Leneghan should cease interrupting. He may make his own contribution to the debate.

When Fianna Fáil found they had an overall majority, they took courage and killed the Local Authorities Act, apparently for no other reason than that it was introduced by the inter-Party Government. One reason since given for killing it then is that there was no maintenance work done under it. Every speaker on the Government side who wants to justify that killing says there was no maintenance and therefore it was a bad Act. Let us examine that as that is the only reason I have heard put forward at any time. It is a very poor reason and if it be the reason for discontinuing the Local Authorities Act, then minor employment scheme and rural improvement scheme drainage should never have been done because there is no provision for maintenance, even where the Special Employment Schemes Office carries out a minor employment scheme or rural improvement scheme.

One would imagine that drainage under the Local Authorities Act should be done permanently as they do it in Switzerland or in some advanced Continental countries where the bottom of the pipe is concreted so that it will never need attention again. That is not the case here, nor could our finances afford it. Excellent work was done under the Local Authorities (Works) Act and it makes me smile when Deputy Seán Flanagan and Deputy Cunningham stand up and, parrot-like, repeat that the Act was a waste of money because there was no maintenance. Maintenance must always be done, time and time again. That is one of the first things we must face up to. I am sorry I have taken up so much time in blowing that Fianna Fáil scheme sky high.

From time to time, the Government tells the farmers that the whole economy of the country depends on more production. They are asked to produce more, and work harder. But what help has the Government given them? Does the Minister know that Deputy McQuillan and I, to take two examples in two counties side by side, can quote cases of thousands of farmers literally driven from their homes because of choked-up land drainage. I know of one area myself—Deputy Seán Flanagan mentioned it in his speech; it is not far from Ballyhaunis, adjoining the Lung river, portion of which forms the boundary between Mayo and Roscommon in the northeastern part of Mayo-where I am told on good authority that between Mayo and Roscommon there are 2,000 farmers, more than half of whose land is flooded for half the year because the second part of the Lung river has not been drained.

During the time of the first inter-Party Government—although Deputy Seán Flanagan says it did more harm than good—for a reasonably small sum of money, half of the Lung river was done—it is also known as the Boyle river—and the famous Tinacarra Rock that was the heartbreak of farmers in that part of the country for years, was blasted and cut away, taking something like four to six feet off the level of Lough Gara and lowering the water table of the surrounding country and thus leaving hundreds of holdings perfectly dry for the first time. Deputy Seán Flanagan says the farmers lower down are suffering. Perhaps Deputy McQuillan could better enlighten the House on that but it is strange that I did not hear any complaints from the farmers who are supposed to be flooded as a result of this work. Perhaps it is just another reason like the "no maintenance" reason, for killing the Act.

I wonder does the Minister realise what it is like trying to live on a small holding and, for half the year, to see half that holding flooded, the bogs flooded and the roads leading to the house flooded when the rainfall is heavy; to see the cocks of hay in the summertime, and in harvest time, the stooks of corn, under water during exceptional rainfall, all simply because the Minister and his colleagues are too busy bringing foreigners into the country, giving them £750,000, as they are doing in one case for a factory that will give employment here. That is a very good job—I have no fault to find with it—but surely if we are able to disburse £750,000 for a foreigner to set up a factory, we could think of the poor slaves of our own flesh and blood who are trying to live on these flooded farms, bearing in mind that if they do not pay their annuities to the Land Commission, the sheriff will be down on them. They are asked to pay for land which they cannot in most cases use for six months of the year.

That attitude of the Government is particularly callous. The Government have a great deal to account for in leaving our own people in such a plight that they are forcing them—and that is what the Government are doing —to lock up their houses and move out. It is no wonder that despair, among small farmers particularly, is as prevalent as it is at the present time.

Not the most important but one of the most important effects of the Local Authorities (Works) Act was the employment it gave in the rural areas. At present no employment is provided by the local authorities or the Government. There seems to be a ban or a deliberate close down in the rural areas. We are asked to develop our own country. What are the Government doing towards developing it? One of the first necessities in making land available for production is to take off the surplus water. The ordinary farmer cannot do that; it must be done by the Government. We hear talk about non-maintenance, and Deputy Cunningham said—and there is no harm in quoting him—that all the drainage in this country should be in the hands of one authority.

Let me speak for myself. I do not care two hoots what authority takes over the drainage, so long as the job is done. I do not care if the Office of Public Works do it. Did Deputy Seán Flanagan and Deputy Cunningham approach the Government or make any representations to the Government that the Office of Public Works should take over the drainage that was being done by the local authorities? Did they make any representations to the Minister for Finance to make money available to the Office of Public Works for drainage work.? As I say, I do not care two hoots whether the local authorities, the Office of Public Works or the Special Employment Schemes Office do the job.

The purpose of the motion—and it is an excellent motion—is to get the drainage done. Deputy Cunningham described it in most insulting terms as being the "bug" of Deputy McQuillan. Perhaps he is one of those blessed mortals who come into this House and would not be seen anywhere near a homestead, and think that a farmer is a kind of lesser vermin who does his work, produces food and pays taxes and rates in all circumstances, good, bad and indifferent, and that if he does not like it, he can go to England or the United States. That is the attitude of the Government towards the farmers at the present time, and has been their attitude all along. I can never understand what grudge Fianna Fáil have against the ordinary small farmers but definitely, every chance they get, they seem keen to banish them from the country, and they have very nearly done so, I regret to say.

If the Minister thinks that the old method of carrying out drainage envisaged in this motion was not correct, or if he thinks the local authorities were not the correct vehicle to do the drainage work, let him hand it over to the office of Public Works, the Special Employment Scheme Office, or set up a separate authority. Deputy Seán Flanagan said that he does not mind if he waits ten, 12 or 20 years for the drainage to be done. I wonder if he lived on a small holding and had no other means of livelihood, would he be content to wait ten, 12, or 20 years?

Let me put it another way. Would he be content to come into this House as a public representative, wait for ten, 12 or 20 years for the allowance which every Deputy gets, continue to work and pay the expenses of keeping a house and rearing a family during that time. That is an exact parallel of what he wants for the small farmers, until some grand scheme comes along which would just suit certain armchair gentlemen who would not be seen dead near a holding of land. Just to suit those people, the farmers should wait ten, 12 or 20 years for a grand scheme to come along from the Office of Public Works! The people should be told to clear out, that they will get no help from a Fianna Fáil Government. I think they do not expect it now. They know what they will get.

I fully agree with the motion and I am fully behind it, but in case there is any doubt, I want to make clear that what I am asking is that some intermediate body, the local authorities, the Office of Public Works or the Special Employment Schemes Office, should take over the drainage the Arterial Drainage Act will never reach. That is a very urgent necessity. In my opinion, the Arterial Drainage Act will not be able to overtake all the drainage work for a long time. Excellent work has been done which is a credit and a monument to the engineers of the Board of Works, and I should like to pay tribute to them. There are 105 catchment areas all over the country, and they are doing the work as fast as both staff and finances will allow, but since only seven or eight have been undertaken or completed since 1948, I am not exaggerating when I say that it will take another 50 or 70 years to complete most of the arterial drainage.

In the meantime, something else must be done. Some effort should be made to do the work which the Local Authorities (Works) Act was intended to do, and did while it was in operation. That is a vital necessity, if we are to retain our small farmers. If we do not intend to retain them, let me suggest to the Minister that the decent thing would be to tell them not to waste their time hoping that the job will be done by the Government. It would be more decent to tell them to go by the boat, as we say, to clear off and not waste their time trying to make a living on flooded land, waiting for an unsympathetic and harsh Government who have not the foggiest notion of coming to their aid.

Since the suspension of this Act in 1957, repeated attempts have been made in this House to have it reintroduced. The motion before us to-night is a repeat of a similar motion which was discussed here in 1959, more than two years ago. At that time, the idea of this motion had almost unanimous support so far as public expressions in this House were concerned. In fact, one member of Fianna Fáil of long standing here said it was the best Act that was ever introduced, so far as the farmers of this country are concerned.

However, at that time the Minister put us at our ease. He told us that the main fault he found with the measure was that it should not be administered by the local authorities, that the work could be much more effectively carried out by the Office of Public Works, and that accordingly he would not give back to the local authorities powers to carry out these intermediate and minor drainage schemes which the Office of Public Works would carry out instead. I was quite satisfied with that assurance, because, as mentioned by Deputy Blowick, we did not mind whether the local authorities or the Office of Public Works carried out the jobs so long as they were carried out.

I must say, however, since two years have now passed since the Minister made that statement that it was a deceitful statement. I cannot otherwise describe it. The Minister said:

In these circumstances, I want to make it quite clear that the Local Authorities (Works) Act grants of 100 per cent. will not be revived by the Government and that the Government adhere to the decision arrived at in 1957 and, with the new relief that we now foresee coming into being in the very near future, under the Office of Public Works we propose to deal with these useful jobs of intermediate river drainage.

Would the Deputy give the reference?

Column 1464, Volume 178 of the Official Report. At that time the Minister gave the House to understand definitely that in the near future the Office of Public Works would carry out those jobs. I should like the Minister to define what he means by the term "in the very near future". It is now more than two years and two months since the Minister made that statement. Will he stand up here tonight and in his address on this motion state what jobs have been carried out by the Office of Public Works since he made the statement on 11th December, 1959? None has been carried out that I know of in West Cork or, I believe, in any part of Ireland. Consequently, I affirm again my description of the Minister's remarks at that time, that it was deceitful. Possibly he anticipated that an election was pending and in order to tide himself over, gave these rather definite assurances which have now been dishonoured.

There is no need to mention again the many advantages that accrued from this measure which helped to develop the fertility of the land and our main industry, agriculture, to a very great extent. There was a second and an equally important advantage. It afforded productive employment to a large number of workers in rural Ireland who were unable to find alternative employment. As Deputy Blowick mentioned, we give hundreds of thousands of pounds to foreigners to set up industries but is not the development of agriculture and the provision of employment in that field as important as development in the industrial field?

Is the Minister not well aware that the General Council of County Councils and every local authority have made repeated representations with a view to getting this Act reintroduced? Foremost in the claimants to have it reintroduced are members of the Minister's Party. I do not know whether he has imposed a silence on them in this discussion as I have not seen any of them eager to address the House. There is no case to make against it. I must say, however, that if one were making a case, then the best case was made by Deputy Corry of the Fianna Fáil Party, an honoured member of this House with 35 years' membership and who is thoroughly conversant with legislation passed here over that extended period. I have already mentioned his commendation that it is the best piece of legislation passed by this House, so far as the farmers are concerned. That should indeed weigh heavily with the Minister and the Government. It is unnecessary to repeat the many other commendations which this measure has got from Deputies of other Parties and indeed from public representatives and vocational organisations throughout the country.

What has the adverse affect been in County Cork? What are we losing as a result of the Government's action in 1957 in withdrawing these grants? First of all, we are losing the opportunity of relieving flooding in many areas. We have had repeated representations by various people to try to get drainage schemes implemented. Secondly, we have lost a large amount of money by way of grants because during the operation of the scheme in Cork county from 1949 to its suspension in 1957, the amount of money expended was £631,497. In Cork county alone, more than £631,000 was expended under this Act and I am aware of many of the schemes carried out with that money. I am quite satisfied that the beneficiaries were satisfied with the work carried out and that in almost all cases, with a few exceptions, good work was done. I know the advantage it was to the workers in the different districts in which the schemes were operated and the large amount of employment that was provided. All that has been lost as a result of the action in 1957.

There is another side to the question. On 11th December, 1959, the Minister told us that we could more or less make our minds easy about these works, that the county council engineers were not capable and had not got the training to do the job and that they did not care whether the work was carried out properly or not. I disagreed with that assertion at that time. It was an assertion previously made by the Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Smith, when he was Minister for Local Government. He stated here that some of the engineers sabotaged the effort and he mentioned specifically that that had happened in his county of Cavan.

The other side of the picture is that not alone has the Office of Public Works not carried out any of these minor drainage schemes since the suspension of the Act but it is very difficult to get drainage schemes carried out at present under the rural improvements scheme. All applications for road works and drainage works under the rural improvements scheme have been delayed and when a person submits an application for these grants, let it be for road or drainage work, he can rest assured it will not be inspected for 12 months. Will the Minister say what is the cause of the delay when heretofore from the date of application not more than eight to nine months could elapse before the actual scheme was implemented? Now the position is that people must wait more than two years.

The Deputy will appreciate that the House is not discussing rural improvements.

They could be incidental to local authority works. I do not intend to delay the House unduly as the time is very limited but it is regrettable that we should have to have this motion on our Order Paper again, seeing that we had it more than two years ago and received an assurance then. I am sure the movers of the motion were satisfied with the Minister's assurance, or satisfied to a reasonable extent. I am sure they anticipated that as a result of the motion, the Office of Public Works would carry out these jobs. It is no wonder that we have it on the Order Paper in view of the deliberate deceitfulness of the Minister.

I appeal to members of this Assembly to support this motion. We have the position obtaining that, even apart from the Government Party, there is sufficient support outside it to carry a measure such as this. When we debated this question in December, 1959, we were not in the same favourable position because even though the members of the Fianna Fáil Party were probably as much, if not more, in support of it as those of us who voted for it, they had to vote against it on direction. That no longer applies. They have lost their majority and are in a minority of three and there are sufficient members to get this motion passed. I am appealing to these members, whether they be Party members or Independent members, to vote in favour of this motion and direct the Government to do the job they should have done long ago.

Listening to the various speakers who have contributed to this debate, and in particular the last two, one is struck by the complete absence of any balance in their approach to the matter of drainage as we know it is being carried out at the moment. It would be fair to say, as far as Deputy Blowick is concerned, that if he could suck as well as he can blow, there would be no water left in the West at all. But that is not likely to happen. As was stated, this motion was discussed some years ago. My opinions have not been shaken in any way by my experience since then. In fact, if anything, I am confirmed in my views in regard to the merits or demerits of the Local Authorities (Works) Act at that time.

If you can correlate the various views being put forward here, the point would seem to be that we would need the moneys that could be provided under this Act in order to provide employment in rural Ireland. Since this motion was last discussed, the unemployment figure in rural Ireland has considerably decreased.

(Interruptions.)

Perhaps Deputy Murphy did not say all he intended when he was on his feet. Much play has also been made about the allegedly laudable drainage work done under this Act and it is suggested that it helped production on the land. Again, since we last discussed this matter, there has been a six per cent. increase in agricultural production throughout the country. Therefore, both in regard to employment and agricultural production, the picture is brighter today than it was two years ago when we last considered this matter.

This justifies my view that 100 per cent. grants under this Act are not justified and cannot be justified on the record of achievement for the £7½ million spent willy-nilly by the Government of the day under this scheme. Compare the effects of that expenditure with the undoubtedly useful work that has been done under the Arterial Drainage Act. To date, an all-in figure of approximately £10 million has been spent on arterial drainage. Nobody will deny the value of that work or that it will bring very great benefits to the regions that have been drained. Can we show any comparable results for the £7½ million spent under the Local Authorities (Works) Act in the Fifties? About 50 per cent. of the money spent was on drainage and the remainder was on road work or work associated with roads. It has been said here that valuable property of local authorities cannot be saved from being washed away because I will not provide 100 per cent. grants under this Act. Do the people who make these allegations have any regard to the truth? Do they realise that the Act is still there and there is nothing to prevent any council who fears its property will be washed away by the floods from spending the money?

Their own money.

That is the whole point. It is all very well to spend somebody else's money; but even though, as is alleged here, valuable property is being washed away, we cannot see our way in our councils to utilise the statute still on the books and to spend our own money in providing 100 per cent. grants. When we hear an interjection like that just heard, surely we must ask ourselves does it not provide the answer. Spend the money you get for nothing, spend it anywhere; but no matter how meritorious the case made about the damage to the council's property, councillors are so blind to the facts that they say, first, they have no authority to go in; secondly, that they have no authority to spend the money; but, finally, they will not spend the money because it would be council money.

Should the same care not be taken in the expenditure of the taxpayers' money by county councils as would be taken in the expenditure of the rates money? Apparently, those who have spoken here to-night use a completely different yardstick when measuring the good that may accrue from the expenditure of the taxpayers' money as against the good that may accrue from the expenditure of the ratepayers' money. Take that home and consider it and do not come into this House, as was done to-night, and suggest a manager told his council there was no power to do any of these jobs, even to save their own property from flood waters. I would advise the people holding those views to find out the law on the matter and not to be wasting our time and misleading us.

In regard to the intermediate river drainage schemes, I am as disappointed by the apparent lack of progress as any other Deputy. I now realise that the slowness has not been due to neglect by the Board of Works but rather to the procedure whereby these schemes have to be surveyed and exhibited in order to ensure that no undue damage will be done to some other landowner in the area. Today, under this scheme, the drainage of one river is in progress; tenders have been received for a second scheme, and that job is likely to go to the contractor in the near future; the third and fourth jobs are on the way to be advertised and will also come to the work stage during the course of this year. Four further rivers have already been surveyed and they, in turn, now that the scheme has got under way, will be the four rivers in 1963 to follow the four of 1962, providing, as I said in 1959, a programme of four intermediate rivers per year. Progress has been disappointingly slow, but now that the schemes have started, after certain time has been spent on work not immediately evident—work by technical experts who know their job inside out—these four schemes will be at the work stage this year; there will be four more next year, and that grouping of four will follow in each successive year.

Let us look at the position in relation to the relief of urban flooding. A new additional help is now being given to urban authorities to relieve flooding in their areas. That new scheme is to the extent of 40 per cent. of the loan charges being made available by way of subsidy in normal cases, and probably in abnormal cases it may go as high as 60 per cent. In addition to the intermediate river drainage programme I have mentioned, there is, in so far as the urban population and urban authorities are concerned, this new additional subsidy for the relief of flooding in their functional areas. Those two schemes, I feel, constitute a much better and more promising means of relieving flooding in a proper, planned way than was the willynilly approach of the operations under the Local Authorities (Works) Act of which I have had experience as a county councillor when it was in operation.

However, we are being charged here tonight with neglecting the small farmers, with having no regard for them. We are being really blackguarded by people who decry the efforts of this Government to get industrialists to come in and set up industries here, not for the benefit of the foreigners who set them up but fundamentally for the provision of much-needed employment for our own people. Stop this carping and criticism of foreigners and make use of the industries they are providing; stop making out that they are undesirable. They are most desirable if they bring with them the know-how and the selling experience, if they are men competent to run factories which will give muchneeded employment to our people.

We have been charged with handing out money to the foreigners only for the foreigners' benefit. We are charged with neglecting the small farmers. Have we forgotten that since 1957, and as late as 1961, money by way of subsidies went down to the smallest farmer in our community, that we have increased these subsidies from the £17 million provided by the previous Coalition Government to a figure of over £35 million. Does that denote in Fianna Fáil or the Government any lack of thought or care for the farmers, let them be large or small?

On the question of drainage, let us come to the actual figures. If we take the whole range of drainage measures available at the moment, we can start on the farmers' land with the Land Project operations. We then have minor improvement schemes which include road works, rural improvement grants which again provide for drainage as well as road works. We have bog development schemes which do drainage on bogs and cater for bog road, and we have the intermediate river drainage programme of which we have talked already tonight, together with the larger overall programme of arterial drainage.

What do you find? The position is that the aggregate amount of money spent on drainage under all heads in rural Ireland comes to somewhere in the region of £4 million in the year that lies ahead. Does anyone in his senses suggest that under all those heads, which are directed in a very special way to drainage of agricultural land, the £4 million per annum being spent by this Government, in addition to moneys I have already mentioned by way of general subsidies, are not a very real and very big effort on the part of the Government and of the taxpayer in trying to make the life of our farmers a better life, a fuller life, a more productive and more profitable life?

Again, we have heard from Deputy M.P. Murphy that somewhere in the region of £630,000 in grants were paid during the course of the Local Authorities (Works) Act to his county and that they are not now being paid that and that there is therefore this big loss to the county. It would appear as if nothing has improved or increased since then. Does the same Deputy, who should be well aware of the facts, appreciate that while that money may not now be going into County Cork for work which, in the main, was pretty useless, if not entirely so, there is in fact going into that county money which will give labourers who worked on the Local Authorities (Works) Act schemes much better employment? He should give some recognition to that fact and not make these comparisons of what has been lost. He should also consider what has been gained and in the overall, he will probably find that in those two matters alone the balance is well in favour of what is now going into that county as against what it was then.

What is the difference between the Road Fund now and in 1956?

It is solvent now; it was burst then.

The Minister should not try to cod the House.

I am not trying to cod the House and the Deputy knows it. There was more mention of what was being done in 1956 and 1957. I have heard mention of what was spent and how much more we would have got and of what Fianna Fáil did when we came in in 1957 with an overall majority. There was talk about our wiping out the Local Authorities (Works) Act. Does it ever occur to the Deputies who make those charges that it was easy to wipe out that Act because the money for it was nonexistent?

That is complete nonsense.

There is nobody who knows that better than Deputy O'Donnell.

That is a complete untruth.

Deputy O'Donnell has used the words "complete untruth". He must withdraw them.

If it is not parliamentary to use those words, I withdraw them.

As I was about to say, I do not propose to go over the sorry recital of the conditions existing in those sad days. They were only too well known to Deputy O'Donnell as Minister for Local Government. There was the bankrupt Road Fund because of the raid made on that fund. The road taxpayers' money was being used for other general purposes.

Would the Minister mention one of them?

Does Deputy O'Donnell now deny that the Road Fund, which was so badly needed and was still very short of what was needed, was raided to the tune of £500,000 by the Minister for Finance of those sad days?

Will the Minister mention one project promoted by the inter-Party Government of which he disapproves?

Yes. I disapprove of the raiding of the Road Fund for any purpose whatsoever, by any Minister in any Government.

Mention a project.

That is surely a project —£500,000 swept out of the Road Fund —and we had to put in £900,000 in order that we would not have to pay off thousands of workers who were being codded along in the belief that there was money there to pay them.

On a point of order, can the Minister mention one project——

That is surely not a point of order.

No, but it is a point the Minister will not answer.

It does not seem to arise on the motion.

Seeing the Minister and his Party were such wizards from 1957 to 1961, it seems peculiar the Party lost so many seats.

(Interruptions.)

Surely the Deputy realises that were it not for the fact that we gave so much to the Labour Party, there would be fewer Labour Deputies in this House today. In fact, the Labour Party would not be noticed here at all.

This discussion has roamed far from what it was originally intended to cover. From the interjections, it would appear that some of the roaming was not to the liking of Opposition Deputies.

It got us away from the point.

We will cease roaming now and come back to the point. Some of the Opposition speakers had some strange things to say here to-night. I think it was Deputy Blowick again who said it would take either 15 to 17 years, or 50 to 70 years—I am not sure which—to get all the arterial drainage required done. He also asserted that in 1948 when the first Coalition misfortune befell the country, nothing was being done in the line of arterial drainage. The Act was there but it was not being implemented.

Mr. Donnellan

He was correct in that.

I should like to recall to Deputy Blowick's memory the fact that when the Act was put on the Statute Book by the present Minister for Agriculture—he was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance in charge of the Office of Public Works—he said it would take approximately five years to build up the staff and personnel—both then non-existent—requisite to put the work in hands. If the Coalition Government were able to step up the tempo of arterial drainage in 1949, that was because of the five years' build-up of personnel and technical know-how undertaken by the previous Fianna Fáil Government.

That is certainly a bit of blowing.

The Parliamentary Secretary said in 1944 that it would take five years to build up the staff and technical know-how. Pressed as to how long it would take to complete the entire arterial drainage programme, he said that the overall job would probably take a further 30 years. In present circumstances, we know now that that figure was not so wild as it may have appeared then. I am glad that the increasing tempo in the past four or five years is having the result that, within the next 15 years, the last of the arterial drainage jobs will have been entered on. The calculation made in 1944 indicates very sound reasoning on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary at the time, Deputy Smith.

Complaint has been made that it takes from six to nine months to get an inspector on a rural improvements application job. That, of course, has nothing to do with this debate, but the Deputy who makes the charge does not know what he is talking about or else was deliberately misleading the House. I have as much experience of rural improvements applications and I have never known of any delay of the duration mentioned by the Deputy, provided the application was properly made and furnished to the proper address. If the Deputy thinks over that, he may find the real reason for the delay.

To those who sponsor this motion and, in particular, to Deputy McQuillan, I should like to say that I still stand over what I said in regard to the wastage that occurred on drainage jobs because of the lack of maintenance subsequently and because of the hurried planning. In the Deputy's county, I have had reports from some of the council engineers showing that wastage has clearly occurred because of lack of maintenance since the scheme was carried out seven years ago.

Overall, the amount spent on drainage has increased over the years. The fact that the Office of Public Works is now handling these intermediate rivers is a vast improvement. Intermediate river drainage carried out by the Board of Works will, in time, be a credit to us and will be a tremendous benefit to people generally. The more drainage handled expertly by the Office of Public Works, the better return we will have for the money spent and the sooner we will get the problem of drainage completed to the benefit of all.

Mr. Donnellan

Would Deputy McQuillan give me five minutes?

Deputy McQuillan has 15 minutes to conclude. The debate must end at 10.20 p.m.

If the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has no objection, I do not mind giving way to Deputy Donnellan.

Mr. Donnellan

I am grateful to the Deputy. When I was a young lad, there was a toy called a Jack-in-the-Box. It used to amuse children. When one touched the spring, Jack shoved up his head; when one pressed it again, he disappeared into his box. There are five Deputies on the Fianna Fáil benches who are also members of the Galway County Council. The Chairman of the Council, Deputy Carty, is a member of this House; so is Deputy Geoghegan; so is Deputy Millar; so is Deputy Coogan. Galway County Council dominated by Fianna Fáil, passed a unanimous resolution, which they forwarded to the Minister, requesting him to restore the Local Authorities (Works) Act. They were blowing to the people down in Galway but there is not one of them in the House tonight to discuss this important motion. There is not one of them here to support that resolution, proposed by one of them, seconded, and carried unanimously. They are outside waiting to be whipped in.

And they will vote against the motion.

Mr. Donnellan

Did anyone ever see such Jacks-in-the-Boxes? Did anyone ever see such a Jack-in-the-Box performance as Fianna Fáil think they can carry on here? They blow hot and cold: They blow one way down in Galway, Roscommon and Mayo and another way here. Deputy Seán Flanagan is absent now. He represents Mayo. He blows one way there and another way here. All those five Deputies I mentioned in the Fianna Fáil Party sponsored the resolution to which I have referred. Tonight they will walk in here and vote against this motion.

That is democracy.

Mr. Donnellan

That is hypocrisy of the worst type. The Minister talked tonight about arterial drainage. When the first inter-Party Government came in in 1948, the Minister had very little interest in arterial drainage. It was we who started the first arterial drainage scheme. All the machinery in the Board of Works in June, 1948, consisted of two out-of-date excavators. We had to buy £1,500,000 worth of machinery to carry out arterial drainage and, when we did we were told we were putting the country into pawn. We left them the machinery to do the work, and we paid for that machinery. Where is Deputy Corry to-night? I remember him paying a tribute, and a well deserved tribute, to the then Minister for Local Government, the late Deputy Tadhg Murphy, when he was putting this Act through the Dáil. Where is he to-night? He is waiting with the Fianna Fáil members of the Galway County Council to vote against this— the silent vote.

I would ask every fair-minded man in this House to vote for the restoration of this Act. It is an important Act and a good one. Deputy Murphy said he had been deceived, that he thought the Board of Works was going to take it over. I was not deceived. I was Parliamentary Secretary at the time and the Board of Works decided, and rightly, that they had enough on their hands with arterial drainage and that they would hand it over to the local authorities. The Minister states that the local authorities would have to spend money on these schemes. Whose money is he spending? Is not he spending the local authorities' money as well?

There is very little that I can say at this stage on drainage that I have not said thousands of times already. I have no illusions as to what to expect from the Government on this matter but I think it was necessary to repeat this motion since it was last discussed in 1959 in order to expose the hypocrisy of the so-called rural Party, Fianna Fáil. This shows that the Dublin spectacles are the ones through which rural problems are looked at and it shows the contempt with which the Taoiseach treats the views of those who support him in rural Ireland. When they go into their little cells and cumainn in the country they say that the Local Authorities (Works) Act must be restored but when they come to Dublin they take off their caps before the big fellows in the Party in the city, the whip is cracked and they are all small boys up from the country. These are hard words but they are true.

Will you answer the arguments I put up in 1959?

The Deputy is a small boy, too.

Deputy McQuillan is not able to answer.

The Minister has shown that he has more respect for the foreigner than he has for his own people. If the Government would not stand over the speech of the gentleman who was flying his kite in Mayo they will not stand over the speech that the Minister has just made. The Minister said that fifteen years would see the end of the arterial drainage problem.

Before the Deputy goes on record misrepresenting what I said I would like him to quote exactly what I did say.

The Minister said that fifteen years would see the end of arterial drainage problems.

I most certainly did not. What I did say was that by the end of fifteen years the last of these schemes would have been entered upon.

I will accept that. If in fifteen years we will have entered upon the last of these schemes the longest it can take after that to complete any scheme is two or three years. We know that at the present rate of progress, no matter how the programme is speeded up, it cannot be completed in 40 years. Has the Minister got the staff to do it? Is it not a fact that in his own Department he has had to bring up tradesmen and appoint them to jobs which professional men were doing up to recently?

Has the Deputy any objection to that?

None at all.

Surveys have been carried out in quite a number of cases.

If I am getting under the Minister's skin he should not let it show. I did not interrupt him for the 20 minutes he was speaking. In April, 1959, the two intermediate drain age schemes the Minister has referred to were introduced into the Board of Works. From the middle of April 1959 to the middle of February, 1961 is almost three years and in that time not as much as one scheme has been completed. The Minister tells us that one scheme is under way and that two or three more are to be put up for contract.

One scheme is up for contract and one is about to go out to contract.

How long are we going to wait for another scheme? The Minister says that schemes would not be maintained. It is a simple thing to bring a one line Bill into this House to say that maintenance charges would be imposed. The Minister has said that there are fewer people needing employment in rural Ireland. Of course there are fewer people needing employment and there will be fewer still if the Minister is let get away with the ideas he is trying to put across the House. He said there was an increase of six per cent. in the production from the land. That is in direct conflict with the speech made by the Minister for Finance in Cork when he said that our output from the land in terms of cattle would be down next year.

He never said that.

Where do the Fianna Fáil Party stand? I have no illusion about them. Fianna Fáil have lost the confidence of the people of rural Ireland. They can cater for the Japs, the Germans, NATO and anybody else they like; they have more regard for the foreigner than they have for their own people.

Who said that?

When it is a question of doing a local drainage scheme for the people of their own country, all they can do is raise it off the rates.

Who said it?

The Minister and his Party will have to answer rural Ireland before long. I welcome the day they will go down and put this before the people so that the decision can be made before it is too late in regard to the bloodstock, the best bloodstock in the country, the rural peasant, before he is wiped out by this power-mad group who are in Government at the moment.

I crave your indulgence, Sir, to mention to you that a little earlier on when you were in the Chair, a member of the House addressed abusive remarks to me from outside the Bar of the House. I do not mind anything that is said inside the House but these remarks were addressed to me from outside the Bar of the House.

The Chair did not hear the remarks referred to by Deputy Flanagan. It is, of course, completely out of order to address members of the House from outside the——

The Deputy means the lobby, I assume. The "bar" is open to a different construction.

Will Deputy O'Sullivan allow me to continue? Deputy Flanagan should have drawn the attention of the Chair to the offence when it was committed. The Chair can take no action at this stage.

That is very unfair to Deputy Flanagan.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 61; Níl, 71.

  • Barrett, Stephen D.
  • Barron, Joseph.
  • Barry, Richard.
  • Belton, Jack.
  • Blowick, Joseph.
  • Browne, Michael.
  • Browne, Noel C.
  • Burke, James J.
  • Burton, Philip.
  • Byrne, Patrick.
  • Casey, Seán.
  • Donegan, Patrick S.
  • Donnellan, Michael.
  • Dunne, Thomas.
  • Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
  • Farrelly, Denis.
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Gilhawley, Eugene.
  • Governey, Desmond.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
  • Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
  • Jones, Denis F.
  • Kenny, Henry.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • Lynch, Thaddeus.
  • McAuliffe, Patrick.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McLaughlin, Joseph.
  • McQuillan, John.
  • Clinton, Mark A.
  • Collins, Seán.
  • Connor, Patrick.
  • Coogan, Fintan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Costello, Declan D.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Desmond, Dan.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Henry P.
  • Dockrell, Maurice E
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • Murphy, William.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Donnell, Patrick.
  • O'Donnell, Thomas G.
  • O'Higgins, Michael J.
  • O'Keeffe, James.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick.
  • O'Sullivan, Denis J.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Reynolds, Patrick J.
  • Rooney, Famonn.
  • Ryan, Richie.
  • Sheridan, Joseph.
  • Spring, Dan.
  • Sweetman, Gerard.
  • Tierney, Patrick.
  • Treacy, Seán.
  • Tully, James.

Níl

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Lorcan.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Blaney, Neil T.
  • Boland, Kevin.
  • Booth, Lionel.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Brennan, Josepn.
  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Burke, Patrick J.
  • Calleary, Phelim A.
  • Carroll, Jim.
  • Carter, Frank.
  • Carty, Michael.
  • Childers, Erskine.
  • Clohessy, Patrick.
  • Colley, George.
  • Collins, James J.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Cotter, Edward.
  • Crinion, Brendan.
  • Crowley, Honor M.
  • Cummins, Patrick J.
  • Cunningham, Liam.
  • Davern, Mick.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Dolan, Séamus.
  • Dooley, Patrick.
  • Egan, Kieran P.
  • Egan, Nicholas.
  • Fanning, John.
  • Faulkner, Padraig.
  • Flanagan, Seán.
  • Gallagher, James.
  • Galvin, John.
  • Geoghegan, John.
  • Gibbons, James M.
  • Gilbride, Eugene.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Haughey, Charles.
  • Hillery, Patrick.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Lemass, Noel T.
  • Lemass, Seán.
  • Leneghan, Joseph R.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • Lynch, Jack.
  • MacCarthy, Seán.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Meaney, Con.
  • Medlar, Martin.
  • Millar, Anthony G.
  • Moher, John W.
  • Mooney, Patrick.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
  • Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
  • O'Connor, Timothy.
  • O'Malley, Donogh.
  • Ormonde, John.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sherwin, Frank.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Timmons, Eugene.
Tellers: Tá: Deputies Dr. Browne and McQuillan; Níl, Deputies J. Brennan and Geoghegan.
Question declared lost.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.40 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 15th February, 1962.
Top
Share