Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 Nov 1970

Vol. 249 No. 11

Committee on Finance. - Vote 8: Public Works and Buildings (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.

——(Deputy Kenny).

Mr. Bruton

There has been a considerable amount of talk in recent years and particularly in recent months on the subject of environmental quality or the quality of life. The activities of the Board of Works affect this subject in many diverse ways because the Board of Works are a very diverse body in so far as the activities they carry out are concerned. They affect it through their drainage operations. They affect it through the policy they adopt in relation to the erection and preservation of public buildings in the possession of the Government. They affect the quality of life also through their concern for the preservation of national monuments and also their general responsibility for archaeological research.

Professor Galbraith remarked on the Late Late Show quite recently that a lot of the talk about the quality of life is carried on at the moment purely at the level of oratory and rhetoric and it has not yet reached the stage in many cases of being turned into practical action. It is of the greatest concern to us that we adopt a more positive approach towards this question. We must adopt a more positive approach to all those things we see, hear and smell, which if they are pleasant can make our lives pleasant and if they are unpleasant can make our lives not only unpleasant but unhealthy as well.

We are, as an agricultural country, rather loath to believe that we could have a pollution problem in this country. Our traditional agricultural background is such that we more or less take for granted the fact that we are living in clear air and that our rivers are clean. The fact is that this is no longer the case in many parts of our country and because we are still living in a rural culture we, perhaps, are not as sensitive as we should be to what is happening before our eyes and in many cases under our noses. This is something which the Board of Works, in co-operation with the other Ministries concerned, must alert the public on and must take action to remedy.

In regard also to the preservation of our architectural and archaeological heritage there is, perhaps, another difficulty. We in some ways could be described as a country which was formerly under colonial rule. There is, therefore, a tendency to regard as of little value the archaeological and architectural contributions of people who from an historical point of view are regarded as conquerors. Of course, we must realise that a very big percentage of the population of this country, who are now completely Irish ir every way, came to this country at some time from that other island, partly in the role of colonialists. They and their descendants have inhabited this island for thousands of years. Nobody would deny they are Irish. Therefore, we have reason to feel that we should preserve what they built when they came here just as much as we preserve what was built prior to the Norman conquest.

The reverse of this approach is to some extent evident in the policy of the Board of Works in that they are carrying out an archaeological survey at the moment covering the period prior to 1200 A.D., which is only 40 years after the Norman conquest. I should like to know the reason for excluding from this survey matters of architectural and archaeological interest after 1200 A.D. Is this thinking I was referring to evident here or is it just a mistake?

I spoke earlier about pollution and preservation. This should be put under one general ministerial umbrella. I would advocate a broad Department of environmental planning. This would have far wider scope and power than a Department of conservation, which has been suggested in other quarters.

I should like to move now to another point in relation to the Board of Works. There is, perhaps, a need to investigate the possibility of greater efficiency and greater speed in regard to tasks which are carried out by the board. We must ask the question whether it is in the best interests of speed and efficiency that responsibility for all public construction, with the exception of airports, roads and houses, should be concentrated in the hands of one department which, in fact, is only a division of a Department. The point was made in paragraph 34.3.1 and 34.3.8 of the Devlin Report that this concentration of responsibility for public buildings in the hands of this one department often led to undue delay, to duplication and to bureaucratic tension. We should have a very close look at this and see if it is the wisest way to undertake responsibility for public construction. Again in our search for greater efficiency, greater speed and a greater return for the taxpayers' money we should investigate the possibility of having some of the functions at present carried out by the Board of Works contracted out to private enterprise. I have no dogmatic or doctrinaire views either way on the question of private versus public enterprise. It is not a doctrinal debate but a practical debate. It is a debate of ends and means rather than broad national philosophy. We should examine the activities of the Board of Works to see if, on practical grounds, they can be carried out more effectively and more efficiently by private enterprise.

This question should be looked at from the following points of view: first, if it is carried out on contract by private enterprise you will have the system of competitive tendering which is likely to minimise cost. It will also be open to the Government Department who are giving the contract to engage themselves in closer and more vigorous supervision of what is being done, because there will not be the same staff problems. The people being supervised will not be their own employees. They will be people who will have a commercial relationship with the Department, so that if the work is unsatisfactory the contract can be withdrawn and given to somebody else. Obviously a Department cannot do that with their own employees.

Again, there is the advantage that plant and machinery will not lie idle if this work is being done by private enterprise. If the Board of Works are doing it themselves by direct labour they must have their own stock of machinery and when they are not carrying out that type of work the machinery will be lying idle. If the machinery is in the hands of private contractors who are doing the work occasionally on contract for the Board of Works they will be able, as the Board of Works are not, to seek contracts from other sources in order to utilise their machinery.

I am not sure whether that would be a solution to the problem but I am putting it forward as a tentative suggestion to the Parliamentary Secretary for his views. Anyway it is arguable that by bringing in private enterprise in some areas we could save money, do a better job, and with the money saved engage in other projects which have been neglected. Therefore, I believe we could give more rather than less employment.

An Ceann Comhairle

These changes would require legislation and, therefore, it would not be in order to debate them on the Estimate.

Mr. Bruton

If I could just——

An Ceann Comhairle

However, the Deputy has made his point.

Mr. Bruton

The Parliamentary Secretary may say this would reduce employment in the Board of Works. I should not like to see it happening if it was to involve any hardship, but I would anticipate that if certain functions were handed over to private enterprise more work could be engaged in in other fields and the employees could find, perhaps, even better employment with private contractors. However, this is something on which I have no dogmatic views and I should just like to see it investigated by the Parliamentary Secretary to see if it would be better for all concerned.

Our present programme of arterial drainage is based on the 1945 Arterial Drainage Act and the priorities which were drawn up under that Act. I wonder if things have not changed considerably since 1945 both in the field of economics and economic needs and in the field of technology so that there is need for revision of our whole system of priorities in relation to arterial drainage. I understand we are still working on the same list of priorities as regards catchments that was devised in 1945. Perhaps new technology and new economic needs would suggest an alteration in this system of priorities.

We should also, perhaps, consider whether the system of arterial drainage is the best way of meeting flooding problems. I have no knowledge whatever of the engineering considerations involved here but it is possible that instead of the water table being lowered over the whole catchment area, more local works should be carried out to relieve the flooding. I do not know whether that is on at all but I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to investigate it.

In the light of the economic and technical considerations and changes to which I have referred, I think we also need to submit our activities in the field of arterial drainage to a cost benefit analysis. This would, perhaps, help us in a revision of our priorities here and give us a clearer idea of what we are doing, why we are doing it and whether we are achieving our objectives. We should also consider the point which is being made by Dr. Mansholt. He is anxious to see the amount of agricultural land reduced in the EEC. I am very doubtful about the wisdom of this proposal. It is, however, a proposal which is gaining wide acceptance in a Community, membership of which we are seeking. Where does this proposal leave our programme of arterial drainage which is expanding the amount of agricultural land? If this is going to become the policy of the EEC would it not be wiser for us to speed up our arterial drainage programme now in order to get as much as possible done before we enter the EEC and have to submit, perhaps, to this policy which has been devised by Dr. Mansholt? We should investigate this very closely. In fact, such an investigation could form a part of the study I am suggesting should be carried out into our whole system of priorities in relation to arterial drainage. It is not good enough to rely on the thinking behind the 1945 Act. We must revise it in the light of the situation which obtains today.

I should like now, if I may, to take a look at the Estimates themselves, and make a few remarks arising from the figures in the Book of Estimates. The first thing I notice at the bottom of the Book of Estimates for the year 1969-70 is a Supplementary Estimate of £250,000. I am sure I should know what that sum is for but I would be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary could enlighten me.

Mr. Lemass

It was for increased wages and I gather it is likely to happen again this year.

Mr. Bruton

That is perfect. In this context I have looked at the figures for 1960-61 and compared them with the Estimates for 1970-71. The Estimate for the Board of Works has roughly doubled against a background in which total Government expenditure has quadrupled. I am sure there is a good reason for it but I should like to have the Parliamentary Secretary's views as to the relative importance of the Board of Works in public spending and why this relativity has changed since 1960-61.

I notice that while the overall Vote for the Board of Works has more than doubled expenditure on arterial drainage has not doubled. The figures are not great but they indicate that arterial drainage is getting a lesser relative priority than it was. I notice also that we spent less on coast protection in 1969-70 than we did in 1960-61. In 1969-70 we spent only £5,000 on coast protection but the figure for 1970-71 jumps to the figure of £50,000, which means it has gone up ten-fold between the year 1969-70 and 1970-71. This may be because new projects were initiated and completed one year which means there is nothing to be done the next year. I should like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary why the figures are so erratic.

There has been a very big increase in subhead D, the purchase of sites and buildings. If I am not mistaken we are spending 15 times as much on the purchase of sites and buildings in the year 1970-71 than we were in 1960-61. I know part of this increase can be explained by the increased cost of real estate but I wonder if there is a shift in policy here which deserves greater elucidation than it has received.

The figure under subhead C, post office services, is eight times greater in 1970-71 than it was in 1960-61. Is this solely due to the excessive, and I think unreasonably high, postal charges or is it due to a shift in policy? I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to elucidate this.

I note in subhead A.3 that the figure for the architectural and engineering branch is considerably greater than the figure for the secretariat. I suppose this indicates that a great deal of work is being done. The sum for the national monuments branch for the year 1970-71 for salaries, wages and allowances is £41,400 whereas actual expenditure by the national monuments branch in 1969-70 was £41,900. I am mystified to find that the national monuments branch is spending less on wages and salaries this year than it did in 1969-70 despite the fact that there was an increase in the staff. Does this indicate we are employing less competent people? Does this indicate that we are paying them less than they are entitled to? Does this indicate that we are downgrading national monuments? I commend the Board of Works for increasing the staff in the national monuments branch from nine to 28 during the period from 1960-61 to the present day, but I do not think this number is nearly sufficient.

Under subhead B.4 we find the National Monuments Advisory Council. The National Monuments Advisory Council are a pacemaker in north-south relations in that they contain representation from both the north of Ireland and the south. This council deserve full support from the Parliamentary Secretary and the Board of Works. Now that we have the co-operation of people north of the Border we should give them every possible assistance and funding that we can to make this work as meaningful as possible. Yet we find the allocation for the National Monuments Advisory Council from the Board of Works is a mere £200, which will not go very far today; it will scarcely pay the travelling expenses of the members. The allocation was the same in 1969-70. If the figures are any indication then this council deserve much greater support than they are getting. The subject matter of this council will have a great effect on our heritage and the quality of life, to which I referred earlier in my speech, and because they are a pacemaker in north-south relations they deserve much more support than a mere pittance of £200. It is indicated here that this payment to the National Monument Advisory Council is under "Travelling and Incidental Expenses." I did not realise that earlier. If the body is to meet oftener it should have more travelling expenses. Obviously, it is not meeting very often if it has only £200 for travelling expenses. That is the point I should have made. The travelling expenses involved for the national monuments branch of the Board of Works compare rather badly with the travelling expenses paid to other branches. Perhaps members of the national monuments branch are not travelling enough because national monuments are spread very thinly over the whole country but when only £6,000 is being spent on travelling it indicates they are not travelling around to the national monuments to ensure their proper care.

Subhead D covers the purchase of sites and buildings. As reported at column 944 of the Official Report the Parliamentary Secretary is quoted as saying:

The provision for subhead D includes a sum of £250,000 for payment of the balance of the State's contribution towards the cost of the new office building to be erected in Kildare Place, to which I referred last year.

Out of a total vote of £300,000 for the purchase of sites and buildings £250,000 goes to Kildare Place leaving £50,000 for the purchase of other sites and buildings. This appears to be in conflict with the next paragraph which said that money was provided under the subhead for the purchase of sites for Garda stations and other public buildings and acquisition of some national monuments. It was also stated that steps to acquire 56 acres of land at Tara were the subject of proceedings in the Supreme Court. Taking those items into account, I do not think you would get Tara for £50,000 not to mention the Garda stations and other matters. Quite obviously, there is an inadequate vote if £250,000 is being absorbed by the Kildare Place project, in view of the fact that there is a great necessity to take into State care a number of national monuments. In this context a great deal more must be done but it seems there is only £50,000 over wherewith to do this as well as purchase sites for Garda stations and other public buildings and Tara. Quite obviously, this is inadequate and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to explain in the light of what he said how this occurred. We could say there are hundreds of national monuments and archaeological sites which should be taken into State care to ensure their proper development so that people could get the maximum culture and advantage from them. Obviously, the sum provided under this heading is not sufficient.

On subhead E the Parliamentary Secretary said at column 946:

Under the general heading of Department of Finance a total of £467,500 is provided mainly for office accommodation for various Departments. More than half of the provision is for the new stamping branch for the Revenue Commissioners at Dublin Castle. Difficulties were encountered with foundation works but, despite this and the cement dispute, progress is satisfactory and the project is expected to be completed on target in 1973.

The figure mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary, £467,500, does not tally with the figure given in the actual estimate of £507,500 to be allocated to the Department of Finance. Why this discrepancy? Is this false accounting or what is happening? Also, I cannot understand why money is supplied to various Departments for office accommodation under two heads through the Department of Finance and, as we also see under subhead E, each Department gets money individually. The money seems to go to them in two ways. Could the Parliamentary Secretary explain this? It does not seem to be the type of accountancy that will give Deputies the best means of understanding how the money is going. I think it should all be allocated on a Departmental basis. Again, there may be a good explanation for this and, if so, I should like to know what it is.

At column 946 the Parliamentary Secretary states that provision is made for a central computing unit for Departments which do not have their own computers. I should like to know under which heading in subhead E is this money provided. Further on, the Parliamentary Secretary refers to £33,000 being provided for State memorials. Under what heading is this being provided? I just want the information. I am not suggesting there is anything fishy going on.

Mr. Lemass

I think we sent the Deputy a copy of the breakdown of subhead E.

Mr. Bruton

Why is it necessary to have part of the money paid through Finance and part given direct to the Department concerned?

Mr. Lemass

We are agents for several Departments.

Mr. Bruton

Why does the Parliamentary Secretary give money direct to Departments as well as through the Department of Finance under subhead E?

Mr. Lemass

It all comes under the one Vote. It is all included in the one subhead.

Mr. Bruton

There is a sum of £507,500 for the Department of Finance under subhead E. I understand from the Parliamentary Secretary's statement that part of this goes to other Departments but, also under subhead E, these other Departments are receiving money direct from the Vote and not through the figure for the Department of Finance under subhead E.

Mr. Lemass

No. We spend this money.

Mr. Bruton

Where is the £467,500 for the Department of Finance going? Is it all being used in the Department of Finance?

Mr. Lemass

We actually spend it.

Mr. Bruton

What happens to the £220,000 for the Taoiseach's Department?

Mr. Lemass

This is provided for Dublin Castle State Apartments.

Mr. Bruton

The Office of Public Works does not spend that.

Mr. Lemass

Yes, we spend that money.

Mr. Bruton

The Board of Works spends everything under subhead E?

Mr. Lemass

Everything.

Mr. Bruton

Why is part of it allocated to other Departments?

Mr. Lemass

If we carry out work for the Department of the Taoiseach we show that separately; it is for accounting purposes. The Deputy will see Leinster House extension, £760,000; that is paid as a separate item. It is an accounting procedure.

Mr. Bruton

I am sorry to be obtuse, but in the Minister's speech there is the following statement:

Under the general heading of Department of Finance a total of £467,500 is provided mainly for office accommodation for various Departments.

That indicates that accounts are not being kept separate.

Mr. Lemass

The Department of Finance actually controls a number of Departments and, for that reason, these moneys are put down under the heading of the Department of Finance. Again, it is an accounting procedure. For instance, no provision is made at all yet for the computing unit. It has nothing to do with this Estimate. This is just an accounting procedure which is meant to make it easier for Deputies.

Mr. Bruton

I do not really follow, but it is hardly worth while wasting the time of the House.

Mr. Lemass

If the Deputy had a copy of the original brief he would have less difficulty because there are references all down the side which do not appear, unfortunately, in the Official Report.

Mr. Bruton

I understand. I should like to know what the fishery harbours central fund is and how the money is spent. I notice that there is a sum of £137,000 for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. Under subhead M, I see there are recoveries from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs for services carried out on repayment terms amounting to £475,000. Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell me how it is decided whether the service is carried out on a repayment basis or on the other basis?

Under subheads F.1 to F.5 I am particularly interested in heating, maintenance and supplies. It is interesting to compare the ratio between the amounts spent on maintenance and supplies for various Departments and the amounts being paid in rent and rates for these Departments. A huge amount appears to be spent on maintenance and supplies on, for example, a Department which has very few rents and rates and there is a great deal of maintenance and supplies in the case of rather small buildings. If you have very high rents and rates combined with low maintenance and supplies that would indicate that the maintenance on large buildings is not anything as much as one would expect and money is, therefore, being saved on maintenance and supplies while it is, perhaps, wasted in other areas.

The remarkable thing is that the ratio is rather odd. There is no uniformity in the ratio between the amount of rates and the amount spent on maintenance and supplies in certain Departments. There is a very low relative payment in the case of the Department of the Taoiseach, whereas it is very high for the Department of Finance. It is also very high in the case of the Department of Justice, low in the case of the Department of Local Government, high in the case of the Department of Education, low in the Department of Labour, low in the Department of Industry and Commerce but very high in the case of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and the Department of Defence and low again then in the case of the Department of External Affairs. I should like to know why the relativities are so inconsistent as between one Department and another. I should also like to know why the Department of the Taoiseach pays rent and rates, whereas the President's establishment and the Houses of the Oireachtas pay none.

I also notice that fuel, light and water is very high in some Departments— Justice, Education, Lands, Agriculture and Fisheries, whereas the Department of Labour has a very low expenditure under this heading. What exactly is happening and are these inconsistencies indicative of some strange circumstances? Is bad management involved? These inconsistencies would indicate that savings are not being effected by centralisation under one heading of the Office of Public Works. I think comparative figures should be given under each heading as well as for the total.

Arterial drainage arises under subhead G.1 where provision is made for the surveys carried out. I notice that £225,000 will be spent this year on comprehensive surveys. This is a considerable amount of money. I suggest that these surveys should be made available in stencil from to those interested. There is no need for glossy publications. Such stencils would be very useful. At the moment the surveys are available only to the Board of Works. I see no reason why they should not be made available to those who might want to examine them. Because they are not available Members of this House, for instance, have no opportunity of assessing the wisdom of the decisions taken by the Board of Works on the basis of these surveys. They should be made available to us. This ties in with what I was saying earlier about arterial drainage and the cost benefit analysis. These surveys would help us to make a cost benefit analysis of a particular project.

Is the priority list ever revised? We know the Boyne drainage is being carried out at the moment. This is a major catchment. The Nanny river runs into the sea beside the Boyne. It is a minor catchment area and it is rather low in the priority list. While the machinery and the men are available in Meath surely it would be both sensible and economic to carry out the Nanny drainage simultaneously or immediately the Boyne is completed instead of moving the machinery out of the area and bringing it back in again a few years later to do the Nanny. This would save money. It would also benefit the farmers in the Nanny catchment area.

I understand there is no high priority for the drainage of bogland. The main interest lies in draining arable land. This is the right approach but there are cases in which bogs with a considerable economic potential cannot be used because of severe waterlogging. In this case consideration should be given to the possibility of allowing some of these bogs to be drained. I have in mind the Gretiagh bog at Bohermeen in Navan, which is in the Boyne catchment area. This is an extensive bog and is used by 200 people. Would it not be possible to have this work carried out as part of the Boyne drainage scheme? The turbary tenants are anxious that this should be done and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to do something about the matter.

I do not know much about the grants for spoil disposal but it appears to me they are inadequate. Some of them may only be availed of within a year after the disposal of the spoil. I am not quite sure about this point but I think this period should be extended. In certain areas of great scenic value spoil should be compulsorily removed as it defaces the beauty of the area. If it were necessary to have the spoil removed compulsorily the grant should be increased substantially. There are areas in the Boyne that have high scenic value and it would be a pity if such areas were adversely affected by dumping of spoil.

I have already mentioned the comprehensive survey report which is being published. I should like to comment on the follow-up works in field drainage that are necessary as a result of arterial drainage. I know the Parliamentary Secretary is anxious that this should be done and he issued a statement to the papers recently in which he urged that such works be carried out. It would be helpful if the Office of Public Works, as a result of the comprehensive drainage survey, would give the farmers the benefit of the research carried out by the board. They should tell the farmers how they can best benefit, by telling them what type of drainage to use and by giving them information regarding the alignment of shores and so on. The Office of Public Works have done a detailed survey in this matter and they know more about this than any farmer. The results of the research should be made available to the farmers and it should not be left to individual farmers to go along to the land project office to try to get the work carried out.

I do not know if the great mounds of spoil on the sides of rivers that have been drained are really necessary. Would it not be possible to have this excavation work on rivers carried out over a wider area and in the extra space available it might be possible to fill in the spoil? By adopting this method it might be possible to avoid having mounds of spoil on the river banks. This may not be possible from an engineering point of view but it has been suggested to me that this might be the solution to the problem of spoil disposal.

Subhead G.5 refers to maintenance of completed drainage schemes. This matter was referred to earlier in the debate by Deputy Lenehan. Maintenance work carried out subsequent to the completion of the drainage scheme is done at the expense of the ratepayers. This seems unfair because many of the people who will pay for this maintenance work will not derive any benefit from the schemes. In the case of County Meath there are many farmers paying such rates who are not in the Boyne catchment area and will not derive any benefit from the drainage work. Nevertheless, they are asked to pay for the maintenance of this drainage work. Would it not be better if this expense for maintenance of completed drainage schemes could be transferred to the Exchequer? I realise that requests to take various charges off the rates and put them on the Exchequer are frequently made but I certainly am of the opinion that in this matter the cost should be a charge on the Exchequer.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Bruton

I should like to move on to subhead H which refers to the purchase and maintenance of engineering plant and machinery and to the purchase of stores. This could be related to the point I was making earlier about the need, if it is in the genuine interest of the taxpayers and of efficiency, to bring in a greater number of people from the private sector to work on a contract basis for the Office of Public Works. It would appear to me that it might not then be necessary for the Office of Public Works to spend £430,000 on the purchase and maintenance of engineering plant and machinery. This figure could be cut down considerably. It is possible that the machinery might be lying idle. Private contractors would make sure that the machinery was fully utilised. If my assessment is correct and valid it might not be necessary at all to spend so much.

Coming now to subhead K.1, I should like to refer to the archaeological survey which the Office of Public Works is carrying out and which does not go beyond 1200 A.D. At column 953 the Parliamentary Secretary said:

In 1965, the commissioners began an archaeological survey which has recorded scientifically virtually all the monuments up to 1200 A.D. in Counties Louth, Monaghan and Meath.

I wonder why, when the survey was being done in the area, all the monuments of archaeological interest up to 1600 A.D. were not examined. The year 1600 A.D. could be looked on as the beginning of modern times in archaeological terms. The Parliamentary Secretary also said:

For the preservation of monuments not in their direct care, the commissioners depend on the goodwill of the owners of the lands where the monuments are situated.

A great contribution towards obtaining this goodwill might be to derate those portions of the lands on which there are national monuments. If there is a designation order on a place, because it has a national monument, this can greatly decrease the utilisation which the farmer can make of that particular area, particularly with modern agricultural techniques. He cannot do all the things he would like to do. His farming operations are greatly curtailed on the part of his land which is designated as a national monument. He suffers financial loss. Why should he pay rates also on such land?

The Parliamentary Secretary admits that goodwill is necessary. A figure of £145,000 is mentioned as against £132,000 last year. This is a rather paltry increase. How much of that money, if any, is being set aside for the improvement and preservation of King John's Castle in Trim? This castle is, in parts, virtually on the verge of collapse, according to information supplied by the urban district council.

I hope that the information obtained from the archaeological surveys will be put into the guidebooks which are issued to tourists. Much of the information currently in such guidebooks is based on myths about Finn McCool rather than on solid archaeological and historical research which would give the people a proper view of what Ireland was like 2,000 years ago, and not a mythical view. The guidebooks should contain the information which has been brought to light by the archaeological surveys of the Office of Public Works. I look forward to seeing a substantial improvement in the guidebooks issued in regard to County Meath.

There is another point I should like to make in relation to the maintenance of machinery for arterial drainage. Deputy Tully asked the Parliamentary Secretary to give an estimate of how much the maintenance of the Boyne drainage scheme would cost the Meath ratepayer when the scheme has been completed. The ratepayers of County Meath are entitled to know what this figure will be, if present policy is adhered to. How much will it cost the ratepayer?

Subhead M is positive as it covers money which the Office of Public Works are getting in. Where does it come from? Are there charges on harbours and piers? From which harbours does that money come? Does the Office of Public Works own two harbours?

Mr. Lemass

They own three harbours.

Mr. Bruton

Is the money berthing charges for boats?

Mr. Lemass

We have a good revenue from Dún Laoghaire harbour.

Mr. Bruton

On subhead 5, there is a figure of £8,000 for 1970-71 for hire of plant, whereas £10,000 was spent in 1969-70. In other words, the Office of Public Works are less inclined this year to spend money on hiring other people's plant than they were last year. This is a very undesirable shift in policy. The Office of Public Works should be prepared to hire plant for the reasons I outlined earlier.

I should like to refer to a matter of which the Parliamentary Secretary is well aware in regard to my own constituency — the private land drainage contractors in the Boyne drainage area. They are anxious that they should not be put out of business as a result of the Boyne drainage being taken over by direct labour. I am relying here, I note, on the wrong figures but my point is that more money should be spent on the hiring of plant, particularly in the Boyne area. In order to keep those men in employment, the OPW should consider hiring the machinery to do the work. If disemployment on the Boyne could be absorbed elsewhere, it would be a great help. The Nanny is a case in point. There would be employment as well for private contractors. The Parliamentary Secretary suggested, in reply to a question, that I was trying to reduce the employment being given directly on the Boyne drainage but nothing is farther from my mind. If the general drainage programme were speeded up, then any local unemployment, due to the hireage of private contractors, could be absorbed in the speeded-up programme. This would involve a higher allocation towards arterial drainage by the Government. The Parliamentary Secretary should put up a greater fight for that increased allocation.

Expenditure on arterial drainage has not increased at nearly the same speed as the general expenditure on all State services. It has not increased even as fast as the general expenditure of the OPW. Relatively speaking, arterial drainage has been down-graded and this is most unwise particularly as, under the Mansholt Plan, arterial drainage may be frowned upon. We should do as much arterial drainage as possible before we come under the directives of the Mansholt Plan.

Let me turn now to the respective expenditures arising under subhead E. The first one is expenditure on the Houses of the Oireachtas, new works, alterations and additions. Do the television sets which have been installed in various places in this House come under this expenditure? Surely it would be possible to install a more inexpensive method of letting people know what the proceedings before the House are? God knows, how much these television sets cost. At this rate, why not have live television installed?

Mr. Coughlan

We would look well —some of us.

Mr. Lemass

We would get about 15 hours from Deputy Keating if there was live television here.

Mr. Bruton

I will not stand over that suggestion but I am a bit sceptical about the value of this.

Mr. Lemass

A decision was made by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges which consists of members of all parties. We are not dogmatic about anything like that.

Mr. Bruton

I must raise the matter with that committee. The flag flying over Leinster House has an important symbolic function.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This would not be a matter for the OPW.

Mr. Bruton

Surely the flagpole is?

Mr. Coughlan

Over all mansions and castles, when the owner is in residence the flag is flown. It happens in my case when I visit my family mansion.

Mr. Bruton

Perhaps a flagpole could be erected at a different location. Would the expenditure involved be met by the OPW?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The matter would be dealt with by the House.

Mr. Lemass

Any money spent on this House comes under subhead E. Certain matters are the responsibility of the Ceann Comhairle and other matters are the responsibility of the various committees of the House. For instance, the Joint Restaurant Committee decides about the bars——

Mr. Bruton

I am suggesting the erection of a suitable flagpole at the entrance and military honours at the raising and the lowering of the flag rather than the flying of the flag from the top of the building.

Mr. Lemass

The suggestion about a military ceremony would come under the Estimate for the Department of Defence.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It would be for the Ceann Comhairle and the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to deal with such matters. It is within the province of the House.

Mr. Bruton

The structure at the gate does not look permanent and is extremely ugly. It spoils the view from the Kildare Street side. We should have a better waiting room for visitors. With regard to the Department of Justice, I notice that no money is to be spent on the improvement of prisons. On the other hand, Shanganagh is an open prison——

Mr. Lemass

That is not ours; it comes under the Department of Justice.

Mr. Bruton

A lot of money is being spent on new offices at Athlone and Castlebar. I am not too keen on moving Departments either to Castlebar or to Athlone as it is not decentralisation: it is merely moving to another centre.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The OPW act as agents for the various Departments. A Department decides on certain works and the OPW will act as agents in that connection. The Deputy may ask questions in regard to expenditure but policy is a matter for the Department concerned.

Mr. Bruton

No. 44 on this list comes under the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. A sum of £700,000 is being spent on "Works of Economic Development". What are they? The description is rather uninformative. Such descriptions are not a desirable practice.

I want to make the suggestion that the most scenic part of the Boyne Valley should be incorporated into a national park in that area. I believe the Parliamentary Secretary has responsibility for national parks. I wish to draw his attention to the Boyne Valley, the stretch between Navan and the sea, known as the Boyne Walk. I understand that An Taisce have committed themselves to improving this stretch of scenic countryside. They deserve greater assistance from the Board of Works. I suggest that the possibility should be investigated of making this portion of the Boyne Valley a national park.

Mr. Coughlan

I wish to comment generally at the outset on the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. I find from it that the greater part of the expenditure provided for in this Estimate is devoted to developments in and around Dublin, between offices and sub-offices and parks. I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Board of Works have got their priorities wrong, that they have put the cart before the horse. The main concern of this Office is the restoration of the land to such an extent that the people who make their living from the land can enjoy that life and all that goes with it.

Because of the offhand manner in which we have been supplied with details of schemes, I do not know exactly what demands there are for drainage schemes throughout the country. As I have said, we have not been supplied with details which would enable me to make a specific statement on this matter. As far as priorities are concerned, however, I would say that the first concern of the Board of Works should be to keep the people who were born on the land at home on the land. The Parliamentary Secretary's first consideration, therefore, should be land drainage instead of concentrating on carpets, desks, telephones and head offices. They should all be secondary considerations.

In my area we have been agitating for drainage schemes for more than 20 years. We have had promises, not from the present Parliamentary Secretary but from all his predecessors. Deputations have been coming and going but nothing has been done. We have been told that we are, perhaps, 23rd in the queue but the queue is never ending. Any of us who knows what living in those areas is realises the fear in the minds of those people each autumn and winter. They do not know from one day to another when they will be out saving their furniture, trying to make their doors watertight. They can foresee their fields being flooded and their cattle walking around up to their knees in water. They are the things that should get first consideration from the Parliamentary Secretary.

Because of the pressure we put on during the past 15 or 20 years, some work has been done in the Limerick area. The Feale has been completed. Then the drainage of the Maigue came up. This had to be abandoned because of legal difficulties. Those of us in the area, though not legally-minded, could foresee this difficulty and we could foresee that it would go against the Board of Works. However, the Board of Works went all the way to the Supreme Court to find that out. Like all other Departments and like the Civil Service in general, they went to the last penny to find it out.

In such a situation, any good general, or even a first lieutenant, would immediately retreat and concentrate on another area of attack. That was not done in this case. In the area there were two or three important drainage schemes standing by and it should have been only a matter of shifting the machinery from Adare a few miles to commence work on one of the other schemes. Practically every detail of the other schemes was on the drawing board. God knows, I do not know what those drawing boards are made of. They certainly have great lasting qualities.

In any case, the Board of Works should have anticipated that the Maigue scheme could not be done and they should have shifted their equipment and tackled another scheme in the vicinity. They would not have had to transport their machinery more than 14 miles. Even if one of the alternative schemes had some final details missing, once work had begun these details could have been ironed out when the pressure of work came on. That should have been done instead of going to unnecessary expense and involving ourselves in the delay involved in going to the Supreme Court.

Having stressed that our priorities are wrong and that the speculators who are concentrating on office blocks are getting the money that should be spent on the ordinary people of the country, I should like to say that it is time the Parliamentary Secretary and his office applied themselves rigidly and ruthlessly to the task of seeing that our people are kept on the land. In Donegal during the next week or so they will be telling the people about the great things they are doing for those on the land. That is the stuff that will come out of all the church speakers—that is the propaganda, the nonsense and the fraud that will be issued between now and the by-election.

I see that there is provision for a sum of £250,000 for the demolition of a building in Kildare Place and construction work to be carried out on the site for the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. Why could not that building be put somewhere else? Why all this concentration in Dublin? That £250,000 may not be a lot of money so far as State expenditure is concerned, but it would mean a lot to the people in the west who depend for six months of the year, or maybe more, on the labour exchange. The rest of their money comes from their children in America, or England, or elsewhere. Most of them could be catered for if a policy of decentralisation were applied by the Office of Public Works. This should be done.

There is an allocation of £3 million for schools. We are told that 19,200 pupil places were provided, apart from nearly 6,000 places made available in prefabricated units. We got that side of the story but why did the Parliamentary Secretary not tell us the number of pupils who were turned away because there was no accommodation for them in the school?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary and the Office of Public Works are only agents of the Department of Education in this matter.

Mr. Coughlan

I agree. When the Parliamentary Secretary shows us the head of the penny he should also show us the harp. If he said he had accommodation for that number, why did he not also say that so many others could not find accommodation and that he is making provision for their future? In my view we should be told that. A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, you know as well as I do how critical the situation is in Limerick with regard to the provision of primary and post-primary schools. Children are wandering around the streets of Limerick because there is no accommodation for them in the schools. There is no use in showing us the head if we do not also see the harp.

The Parliamentary Secretary told us that this year's allocation is again £3 million but surely we must take into consideration the increases in the cost of materials and costings of all kinds. Yet we get the same figure as we got last year. Surely this does not balance out in any system of accountancy good, bad or indifferent, having regard to present-day methods and prices.

We were told that three more schools for mentally and physically handicapped children were completed during the year. This is a subject which is near to everybody's heart. All people and all public representatives in all political parties would contribute as generously as possible towards the provision of these schools for handicapped children. Voluntary bodies in my area are working practically every night of the week trying to raise money in one way or another, through bingo and flag days and sales of work and so on. I am very glad to say that I am very actively associated with the committee who have been working night and day to provide accommodation for physically and mentally handicapped children.

What do we get from the Department? After years of agitation we are provided with one school run by the Sisters of Charity in Limerick. We have been in touch with the Brothers of Charity over the past four years looking for some kind of accommodation for retarded boys. The Limerick Health Authority and the Limerick Regional Health Authority of which I am a member, have given 30 acres of land free, gratis and for nothing for the provision of a home and a school and sheltered workshops for handicapped children in Limerick. We have been in communication with the Brothers of Charity who have promised us their full support. We have made an assessment of the region which comprises Limerick city and county, Clare and north Tipperary. As chairman of that committee I have called meetings over the past 12 months. We have made a thorough investigation into the need for making provision for the physically and mentally handicapped.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This would come under the Vote for the Department of Education. The Parliamentary Secretary and the Office of Public Works have no function until they are instructed by the relevant Department to carry out the work. It is only then that the responsibility rests on the Office of Public Works.

Mr. Coughlan

The Parliamentary Secretary told us that three more schools for mentally and physically handicapped children were completed during the year. Why did he not tell us: "I have demands for so many and I intend doing something"?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That would be a matter for the Department of Education.

Mr. Coughlan

Surely he should know the demands there are.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Department of Education would have that information.

Mr. Coughlan

He should tell us whether he has it, and if he has not got it we will get on to the Department of Education.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This would be relevant to the Vote for the Department of Education.

Mr. Power

I think the Deputy is praising himself.

Mr. Coughlan

Nobody knows in what esteem he is held until the ballot box is opened.

Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins

Exactly.

Mr. Power

The Deputy is thinking of the next election.

Mr. Coughlan

It might be sooner than the Deputy thinks. Take care now. Donegal is not finished yet. Neil has not taken off his coat, I notice. He has not even got up on his bicycle.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Coughlan

We are told: "Under the general heading of Department of Finance a total of £467,500 is provided mainly for office accommodation for various Departments." I believe there is no need for these office blocks. Let me stress and emphasise the necessity to curb and crush speculators. That goes over well in Dublin but we, who know how people are thinking and know what they want and what they do not want, realise that they want every shilling available to be put into the development and preservation of the places where they have their holdings. That is not being done to my satisfaction.

I come now to items Nos. 22 and 23 and I find that contracts are in progress for 12 new Garda stations, five in Dublin and seven in the provinces. Dublin again! We have a Garda station in the city of Limerick which was condemned as unfit eight years ago. The living quarters were also condemned some six years ago and the gardaí who were in residence in that barracks are now boarding in different houses around the city. After strong and long agitation we have got the Office of Public Works to move on the provision of a new Garda station in Limerick.

What do you think they did? They decided to demolish the barracks where it now stands on a one-way street, on a clearway street, 30 yards from the traffic lights of the main city centre and they now propose to erect the new building on the old site. Ingress and egress are absolutely impossible because of the heavy traffic on that throughfare. You know that, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, as well as I do. This again shows me clearly that the people in charge of this Department have no respect good, bad or indifferent, for the opinions and advice they have been given by the local representatives. I hope I will never see this barracks erected in this place. Of course these Departments can make mistakes because the drawingboard says so and that is their barometer and their speedometer. God help the speedometer. They will never be fined for breaking the speed limit where work off the drawing board is concerned. This stupid situation is a joke among the people of Limerick city, the erection of this garda barracks in the part of the city which has the greatest density of traffic. Is there any commonsense in the Department? They should have gone out into an area where cars could pull in and out at a moment's notice, particularly at present when we have vandalism rampant in the city and when gardaí and patrol cars have to be called out at a second's notice to get somewhere in the shortest possible time. That is impossible now because of the stupidity and the blundering of this Department.

I see here £227,000 for six projects for the Department of Education for primary schools. I wonder is the estimate for the higher education project included or when can we see what progress, if any, is being made with the erection of this Institute of Higher Education for the city of Limerick. I would like to know that from the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies, if he replies.

The Parliamentary Secretary has referred under subheads F.1 and F.4 to the control of navigation on the Shannon. I will not talk about the drainage of the Shannon. I wonder was it Crom Cruach or Brian Boru who first thought up the drainage of the Shannon. It must have been Crom Cruach because we have been hearing about it for so long.

Mr. Tully

I think it was Noah.

Mr. Coughlan

Maybe the Ark was assembled in the Shannon harbour. What I want to stress in regard to the development of the Shannon and the navigation thereof is the fact that there is little or no development of the canals. The canals have been closed despite our opposition. Both as members of the Limerick Harbour Commissioners and as members of the Limerick City Council, we protested as vehemently as possible with regard to the closing of the canals. We might as well have been talking to the wind, or knocking above at Glasnevin graveyard for somebody to come out and open the gate for us. Now what has happened? Anybody who has any association with navigation or who is familiar with the upper and lower Shannon for yachting and sailing purposes can see plainly the mistake that was made. There are people in Dublin who, in March and April, with their Mercedes and their eight-seaters and their Austin Princesses and all the other things that go with affluence, tow their boats in trailers down to the upper Shannon — Lough Derg principally— and the Lower Shannon, Foynes and Kilrush. I have discussed this matter with these people. I have asked them why they must tow these expensive yachts. I do not know how they get them but they are not got in a penny lucky bag anyway. I have often asked them this question in Killaloe, where I find yachts costing from £1,000 to £6,000. They tell me they would love to come from Dublin via the canals but that it is impossible because they are overgrown and choked. Nothing has been done to keep them in repair. They would love to go by the canals but that is impossible because of the stupid and ignorant fashion in which the Department is run. They will not listen. They cannot see ahead of them. They do not know what the people want. We know what they want but they will not take our advice.

I come now to the question of national parks and planning and the preservation of scenic, scientific, historical, archaeological and recreational resources. I want to include in that category concentration on the regional development areas. We have given a lead to the whole country in our mid-western region. That region is concentrated around the Limerick area. It is the most progressive region in the country. We meet twice a month to discuss what can be done and what should be done and we have something to show for what has been done in relation to regional development generally. We have done all of this with little or no assistance from the Department. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to study in detail what has been done in our region and, if it would be of benefit to him, I would be happy to supply him with a copy of the text of a letter which I delivered on Tuesday night last to the students of Trinity College.

Mr. Power

Winner all right, now.

Mr. Coughlan

This letter consisted of no fewer than 16 pages. I suppose what it contained in relation to what we have done will not get the headlines and I would hope that it would not because I am not like a lot of those over there on the Fianna Fáil benches who are somersaulting around the ring. However, I want the Parliamentary Secretary and the Office of Public Works to apply themselves to the application of the exercise that is on the books at the moment but which is not being developed as it ought. In so far as our region is concerned we have done as much as possible and we have done more than any other region in the country. I would be willing to let the Parliamentary Secretary have the benefit of my experience in that regard. I am always willing to be helpful.

In relation to the River Shannon I shall quote now what the Parliamentary Secretary said:

Because of their responsibilities in relation to the River Shannon the Commissioners have a special interest in the River Shannon Basin as a recreational waterway which could offer an extensive and wide range of recreational, archaeological and scenic attractions.

May I ask what is meant by that paragraph? So far as I can recall from my school days the River Shannon rises in Cavan and flows into the sea somewhere between Kilkee and Ballybunion. Where are we going to start and where are we going to finish? When will we grow up? When will we see the light? There is no use in talking about doing something with the Shannon from County Cavan down to County Clare. This is not the sort of talk that I want to hear. We must have something specific. A lot of money is being spent and it is up to any Deputy who so wishes to make his case here for his own area as best he can. I shall not be fooled by statements such as the one I have quoted. We hear all about office buildings but there is nothing definite in this regarding development and neither is there anything about the maintenance of our canals.

In relation to subhead G.2, I want to impress on the Parliamentary Secretary the necessity for draining the Mulcaire River. We have been at that for the best part of 20 years. At least, it has been on the drawing board for ten or 15 years. I must say these are great drawing boards. They last much longer than the motor cars in which we travel throughout our constituencies listening to people's complaints.

I want to say a few words about the development of King John's Castle in Limerick. There is great potential for the future of this castle. In this regard all praise and thanks are due to the Shannon Development Authority for what they have done with the castles in their area. There is nobody in this country deserving of greater admiration than are this group of people and it would be well if officials of the Parliamentary Secretary's office would go down and learn from them. Great courage and foresight went into the development of the castles. First-class entertainment is provided at the castles and I understand that at times there are as many as three sessions each day. I am glad to say, too, that the form of entertainment provided is of local rather than of national interest and this is very important as far as the visitor is concerned. The banquets are booked for months in advance.

I acknowledge publicly the work done by Mr. Brendan O'Regan and his group in this regard. I have not available to me the figures in relation to the number of people who have visited these castles but the figures must be very high indeed. If the same Mr. O'Regan were in charge of the Office of Public Works I can tell the House that we would not be in the sad plight in which we find ourselves today with regard to development.

At the moment negotiations are in progress for the development of other castles in the area because we know of the great potential there is in these castles. I am aware that the Parliamentary Secretary's predecessor applied himself to the development of castles in his own area as he applied himself also to the development of the Kilkenny Design Centre. However, since his promotion I have not noticed any developments along those lines. I include in that the whole country because all of this country is open for development as a tourist attraction. I know how tourists of all shades and colours, but with plenty of money, lap this up and how they enjoy it. They book in for the following year because of the courtesy extended and the entertainment provided. This is of real value and it makes people come here. There is no use sending couriers and agents here and there. If we bring tourists here, give them a self-drive car and say: "Away you go, here are the 32 Counties and here is your map", that is not good enough. We must provide those people with the relaxation they come for. They want to get away from what they have been doing during the previous 12 months.

I cannot see the Board of Works doing anything in this respect. I am concerned with three of those castles which are already working on those lines. Bunratty Castle has been in operation for about eight years. I now want to see the development of King John's Castle in Limerick city. Thousands of people have been entertained in the other places over the years. Why do the Board of Works not take a half a page out of our book and work on those lines to develop the castles all over the country? They could give the tourists the entertainment and the amenities they want when they come here on holidays.

I know the Parliamentary Secretary's hands are tied when he tries to do some of those things. We can provide money for those monstrous buildings which have been erected all over Dublin to house men who work from ten to five and who then go off to the golf links. The unfortunate people throughout the country have to suffer because of the ineptitude of the Board of Works. I have spoken brutally on this issue but I know what I have said will be accepted by the Parliamentary Secretary more in an advisory than in a corrective way. I want to see the Board of Works moving like Pádraig Sáirséal moved long ago. This is what I want, not the drawing board and the nonsense that I had to put up with for the past 20 years.

Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins

I will be very brief. There are just a few things which I would like to bring to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary so my speech will be parochial to a great extent. I did not intend speaking but I realised the handiest way to deal with those matters was to bring them to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary across the floor of the House.

We have many problems in my constituency which come under the Board of Works. The biggest one, as far as I can see, is flooding. Perhaps to a Dublin born and Dublin based Parliamentary Secretary flooding is not a big thing but if you live in a small farm in the West of Ireland, where you are dependent on 20 to 40 acres of land and you find for six months of the year that half of it is under water, then flooding becomes a major problem. The Parliamentary Secretary must now be very familiar with the Dunkellin catchment area. When I first came into the House it was quite a hot topic and for some strange reason we assumed in County Galway that the Dunkellin catchment drainage would commence in the late 1950s or the early 1960s. We have now reached 1970 and we are in exactly the same position as we were 20 years ago.

Last week I asked the Parliamentary Secretary a question on this matter. The gist of his reply was that surveys were being done and if all things worked out and it was economic to do so work would begin in 1972. It is not merely a question of plain economics. This area must be drained if the farmers are to survive. We hope to get into the EEC and if we succeed the people in this area with their farms flooded half the year round will go to the wall. There is no hope for them. I could not impress enough on the Parliamentary Secretary the importance of drainage both in the Dunkellin and Suck areas. I know the Suck is a different problem because we are always given the standard reply that the Suck is part of the Shannon and that it cannot be drained until the Shannon is drained. The farmers in the Suck area have lost hope.

When you are as long in the constituency as I am you begin to know the people's hopes, their fears, their dreams and their plans for the future and when you see them giving up hope that they will ever make a success of their farms then you begin to feel, as a public representative, that your work has been a complete failure. All the TDs in the area should be able to bring enough pressure to bear on the Office of Public Works to get something done.

The people in the Dunkellin area have not given up hope but unless something is done in the near future they will. While I was grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for at least being specific when he said that work would commence in 1972, the word "economic" frightened me because I know that money is tight in the Board of Works. As years go on it becomes more expensive to drain. It would, therefore, be a sensible thing to get ahead with drainage work immediately.

I appreciate, when you look at the national picture, that we are not the only people who have flooding problems. However, the people living in farms in Counties Galway, Sligo, Mayo and Clare feel they are neglected and that everything goes either to Dublin or Cork. They feel that with a Cork born Taoiseach Cork gets money for everything, that anything which is left over goes to Dublin and that you might as well write off the area west of the Shannon. I hope this is not true because I come from west of the Shannon and all my friends are west of the Shannon. I hope to see some of my children settle west of the Shannon. I hope we will give some priority to the people who live in an area like my constituency.

The Board of Works are responsible for the condition of schools. Over the years I found that a great deal of work was done in improving many rural schools but, strangely enough, since the last election, when I got a portion of County Clare, I have found that the schools in County Clare are not up to the standard of the schools in County Galway. This is rather interesting, because Clare has always had a surfeit of Fianna Fáil Deputies and a couple of Senators to boot. One wonders if it is a good thing to have too many Fianna Fáil Deputies.

Last week I was in a place called Ruan in County Clare. I was asked to look at the school there. There are some 70 children attending this school which has two classrooms. It was a wet night and during the meeting we had to move around the room to keep away from the rain drips. The room was extremely cold, even though there was a good fire. I asked the chairman of the meeting: "Where is the draught coming from?" and he replied: "From the holes in the floor." I asked: "What caused the holes in the floor?" He answered: "Rats." I sat on the table for the rest of the night. After discussing the situation with the parents I found this indeed to be the case, that there are rats in the school and that, unless the teacher keeps the children's lunches close by her, they are eaten by rats.

The condition of this school is a disgrace. Parents asked me would I go out and look at the yard. I could not because I had shoes on and would have needed rubber boots. It was a wet night, as I say, but there was flooding up to ten or 12 inches in the yard. I understand there is no shelter in the playground and that the toilet facilities are very poor. Representations have been made to the Board of Works, and the board have promised to repair the school.

That is fine, but this is a job that must be started this week, as far as I can see. We are getting into the worst part of the winter now and you cannot expect parents to send children to a school where the water is coming in, where the rats are coming up through the floor, and to which the children cannot go unless they wear wellington boots—wellingtons are very cold for a child—and where the yard is in a complete mess.

I understand discussions are going on as to whether or not this school will be closed and a new school built. That takes time. There are two or three other schools in the parish or in the surrounding areas and it may be a question of closing one of these. All this will take time—to amalgamate and to get the parents to agree or disagree as the case may be. In the meantime this other school will wait. I am trying to impress on the Parliamentary Secretary that it cannot wait. No parents in their right senses would send their children to a school like that. It is not just the school. The playground and the yard need to be tarmacadamed. A shelter should be provided as well as proper toilet facilities. The classrooms and the roof should also be repaired and the rats eliminated. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to get on to this straight away, because it is not fair. This is 1970, not 1870, and schools like this should not exist. It is fine to hear Deputy Coughlan asking for tourist facilities, but we should look after our own before we look after our tourists. If we do not look after our children there is very little hope for this country.

When referring to flooding I should have said I was approached by a number of people from Ennis, County Clare, which is not in my constituency, about the flooding of the town of Ennis. I pointed out to them that they had four Fianna Fáil TDs and one Senator in County Clare and that perhaps they would approach them too. I am not very au fait with these problems, but I understand flooding is annual and that the town of Ennis itself as well as the hinterland suffers extensively from it. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would look into that.

Again on the subject of flooding, there is one thing that might hold up the Dunkellin drainage—I think it should not—that is the fact that it is Conservation Year. There is one area around Dunkellin called Rashen which is famous for its wild life. It is nearly all slobland now; it used be good agricultural land at one time. It has an abundance of duck, wild geese and so on, and I am sure there is a way of both preserving the wild life and doing the drainage, by keeping canals or tributaries there to preserve the wild life. It would be a tragedy to do away with the wild life, but the hard economic facts are that the farmers in this area, which starts at Kilcolgan and ends in my own home town of Kilrickle, are suffering very severe hardship. Some of them are beginning to give up hope and when a person loses hope he might as well give up living. It is a tragedy to see farms that have been in families for hundreds and hundreds of years locked up and the families gone abroad just because a little bit of drainage was not done. I would impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary the urgency of this.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. Lemass)

I wish to thank Deputies in general for the very many kind remarks they made, starting with my opposite number Deputy Henry Kenny. With the exception possibly of a couple, their contributions have all been constructive and will be helpful to me in the year ahead in the arrangement of priorities within the financial restrictions placed on Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries. I feel quite sure that if the State could afford to give any Minister, be he Minister for Social Welfare or Local Government, double the amount of money, he would have little difficulty in spending it.

Deputy Tully, last week, anticipated my remarks by pointing out that this is the longest debate that has ever taken place on the Office of Public Works. I sincerely hope that means I have managed to generate more interest in the activities of my office and not simply that the Deputies feel I need more education than I have got in my first year.

In passing may I mention that Mr. Mundow, who was chairman of the commissioners when the Estimate was introduced last June, has now retired. I should like to put on the record a small word of tribute to him for his many years of public service. In fact, at one time he was private secretary to the late Seán T. O'Kelly, and if the words of advice he gave me in my first months in the office were as good as those he gave to the former President, then I shall be very happy indeed. In case Deputies are not aware of it, may I say that Mr. Mundow has been succeeded by Mr. Con Farrell. Mr. Farrell is the only chairman of the commissioners who has spent his entire public service life in the Office of Public Works, so he knows the affairs of the office from the very bottom right up to the chief executive post. If Deputies have any questions which I cannot answer for them straight away, I am quite sure the chairman of the commissioners will be able to give them any information or help they require.

Deputy Kenny found it very hard to understand why one Department has to deal with so many diverse operations. Deputy Hogan thought it would be better for the Board of Works to continue rather than split up its operations into other Departments as recommended in the Devlin Report. Deputy Murphy expressed doubts about the present system but, as has been pointed out during the course of the debate by the Ceann Comhairle and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, the Office of Public Works is, in fact, acting as an agent for another Department. This raises the question as to whether or not fragmentation is wise, especially where specialist staff are concerned. I am satisfied that time will prove it is unwise to break up specialist staff. I am already firmly convinced that there is far too much competition between individual Departments for professional staff. I believe, as was suggested by Deputy P. Burke, that instead of further fragmentation the proper course would be to centralise all professional staff in one Department. The proper place to centralise architects, engineers and other professional workers is, in my opinion, in the Board of Works where there could be the full exchange of ideas and the full exchange of specialists' points of view which would be to the benefit of the nation as a whole.

The purchase and renting of State premises needs to be further centralised. If each Department had to look after its own acquisition of offices and buildings there would be competition between the Departments and the effect would be to put up prices. It is my view that the Board of Works should be active in the renting or purchasing of office accommodation for semi-State bodies as well as State bodies. The Board of Works had the experience not so long ago when they were looking for office accommodation in the city of Cork for one Department of thinking they were making a fair deal when a higher bid came in. We made a higher bid and an even higher bid came in. Eventually we acquired the premises. It was not until some time later we found we had been in competition with AnCO. This instance shows the useful function the board can play in the renting or purchasing of buildings because we can prevent this kind of competition taking place between State Departments.

The Board of Works acts on an agency basis for other Departments but it has its own central engineering workshop, furniture factory and pool of dedicated professional men. With the years of experience which the board has it would, to my mind, be a tragedy to break up the board and I do not think it would be in the interests of efficient working in relation to all the activities for which the board is now responsible. I mean that in relation to every head and subhead in the Estimate. I will go so far as to say that greater efficiency of Government activity would most certainly be achieved if the Board of Works were to be considerably expanded. Last year, when the debate was much shorter, I dealt with my reply in the order of speakers but that meant occasionally covering the same ground. This year I am going to try to deal with each matter under individual heads. I hope this will make it more convenient for Deputies to check. I shall start with the schools programme. I agree with Deputy Kenny and Deputy Desmond that there are still many bad schools needing replacement. No one is more conscious of this than I am. Nevertheless, as I pointed out on the Adjournment Debate the night before last, expenditure on schools has more than doubled in the last decade. I understand, although this is not final yet, that an increased allocation will be available for school building activities in the coming financial year. I think we shall probably break the back of the problem in the next three or four years. I know it is very difficult to ask Deputy Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins to be patient when she sees holes in the floor.

Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins

And rats.

Mr. Lemass

I would ask her to be patient. We are tackling the problem with the maximum speed and are endeavouring to get the greatest production within the limited resources we have. The Government decided in 1967 that managers can on their own initiative, without having to obtain prior approval either from the Office of Public Works or the Department of Education—the only approval they require is that of the planning authority—install running water, flush toilets and heating. All they have to do is send in the bill and it will be paid. The only restriction is that if the school is due or scheduled to be replaced within five years these improvements must be sanctioned. Some managers have been very slow to realise this. We have found this year that the bills coming in are such that I may have to seek a Supplementary Estimate before the end of the financial year if I am to fulfil the programme laid down by the Department of Education of schools to be tackled within the present financial year. I am quite satisfied when I seek a Supplementary Estimate that the Minister for Finance will be forthcoming with the necessary funds.

Prefabricated school buildings are being erected at a reasonable cost but from time to time we find managers jumping the gun and erecting small prefabricated buildings without obtaining prior authority. It is only after the buildings have been erected that they look for approval. It is probably a dangerous thing to say but this approval in retrospect is invariably given. Deputy Browne asked how long it will take to catch up with the backlog of unsuitable schools. He wanted to know why we had reverted to prefabricated buildings which have a shorter life span than buildings constructed with bricks and mortar. I tried to give an indication in my opening speech but it is not possible to answer this question definitely. The design and improvement of schools is a continuing evolution because of the changes of methods and the requirements of modern teaching systems which alter year by year and also because of advances in the building industry and the use of new materials and methods. Accordingly, schools which are relatively new become obsolete earlier than we expect. For this reason many schools we had not anticipated fall due for replacement each year. We also have the question of amalgamation of schools. These matters take time to arrange and it is necessary to make temporary arrangements for the provision of additional classrooms in some cases. We may have to build a small school which will have a short life. For such purposes prefabricated buildings are very useful. The occasion also arises— this was a matter of concern to Deputy Belton on Tuesday here—where you have housing schemes in progress and school places are required so urgently that the only way you can get them immediately is by means of system built structures or prefabricated classrooms.

There is a fairly big background of building but if we continue to spend as we have been spending—we have £3 million for school building in this year and I expect this amount to be increased before the end of the financial year and I understand there will be extra provision next year—it will not be long before all the schools will be in a condition of which we can be reasonably proud. They will be as good as can be found in other countries.

I was asked by Deputy Davern in particular about Knockavilla, County Tipperary. We are ready to place the contract for a new school of six classrooms and a general purpose room at present. That is about to proceed. Deputy M.P. Murphy was worried about Ballyroe national school. It is hoped to authorise the manager to place the contract within the present financial year. Deputy Coogan's remarks about Knock new school somewhat surprised me as he had always impressed me as a very up-to-date Deputy. In fact, he was the first public representative in Ireland to have his picture transmitted by satellite across the Atlantic——

Mr. Tully

When he survived that, he will survive anything.

Mr. Lemass

I fear that since then he must have got out of touch with some matters in his own constituency to some extent because while he refers to the school at Knock I believe Salerno is the name of the townland and the work is actually in progress. The manager was authorised to place the contract some months ago and we have already paid the first instalment of the grant.

Mr. Tully

That is a miracle at Knock.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Cooney was critical of the design of rural schools and Deputy Keating predictably said they were ugly. Deputy Barry said we should use outside architects. I hope he did not intend to imply any inadequacy on the part of the architects attached to the Office of Public Works because if he did I would repudiate it immediately and assert that the architects of the Office of Public Works are of the highest calibre, among the best in the country and they are dedicated to their work, which they feel is a national job, of providing the finest and most comfortable schools possible. That is their aim; it is my aim and we are trying to achieve it.

I admit there is a certain amount of standardisation and similarity in the schools being built by the Office of Public Works. There is good reason for this. First, there is a scarcity of architects. From the recent report of the Committee on Public Accounts it was clear that in the Civil Service generally there is difficulty in recruiting people of high skill. It is a matter of great concern to me that I have so many vacancies for skilled people in my Department and such great difficulty in filling these vacancies, but in spite of these vacancies we have been able to keep up to date with practically every aspect of the affairs of the Office of Public Works.

In spite of this shortage of architects they have managed, by their dedication, to keep up with the priority list as drawn up by the Minister for Education but with the ever greater demand for national schools, if these were to be designed individually, it would take so much time that fewer schools would be built. It is just not possible that every teacher will have an individual classroom but I should like to make it clear at the same time that a separate plan is prepared for each school to deal with site variations, drainage, landscaping and other matters of that kind.

I had representations recently from a Deputy who wanted to know why the bricks in a particular school were not bought from the local manufacturer but were bought in Dublin. The reason was that the architect concerned decided that in order to fit in with the landscape and other local features a blue brick was required which, apparently, the local manufacturer could not supply. I make this point to show that each individual site is treated separately. There is a great degree of standardisation but it is not just one unit exactly the same as the other time after time.

As regards actual building in present circumstances, in the interests of speed and economy we must have this standardisation. It would be technically possible to make each school a beautiful piece of architecture and reduce the output, and if this is what Deputies think we should do, let them say so, but while I am in this Office I would not agree with it.

Mr. Tully

You could buy local bricks and cut the cost.

Mr. Lemass

On the question of cost, Deputy Bruton this morning wondered why under certain headings costs had gone down while production had gone up. That is because we have done cost value surveys; we have had management consultants and we have gone through the whole gamut of efficiency procedures and we have greater production as a result with reduced investment. The first consideration must be the children and what they need is a comfortable, warm, bright, clean school with running water, central heating and flush toilets, a place where they and the teachers can be happy so that the schools would be utilised to maximum advantage.

Another consideration that I think would be appreciated by most rural Deputies is that many of the contractors employed by the commissioners on building rural schools are smaller local builders who are not equipped with costing facilities and it is much easier for them to price plans for buildings similar to those they have already built. Those are good reasons for a degree of standardisation but let me assure the House that all our schools will not be dreary replicas of each other. Within reason, we try to introduce new features and variations without impairing progress with the building programme.

Deputy J. Lenehan was concerned about what was happening to the national schools that have been closed. In the majority of cases these schools are the property of local trustees. Where they are the property of the State steps are taken to dispose of them to the best advantage. This has been done in the past mostly by seeking a public tender. Since I took office we are more inclined to employ a local auctioneer to put the property on the public market. It is debatable as to which is the better method, but I believe that, in State transactions in which public money is concerned, it is much better that everybody should see exactly what the best price available is for the particular property. I have had experience of cases in which we have secured sums far in excess of those anticipated as a result of going to public auction. There may be some feature about an old school, a local fishing pool nearby or some other reason, in which case someone will be prepared to pay over and above what would normally be considered its reasonable value.

Mr. E. Collins

How does the Parliamentary Secretary appoint the auctioneer?

Mr. Lemass

I appoint him from a list of the auctioneers available in the town.

Mr. Tully

The list is growing, is it not?

Mr. Lemass

I shall deal with this matter of outside consultants, and so on, later in the debate. No matter who recommends the auctioneer, the consultant, or the engineer, I put him on a list and it is up to the office to decide who is the most capable.

Mr. Tully

Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree with the statement made by a colleague of his that, everything else being equal, it should go to a Fianna Fáil man?

Mr. Lemass

Sometimes one comes across a property which it would be better to give to one of 20 big auctioneers because they have contacts overseas but, generally speaking, I prefer to give it to a local auctioneer. I cannot tell you what auctioneer down in Meath is a Fianna Fáil man——

Mr. Tully

I do not think we have any of them down there——

Mr. Lemass

——or a Fine Gael man.

Mr. Tully

——but I notice the number of them growing on the benches behind the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Tully raised the question of the school in Julianstown. I think I replied to that in answer to a Parliamentary question a short time ago. I have established that it is the practice amongst well borers to work on the basis of no water no fee. I have established that beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt.

Mr. Tully

The Parliamentary Secretary should bring him up to south Meath now where the Boyne is draining the wells to see what he can do.

Mr. Lemass

It is interesting to note that the manager intends to join the group scheme and I invite him now, or Deputy Tully may invite him, to apply for a grant and I will certainly look on the application as favourably as I can.

Mr. Tully

Fair enough.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Cruise-O'Brien and Deputy Keating raised a point about employing outside architects. In fact, we employ outside architects for schools of more than six rooms. The smaller schools are designed by Office of Public Works architects.

Deputy Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins raised the position of the Ruan school in Clare. This school is at least 100 years old. The manager was authorised to accept a tender for repairs and improvements on 28th September. We are not sure if this is the school the Deputy has in mind.

Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins

It is the only school there. There seems to be some lack of liaison as far as I can understand because the manager was not aware that he could accept tenders.

Mr. Lemass

Sanction was sent to him on 28th September. The school is R-u-a-n-e.

Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins

R-u-a-n. There is no "e".

Mr. Lemass

It must be the same school. Deputy Moore, Deputy Oliver Flanagan and Deputy Dr. Byrne referred to special schools. There are about 70 such schools for the mentally and physically handicapped recognised by the Department of Education. We are handling the provision of about 30 new schools, including the following, which were completed during the past year: Cashel, Enniscorthy, the Divine Child, Cork; works are in progress at Scoil Bernadette, Cork; Bennicasa, Blackrock, Dublin; Renmore, Galway; St. Dympna's Dundaik; Beechpark, Stillorgan; Kilkenny Special; St. Michael's at Ballymun and plans are being prepared for several more.

With regard to Garda barracks, I shall deal with Dublin first of all. There are five Garda stations in Dublin in regard to which works are in progress: Ballyfermot, Raheny, Rathmines, Coolock and Dundrum. The station in Coolock is already occupied; there may be some small jobs outstanding but, for all practical purposes, it is finished.

I should like to make a very special reference to the Garda station at Ballyfermot in view of the remarks made by Deputy Keating, not to mention the fact that it is in my constituency. Deputy Keating complained about the lack of foresight on the part of the Commissioners of Public Works in so far as the provision of this particular Garda barracks was concerned. For his benefit, for the benefit of the Members of this House, and for the information of my constituents, I should like to record the facts. On 8th December, 1950, the Office of Public Works wrote to the Department of Justice asking if a Garda station would be required in the new Ballyfermot complex and, if so, what strength was likely to be stationed there.

On 15th February, 1951, the Department of Justice informed the Office of Public Works that a Garda station would not be required in the Ballyfermot area and that the corporation should be informed that a site would not be needed for that purpose. I have no need, of course, to remind the House that the Minister for Justice at the time was Deputy Seán MacEoin. Later, when a Fianna Fáil Minister came into office and realised the urgent necessity for a Garda station in the Ballyfermot area, the Office of Public Works was asked to try to procure a suitable site. Great difficulty was found in procuring a suitable site. Eventually it was procured and the station was designed. The building is now in progress and, as the Minister for Justice said in reply to a question by Deputy Dr. O'Connell last week, it is expected to be finished by March. My information is that it should be finished on my birthday, the 14th February.

Mr. Tully

The Parliamentary Secretary will not be here then.

Mr. Lemass

I intend to be here until 1973.

Mr. Tully

But not for that day.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Dr. Byrne referred to the bad condition of Store Street Garda station. I am pleased to inform him that a major improvement scheme is now in hand.

Deputy Moore complained about the condition of the station at Irishtown. This is a very old building. He told me there was difficulty from the point of view of people going in there having a private conversation. This matter is now under investigation. I do not know if there is anything we can do about it but, if there is, we shall certainly communicate with the Department of Justice.

With reference to the provincial stations under construction, when my Estimate was introduced in June last— there could be more now—these included Birr, Kilrush, Ennistymon, Aclen, Dungloe, Kiltyclogher, Portroe and Clifden. I hope some of those are included in the places mentioned by Deputy Donnellan. The Deputy spoke rather quickly and I did not have time to check. However, if I have overlooked any station and if the Deputy writes to me I shall give him the information he requires.

Stations for which plans are being prepared include Mullegh, County Cavan; Corofin, County Clare; Inchigeele and Skibbereen, County Cork; Ballyshannon, Bunbeg, County Donegal; Ballymun, Dublin; Limerick city; Cork city; Croom, County Limerick; Carnew, County Wicklow, and a contract has been placed for the new Garda station for Waterford city. I shall deal with Limerick city later on for the benefit of Deputy Coughlan.

The position regarding Clogheen station was also referred to. This is an old three-storey building used by the sergeant as living quarters and also as a Garda station. We carried out some minor repairs and recently we informed the Garda commissioner that we could carry out satisfactory repair work to the building at a cost of £800-£1,000. This would involve the provision of indoor toilet facilities and bathroom with independent access to the living quarters. We will carry out this work if we can get an assurance that it is intended to use the building for living quarters for a further ten years. We might vary the time limit but that is the suggestion we have made. Deputy O'Leary made some complaints regarding the Killarney Garda station. I should like to inform him that this is the first such complaint we have received. We are looking into this matter and will communicate with the Department of Justice.

Mr. Kenny

May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary what is the position in regard to Newport, County Mayo? I appreciate that he may not be in a position to tell me at the moment.

Mr. Lemass

I will have to check on the matter.

Mr. Kenny

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would write to me in this connection?

Mr. Lemass

Yes. Last Thursday Deputy Creed said he would castigate the Office of Public Works in connection with two Garda stations in his constituency, those at Macroom and Farnanes, Crookstown. I should like to state that in regard to the relations between the Garda Síochána and the Office of Public Works my experience has been that relations are most amicable. The Garda have always been helpful to the Office of Public Works and the board have done everything they could, so far as building is concerned, to improve the working and living conditions of the Garda Síochána. My personal views on this matter are on record in the debate on last year's Estimate and I can only reaffirm that the gardaí will get the best we can provide.

With regard to the Macroom Garda station, the matter at issue was the type of flooring to be provided. The old floor in the living quarters was defective and there was a difference of opinion regarding the type of flooring to be provided. I am pleased to tell Deputy Creed that this matter has been resolved and work will be started and completed with the minimum of delay.

Regarding the Crookstown station, the commissioners have long recognised the need to have a proper water supply and sanitary facilities installed in the station. In 1963 they were informed by the Cork County Council, of which I think Deputy Creed is a member, that a water supply would be provided. However, we are still waiting for this supply. In June, 1969, the commissioners decided that the county council were not going to provide the water supply and they arranged to contract for the boring of a well. Unfortunately, when we started boring it was found that a diamond drill was necessary due to the hard rock. The contractor had to withdraw and considerable difficulty was experienced getting another contractor. However, in June, 1970, the well was bored and it is hoped that a satisfactory water supply will be obtained. A contract has been placed for bringing the water supply to the Garda station and it is expected that this contract will be completed about the end of this month. Due to the nature of the site it is technically impracticable to provide a septic tank. We have had the matter examined and we have approached an adjoining landowner with a view to obtaining a suitable site for a septic tank. If and when a site is obtained steps will be taken to have sanitary facilities installed in the Garda stations.

Deputy Coughlan was critical of the proposal to rebuild the Garda station for Limerick in William Street. He considered that this was not the right location for the station. The decision to locate the new station on the old site was announced to this House and was a decision taken by the Minister for Justice, not by the Office of Public Works. So far as we are concerned in regard to the building of this station the Department of Justice have approached the Minister for Finance for sanction of the expenditure. Assuming sanction is obtained, work should commence in the new year.

Deputy O.J. Flanagan said that although the architectural design of the new stations was good, the stations lacked comfort. I was sorry to hear this because we are very anxious to provide the best for the gardaí. The case of the station at Newport, County Mayo, which was referred to by Deputy Kenny, will be investigated. Deputy Kenny also referred to the domestic accommodation for married gardaí and expressed an opinion that this accommodation should be improved and extended. This is a matter for the National Building Agency who have already built about 450 houses. I shall bring the Deputy's remarks to their attention but the policy decision in this matter lies with the Department of Justice.

I was somewhat surprised to hear Deputy Hogan refer to the conversion of the former military barracks at Templemore into a training centre for Garda recruits. This matter has been dealt with already at length in this House. It has been very fully publicised in the reports of the Committee of Public Accounts and by my predecessor, the late Deputy Donogh O'Malley, in reply to a Parliamentary Question in December, 1964. I will deal with it briefly. The scheme was undertaken by the Department of Justice who employed for the purpose firms of architects, quantity surveyors and mechanical and electrical contractors. In accordance with normal practice, the architects considered all tenders received and they recommended that a tender should be accepted. If the costs and other matters went wrong, this was a matter of engaging outside contractors. The matter has been fully examined and much publicised in the papers as a result of the report of the Committee of Public Accounts. I thought that the matter was disposed of six years ago.

Mr. Coogan

Would the Parliamentary Secretary have the question of improving the heating of Garda barracks examined? I have seen mould on the rooms in some Garda barracks. Would the Parliamentary Secretary examine the possibility of improving the heating services in this particular barracks?

Mr. Lemass

Is it an old or a new building?

Mr. Coogan

An old barracks.

Mr. Lemass

The whole question of the structure and the placing of gardaí in barracks is under review in the Department of Justice at the moment. I have visited a number of barracks myself. At the invitation of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle I went to see a barracks which was in bad condition. There is a problem, but it is tied up with the entire policy decisions which are not made by me but by the Minister for Justice, Deputy O'Malley.

Mr. Coogan

The Parliamentary Secretary is to be complimented on the manner in which he has answered the Members individually. That has not always been the practice. Things have been glossed over. Even if the Parliamentary Secretary misconstrued what I said about a school to which I was referring, and which was an eyesore, he answered me personally.

Mr. Lemass

Thank you. I wish to come to the question of Government offices. Deputies Kenny, Sherwin and Keating referred to this matter. They expressed the view that there were overwhelming arguments for the State building its own office requirements. I would like to agree that at first sight this would seem to be so. The problem, however, is far more complex than these Deputies possibly realise. In the case of a building in which the numerical staff of the Department is more or less static, the idea of providing a new building in which all the staff could be accommodated would not present any great difficulty, except from the point of view of diverting capital moneys from other uses for this purpose. One building which we have decided to proceed with ourselves is that for the Department of Agriculture. This is one of the Departments which come within this category. Deputies will be aware from my introductory speech that last year we had made arrangements to have all the staff of the Department of Agriculture centralised in the building now under construction in Kildare Street, on the site of the former Church of Ireland Training College. The new building will be completed in 1973.

Deputy Bruton was concerned about the uneven amount made available from year to year in relation to the purchase of Government buildings. He was wondering why there was a big jump. It was up to £300,000 this year. I would like to say that the initial deposit in relation to this new building was £250,000. It makes up the largest part of the Vote about which the Deputy was concerned.

Mr. Tully

The Deputy was asking, in view of the fact that £250,000 was being spent on one building, how it was proposed to do anything worthwhile on the other buildings from the remaining sum.

Mr. Lemass

We will come to that as we go along. The policy generally is to rent and not to buy. I would like to make it clear, as I have explained to the House before, that we are not paying cash, capital money, for this building. It is being bought over a period of years. The Government rightly hold the view that the maximum available capital must be directed as far as possible towards the provision of houses for our people and towards other essential services. It is unlikely that there will be any major shift in this policy in the foreseeable future. In the case of a new Department, such as the Department of Labour, which was set up a few years ago, or in the case of a new branch to an existing Department which must get into operation without delay, recourse must be had to the renting of space in commercially-developed buildings. Here, as in Great Britain, the buildings are rented on the basis of the tenant partitioning to suit his own requirements and providing the necessary light fittings and floor coverings. The provision of these things comes within the ambit of the Office of Public Works. It would be possible to get the owners of the building to do these things in return for an increase in rent. We have found that it is more economic for us to do these things ourselves. I agree that the problem of accommodation for Government staff is very difficult and it is one to which there is no cheap or facile solution. We are having the position examined to see what might be done. From my own knowledge of the problem, it would be rash to promise spectacular developments in the near future.

I would like to refer to what was said by Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick, of Cavan, who criticised the Office of Public Works because they did not buy two buildings at the right time and because they gave what he called very considerable profit to the vendors. I presume the Deputy is referring to two buildings located in Cavan. One of them is a house in Farnham Street which was bought for conversion into a Garda station and the other is a building in Francis Street which was bought for use as offices by the staff of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. The Farnham Street building was bought in 1968 from a man who had bought it a year earlier with the intention of living in it. He never occupied it. At the time of the earlier sale the early evacuation of the Garda station was not visualised. The intention was to build a new station. Early in 1968 it was discovered that the structural deterioration in the Garda station was developing at a rate which rendered evacuation of the building imperative. As a result of inquiries it was learned that the building in Farnham Street was for sale. Negotiations took place with the owner and a price was agreed. I feel sure that Deputy Fitzpatrick does not really consider that the profit made by his client on the transaction was in any way excessive. There is the point that if the Office of Public Works had entered the business at the time of the earlier sale the price would have gone up because of the increased competition. I have explained to the House before that when the State becomes involved in the purchase of property an increase in price is the general result. Before the Farnham Street building could be converted for occupation by the Garda Síochána the veterinary offices in Church Street were destroyed by fire. The staff had to be housed in the building bought for the gardaí who were moved as a temporary measure to rented accommodation in Main Street.

A search was started for alternative premises for these veterinary staff. As a result, the building in Francis Street was located and bought in March, 1969, from a party who had acquired it in December, 1968, and who had carried out works of improvement thereto. The veterinary staff were moved to that building in February, 1970, and the work to render the Farnham Street premises suitable for occupation by the Garda has since been completed. Were it not for the fire in the Church Street premises, which occurred two months after the acquisition of the Francis Street premises by the man who sold them to the OPW, there would have been no question of the OPW buying them.

From time to time Deputies have expressed the view that the OPW have paid excessive sums by way of purchase money on buildings they acquire for State purposes. I am aware that when the State is a customer for property the owner is often disposed to hold out for as much as he can possibly get. All the OPW can do is to secure the best bargain they can. This they do by means of negotiation. So far as I can see, the only effective answer to the problem would lie in the exercise of compulsory purchase powers which would provide for the determination of prices by arbitration. The delays involved in this might, however, tend to counter to some degree the benefits. I am not sure if the Deputies would welcome such a radical procedure. I dealt with that in some detail because I think it is a matter with which Deputy Fitzpatrick was particularly concerned.

Deputy O.J. Flanagan suggested we should centralise the various Government Departments in provincial towns. I accept the desirability of this idea. We have already adopted this course in a number of centres including Waterford, Carlow and Tralee. We are working towards other centres at the moment.

Deputy Keating inquired if there was a change in policy regarding the proposed transfer of the Department of Lands to Castlebar and of Education to Athlone. The short answer is "No". We have prepared in the OPW the preliminary plans and will be in a position to provide the buildings when they are required. When this will be is a matter for Government decision.

Mr. Bruton

What would happen if the Department of Lands is abolished as was suggested by the Minister for Lands?

Mr. Lemass

That is an area of speculation into which I do not propose to go now.

Mr. Bruton

You are spending the money on buying sites.

Mr. Lemass

We are spending it on the partial development of the site.

Mr. Tully

It could be spent on finding accommodation for your civil servants here in town.

Mr. Lemass

I should like to make this point very clear. This matter has been discussed to my knowledge at Government level. The Government have made no change in policy whatsoever. They are committed to the decentralisation of these Departments.

Mr. Tully

It was a boost for a certain Minister—telling people that he was bringing all the civil servants of a Department in Dublin to his town. This is as dead as a dodo. The Parliamentary Secretary must know that. He is not telling us an untruth——

Mr. Lemass

What I am saying is factual. The works could not have started until about now, anyway. We are ready now to go ahead.

Mr. Tully

The civil servants will not go there.

Mr. Lemass

We have informed the Government that we are in a position now to provide this accommodation if and when they require it. Next year, when the Government are drawing up the capital programme, they will have to decide what capital money they can afford to allocate to this.

Mr. Bruton

This is not decentralisation. It is re-centralisation.

Mr. Lemass

I would not agree with that description.

Mr. Tully

"Bluff" is a better word.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Kenny complained that there had been no tree-planting in Castlebar. I recommend him to have a look at the back of the housing schemes adjoining the site.

Mr. Kenny

They must be very tiny. They must be in the embryo stage. I must go there, after the by-election, and have a good look for them. One would need a microscope to find them.

Mr. Lemass

As Deputy Kenny raised the matter in this context, I would inform him that the destruction or disposal of Land Commission files is a matter for the Department of Lands.

Mr. Kenny

I thought it was a matter for the OPW.

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. Kenny

I was told that you have a destruction squad within the OPW.

Mr. Tully

I have heard them called that, too.

Mr. Lemass

There is no truth in that rumour. The only thing I regret is that Deputy Kenny will have to wait at least a decade before he is on this side of the House.

Mr. Kenny

We might find out sooner than you think.

Mr. Lemass

I want to come now to the extension of the National Gallery. This was planned, designed and built by the OPW. I do not think even Deputy Keating can find fault with this work. Whether or not the National Library and, indeed, other such buildings can be reached in the 1970-71 period has not yet been decided. The priorities for the coming year—which, obviously, is going to be another one of financial stringency—have not yet finally been worked out but it is on the list. Whether or not it gets into next year's priorities, I cannot say yet. I suppose it will not be too long before I shall be introducing my next Estimate and we shall let you know.

Deputy Moore referred to new buildings at Ballsbridge. I presume he was referring to the Institute of Advanced Studies at Burlington Road. This is not a new building as such: it is an extension to an existing building.

Deputy Tunney and Deputy Eugene Timmons were critical of the extent of development south of the Liffey and made a plea for a shift to the north side. I agree that such a shift should take place. Unfortunately, the OPW are not in a position to influence this to any great degree. But, in so far as I can do so, I shall do my utmost to bring about a greater volume of development in the city north of the Liffey. There is a welcome development in this respect, in which my Department has been concerned, and this is the erection of an office block for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs in Marlborough Street near the junction of Parnell Street. I hope this will be taken as a lead to other developers. We have also rented a considerable space area in the new office block in Phibsboro which I formally opened. At that time, I expressed the sentiment that I felt there was too great a concentration of development south of the Liffey and that it would be far more balanced if north city development were undertaken to a greater extent.

Deputy Dr. Byrne was critical of the condition of Marlborough House at Glasnevin. It is being replaced by a new preventive centre at Finglas. The work on this is well advanced. It is expected to be completed in March-April, 1971. The final cost will be in excess of £300,000.

Deputy Keating was critical—as he generally is—of the buildings at Abbotstown on the ground that they are inflexible, over-elaborate and too expensive. The type of building constructed is primarily a matter for the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries who brief the Office of Public Works on their requirements, and if the veterinary and other professional staffs of the Department consider that simple flexible buildings will meet their needs best, the Office of Public Works will be only too glad to provide such buildings.

Deputies Timmons, Moore and Noel Browne inquired about the John F. Kennedy Memorial Hall. As far as the Office of Public Works are concerned, the position is that the plans have been completed, up to date costings are available and we are in a position to seek tenders at short notice. It is now for the all-party committee to come together to consider the position. Among the matters to be considered is the location, but the most important consideration for the committee will be the means of financing the proposal.

Mr. Tully

Who reconvenes the committee.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister for Finance announced in the House a week ago his intention to reconvene the committee.

Mr. Tully

He knows, of course, that a number of the members are no longer available?

Mr. Lemass

It is a matter for the parties to replace them. In answer to a Parliamentary question last week, the Minister for Finance said it was his intention to reconvene the committee shortly. Of course, the Deputy will ask what "shortly" means.

Mr. Tully

A good question.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Byrne inquired about the cleaning of the Custom House. We will have a look at this. The position at the moment is that the Liffey side of the Custom House has been cleaned. That Liffey side was chosen to be cleaned first because it is the most exposed to the weather and a number of our citizens take up residence on the steps there and we did not want anything to happen to them. Therefore, we checked the structural condition of the building generally while the cleaning operation was in progress. About two weeks ago I sanctioned the placing of the contract for the completion of the cleaning.

Mr. Tully

Is the car park there available to visiting Members of the House?

Mr. Lemass

We have a problem there and it exists in most of the State-owned buildings. Generally, the rule is that car parking facilities there should be available to Members of the House on official business.

Mr. Tully

I hasten to say that I have no personal complaint.

Mr. Lemass

Of course, the parking facilities there are primarily for the staffs in the building. Their cars are so numerous now that parking there has become a problem. Last time I called there in the official car I was able to get in all right but I had a problem getting out. I should like to say that this matter was mentioned to me yesterday by a Deputy and I will certainly have a look to see if it might not be possible to take over some of the grass area there without in any way diminishing the amenities.

Mr. Tully

Some Deputies have had difficulty. I have found the gateman most courteous.

Mr. Lemass

We have had the same problem in Marlborough Street, and in Dublin Castle while building construction is going on, there is a shortage of parking facilities and it has become necessary for Deputies to acquire passes.

Mr. Tully

A pass would not be a bad thing at all.

Mr. Lemass

Certain Deputies who have business there, including a Fine Gael Deputy who changed his car and was given a new pass, get passes. Deputies should be entitled to these facilities but there is the problem of trying to get 100 cars in when the space allows for only 50.

Mr. Tully

You could extend the space.

Mr. Lemass

Reverting to our cleaning programme, other buildings have been done including the GPO, Iveagh House and the Four Courts.

Mr. Bruton

What about internal accommodation in the National Museum?

Mr. Lemass

Like the National Library, this is on our list of priorities and we think it will be possible to reach it in the next year. I could not say at this stage.

Mr. Bruton

I am told the situation is critical.

Mr. Lemass

We have drawn up a list and I am sure the Minister for Finance and the Government collectively will consider what moneys will be spent on this work in the forthcoming financial year. Deputy Murphy asked about how the Board of Works look after the maintenance and repair of buildings. In Dublin and in Cork we carry out ordinary work of repair and maintenance through our own direct labour force, numbering between 350 and 400 men. Throughout the rest of the country the work is done by contractor.

Mr. Tully

What is his name?

Mr. Lemass

By contractors. Local contractors are engaged. Except for small jobs, the contracts are placed as a result of public advertising—in other words, by competition. The last State building I shall refer to is Leinster House. Many critical things were said about it before the summer recess and I hope Deputies generally are pleased with the cleaning up we managed to do here during the summer. Efforts are being made to make Leinster House as beautiful as possible during the time at our disposal and further improvements are under consideration. Deputies Kenny and Donnellan referred particularly to the heating system.

In the old building, Leinster House proper, the heating is by radiator and boiler in the old-fashioned way. The heating can be turned on or off at each radiator point. The extension is heated by air conditioning, a modern system, which was considered with other systems and was chosen on the grounds of its reputation for efficiency and cost. Something Deputies may not be aware of is that in each room in the extension practically each vent can be hand controlled. Individual Deputies may vary the temperatures of their rooms at their own choice. The variation in temperature does not take place quickly, but if a Deputy finds a room too warm in the evening, if he uses the control at night he will find the temperature will have gone down by morning.

Mr. Tully

It is in the evening it needs cooling.

Mr. Lemass

The point I am making is that there is this hand control. Apart from that, other difficulties can arise when Deputies open windows. In such cases adjoining rooms may become affected. The best advice I can give to Deputies is that if they have any complaint they should refer it to the Superintendent or to the Captain of the Guard who will get in touch with the central heating station. Deputies Kenny, Moore and others, and Deputy Bruton this morning, referred to the lodge at the Kildare Street entrance to Leinster House. They said it was too small and that it was badly arranged.

Mr. Bruton

Ugly.

Mr. Lemass

That is Deputy Keating's word. I have considered this but there are considerable difficulties.

Mr. Tully

It is an improvement on the dog box that was there before.

Mr. Lemass

Improvements create difficulties not only aesthetically but security-wise as well. The architect is considering improvements in consultation with the Leinster House authority. The Superintendent and the Captain of the Guard are responsible for security matters here. They are responsible for making sure that only those people who are authorised to do so by Deputies come into this House and they are generally responsible for looking after the security of the place. We must take their wishes very much into consideration in construction and building of this kind.

It could be argued that too much consideration was given to security and too little to comfort but, at the same time, as against that, there were other aesthetic considerations. I do not know whether we can do a good job, but certainly not in this financial year——

Mr. Tully

Can anything be done to control entrance and exit? The Parliamentary Secretary must be aware of the difficulties with traffic coming in and out. Nobody seems to worry. It seems to be just a question of taking a chance and edging out or in.

Mr. Lemass

I remember that some years ago the then Minister for Justice gave certain instructions to the Commissioner of the Garda and at that time the Garda controlled traffic coming in and out. Apparently that instruction has been allowed to lapse.

Mr. Tully

I do not think they should be asked to stand out in the middle of the road all day but something should be done to clear a passage.

Mr. Lemass

As the Deputy is aware, there are a number of gardai on duty there all the time. To my mind it would not involve any great inconvenience if one of them were to assist when cars are coming in and going out. I will certainly bring this matter to the attention of the Minister for Justice.

Mr. Tully

They are probably carrying out the instructions they got.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Dr. Browne suggested that the Merrion Square gate could be used as the entrance. I have been informed, however, that if this change were to be made it would be a matter for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. Deputy Luke Belton mentioned that room No. 2 had been improved, the interview room. I hope the work I had carried out on it during the summer meets with his approval and that of all Deputies. I am pleased to say that so far the reaction to the removal of the panels and the decoration of the room has been favourable.

Mr. Tully

It is a big improvement.

Mr. Lemass

It was done on an experimental basis and now that it has got general approval it is the intention to try to improve the furnishing gradually. Deputies may have noticed that we have made little changes in the furniture to try to make it more comfortable. Deputy Kenny made a suggestion to the effect that Dáil ushers should be issued with light uniforms during the summer. That is an excellent suggestion. I should like to refer this matter to the Cheann Comhairle and I hope he will take note of it, as I understand he is the officer responsible.

Mr. Tully

And overcoats in the winter.

Mr. Lemass

That is a matter for the Ceann Comhairle.

Mr. Tully

I hope he will also take note of that.

Mr. Lemass

My advisers and I had consultations with a subcommittee of the Joint Restaurant Committee during the recess and we have made some minor improvements to the visitors bar. I should like to take this opportunity of putting on record my sincere thanks to the Secretary and the members of the Press Gallery for agreeing to help us out on evenings when there are big crowds in here by allowing the bar to be extended into their private room late in the evenings. All Deputies must appreciate that this was a very big gesture by the Press Gallery. I am very grateful to them for it.

I should like to say this, however. It was never intended that the facilities of this House were for anything other than the convenience of members. A few people seem to look on it as a public bar. I do not think the joint committee would be amiss if they were to draw up a clearcut set of rules to be applied to those charged with the security of the House and applied equally in respect of each Member of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Mr. Tully

That was only during the big debate.

Mr. Lemass

Anyone who misbehaves in the corridors, bars or restaurant is the responsibility of the Member who introduced him. The Member should be held responsible whenever anyone he introduces misbehaves. There are a few—a very few I am glad to say—who frequent this House regularly and who have caused disruption and unpleasantness on more than one occasion. Apparently there is no machinery available either to prevent these people from coming in again and again, or to reprimand the Member who introduced him or her.

In view of the exceptionally large attendance of visitors during this year the architect of the Office of Public Works is preparing plans to increase the area now available to visitors for refreshments and, when the plan is agreed between him and the joint committee, a submission for the necessary moneys will be made to the Minister for Finance. It will then be up to him and the Government, I presume, to decide whether an extension will or will not be provided.

The suggestion by Deputy Davern to the effect that extra lifts might be provided in the new block certainly appeals to me. I understand, however, that this work could be a very costly undertaking. Nevertheless, I will ask the architect in charge of Leinster House to secure even an approximate estimate with a view to making a submission to the Government to find out whether funds for that purpose might be made available.

I should like to go on record as making an apology to the Cork Deputy who was marooned in the lift, Deputy Richard Barry. The stoppage of the lift on 23rd June was due to the operation of the overspeed safety device. There was no apparent reason for this, but the mechanical governor which controls this safety device has now been set to operate at a slightly higher speed. The alarm bell was operated by a dry battery, one cell of which failed prematurely after it was tested a few weeks prior to the incident. I have already made arrangements for the provision of a more suitable type of battery to operate the alarm bell. It has been installed and I believe it is causing some difficulty with our clocks.

Mr. Tully

I was wondering what had happened to the clocks and to this one in particular.

Mr. Lemass

Two of the contracting company's men were contacted by their head office to attend to the cut-out of the lift. Both of them were on jobs elsewhere in the city and, owing to the bus strike at the Ringsend depot, one of the men had to walk to Leinster House. The second man was in a van and he was held up in a traffic jam on his way to Leinster House. The incident arose from an unfortunate and unusual combination of circumstances. The steps which have been taken should prevent a recurrence of the incident.

Mr. Tully

Surely if someone is coming here on urgent business he should not have to walk.

Mr. Lemass

I explained that one man was coming by bus and the other by van. The man coming by bus had to walk because of the temporary stoppage at the time.

Mr. Tully

Were there no taxies?

Mr. Lemass

He thought walking was quicker because there was a big pile up of traffic in the city on that day. As I say, the other man was considerably delayed in the traffic.

I should like to make a few remarks now about the Seanad Chamber. The ceiling was done but the rest of the job had to be deferred because of re-wiring work. I understand this re-wiring work is now finished. Some submissions have been made by the Seanad which are under consideration. I hope to be able to meet their requirements before very long. I replied to some questions on the cost of the TV installation. The only thing I should like to add is that the preparation of the cards which were requested by Deputy Tully and others is in hands at the moment.

Deputy Bruton wanted to know why there were apparent discrepancies between various Departments in the matter of maintenance, rents, fuel and light. The figures quoted are based on the annual cost of the buildings occupied by the various Departments. His comparison of the provisions for the Department of Labour with those of other Departments seems to be based on a misapprehension. The Department of Labour occupies only part of the building; other Departments occupy several buildings.

Mr. Bruton

How would that make a difference?

Mr. Lemass

The Department of Labour occupies part of the building. Other Departments are spread round, perhaps, a dozen or more different buildings in the city. Naturally, the cost of light, rent and rates will vary with the size of the Department and the nature of the buildings.

Mr. Bruton

Those costs are divided up between the various Departments occupying the building. Therefore, the figures are the same.

Mr. Lemass

I am afraid I do not understand the Deputy's point.

Mr. Bruton

The point is that I understood that using rates as a measurement some Departments had a great amount of office space and got away with very little maintenance costs on that office space, whereas other Departments, using the rent and rates as a yardstick, appear to have not so much space, relatively speaking, and yet have very high maintenance costs. I am concerned with the ratio between the maintenance costs and the size of the offices as indicated by the rent and rates paid thereon.

Mr. Lemass

There are many variations. In some cases we own the buildings. There are Government buildings of which I am not aware. I would have to find out from my officials where some civil servants are at present housed. Government buildings all over are included and the money investment is an actual figure so far as it can be estimated. I do not think we have ever had to look for a Supplementary Estimate under this head.

Mr. Bruton

Do you have to pay rent and rates even on buildings you do not own?

Mr. Tully

They do not have to pay rent on the ones they own. Does the Deputy see?

Mr. Bruton

I have some idea.

Mr. Lemass

We do not pay rents on the ones we own.

Deputy Bruton also asked about services carried out for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs on a repayment basis. This arises from the fact that the Department is a commercial concern. Its accounts have to be treated accordingly. This was explained by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs recently.

Mr. Bruton

Some of the services are not carried out on a repayment basis. How do you distinguish between one and the other?

Mr. Lemass

So far as the Department of Posts and Telegraphs are concerned they are all on a repayment basis.

Mr. Bruton

Are they? There is £137,000 in the Estimate for Posts and Telegraphs under subhead E which would appear to have been a direct payment which was not on a repayable basis.

Mr. Lemass

It comes back under the heading of Appropriation-in-Aid.

Mr. Tully

Was it postage or telephones?

Mr. Bruton

That is a separate heading.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Donnellan complained that last year we gave very little time to drainage. That was because I was restricted on time last year. I hope to be able to deal more comprehensively with drainage activities this year. Deputies Kenny, Tom O'Donnell, Oliver Flanagan, Coughlan and other Deputies expressed the view that the subvention for arterial drainage purposes is inadequate. Strange as it may seem, I am of like view. However, the present method of assessing the value of drainage, the return for the money invested, suggests that the money spent under this head might be inflationary in its effect. As long as that interpretation is put on it I do not think extra moneys can be expected, in present circumstances. I am personally not satisfied that the money spent on arterial drainage is inflationary, provided, of course, a river once drained is properly maintained. I agree that a good drainage scheme can bring benefit to many of our farmers. I do not accept that the additional lands made available will solve the problems of our small farmers but they will make their personal lot somewhat better. Against that, however, I am convinced that the nation gains far more benefit than is at present accepted as a result of its arterial drainage programme, that, in fact, the nation gets a bigger return for the money than is realised. I have come to this personal conclusion since my appointment to this office but I cannot claim with justification a larger share of the capital budget simply as a result of my own personal opinon.

Mr. Bruton

Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that a cost benefit study of arterial drainage——

Mr. Lemass

If the Deputy will give me a chance I will come to that.

Mr. Bruton

I am sorry.

Mr. Lemass

It may be that I have become institutionalised in this regard and that this opinion has been formed in my mind as a result of the correspondence which I sign daily. It is my intention to find out one way or another and to this end I have a cost benefit survey in progress. This will take about three years to complete and if it confirms my opinion I will then be in a position to make a proper case, backed with figures, to the Government for a larger share of the capital budget. Let no Deputy forget, however, that if a larger share is to be devoted to arterial drainage then a smaller share must go elsewhere. I invite Deputies opposite between now and the next financial year to consider and, perhaps, help to advise me under what head a cut might usefully be made; in other words, what sum could be taken from a particular head or, perhaps, small sums taken from several different heads which might be more beneficially used on behalf of the nation if they were employed in drainage work.

Deputy Kenny, Deputy O'Hara and other Deputies expressed the view that, after an expenditure of £5 million, if we did not finish the drains that are outstanding on the Moy scheme it would be a very sad thing. I would like to be clear on this. Before this scheme was designed there was a very full engineering survey of all the rivers and tributaries in the catchment and in the process of designing the scheme consideration was given to each tributary and to each drain. In every case where the value of the benefit which would accrue to the affected land bore a reasonable relationship to the cost of the works involved the drain was included in the scheme. In other words, every stream that could be economically dealt with has been included. The problem is that when some farmers saw the extent of the benefit to neighbouring lands they naturally made efforts to have the scheme extended to include their own land. There were several hundred such applications. Each case was carefully investigated. A special team of engineers were assigned to that particular job and wherever inclusion could be justified the scheme was extended accordingly.

I have made reference to maintenance. Deputy Tully asked if there was any prospect of the State taking over the cost of maintenance of drained rivers. He said that the charge in his view should be a national one. Maintenance of a drainage scheme is a county at large charge and I am bound by the statutory arrangements adopted by the House in 1945. Also, I can see no justification at this time for changing the present method of financing maintenance.

Mr. Tully

I asked the Parliamentary Secretary if he had an estimate of the cost of the maintenance of the Boyne after completion.

Mr. Lemass

I shall come to that later. There is a special section on the Boyne since it is the scheme in progress.

Mr. Tully

Sorry.

Mr. Lemass

The commissioners have gone as far as they reasonably could in relation to the Moy. I hope this scheme will be completed during this financial year. Thereafter, there will be maintenance work to be done each year. Deputy Tully seems to think that the cost of maintenance should be a national charge. Generally speaking, we do the arteries and the veins should be done under land project. All outstanding drains will be a matter for the farmers and for the Department of Agriculture.

Deputies O'Leary and Flanagan expressed the view that we should concentrate more on minor drainage schemes. From a political point of view I would love to do this but, speaking economically, the major catchments give a better return for the money invested. It is my intention to try to ensure that some intermediate and minor schemes will be proceeded with but most of the money available must be directed to the major catchments.

With reference to the Maigue, Deputies will be aware—Deputy Coughlan referred to this this morning —that a High Court decision prevented this scheme from going ahead. At that time we decided to do three things. One was to appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision. I am sorry to inform those Deputies who may not be so aware that this scheme was unsuccessful. Secondly, we proceeded to prepare a new scheme. This will be ready for exhibition early in the new year and all going well, ground work could start later in the year. Thirdly, we decided to examine the Arterial Drainage Act to see if any amendments might be usefully introduced. This examination is still in progress. Deputy Tully was interested to know whether the Act might be amended. As I say, this is still being examined. It is necessary for us to obtain legal advice and, of course, the amending of legislation is a complicated business.

Mr. Tully

I am glad that this matter is being considered. Nobody wishes to take away rights but if somebody wants to be obstructive there should be legislation to deal with such a person.

Mr. Lemass

I am satisfied that the new scheme will overcome the objections of the Dunraven estates and if there are no other serious objections I would expect no other delay at this time. In relation to the Corrib-Mask-Robe, the survey of this catchment has been finished and the design of a scheme is nearing completion. Indications are that the work will be relatively expensive but I expect that a formal scheme will be put on exhibition shortly and that the statutory steps can be completed in time to have work commenced when the adjoining Corrib-Headford scheme is finished in 1971. This is as was forecast last year and I expected that it would be adhered to. I can assure Deputy Donnellan that I am not aware of difficulty in Headford except for the fact that requests have been made for extra drains to be included.

The Nanny was referred to by several Deputies. This is the Nanny which is a tributary of the Corrib-Clare scheme and not the other one. We cannot drain the Nanny until the county council have completed improvements to the Tuam waterworks. The Office of Public Works is pressing the county council very hard in this regard. Deputy Donnellan asked also if we were having trouble with the county council in relation to the Corrib-Headford scheme. We have offered the county council, and they have accepted, practically all the cost of adapting Headford waterworks to the new drainage design. We are pressing them to complete the new installations and we are most anxious to proceed with the drainage.

I was asked also about the Toon and Bungea Rivers. These are intermediate type rivers for which we have asked the Department of Finance for approval to exhibit a joint scheme. They seem loath to agree. Ballinahassig which is number 17 on the minor catchment priorities will take a long time to reach because so far we have only got to number ten.

Deputy Mrs. Hogan O'Higgins appears to have spoken twice on this Estimate. She asked about the Dunkellin catchment area. The engineering survey for this area has been carried out and the design of the scheme is proceeding. A special problem arises there, as the Deputy pointed out, in relation to the Rahasane-Turlough area, an area in which it is considered a matter of great importance to preserve wild bird life. A special study is being made of that aspect in close consultation with the Department of Lands.

I am more than hopeful that a satisfactory solution will be found both to the conservation and the drainage interests. I have taken a personal interest in this scheme and I stand over my previous announcement that a report and estimate for the scheme will be ready in the spring of 1971. Every effort will be made then to clear the way to begin the work and all going well, this can be achieved by 1972 as announced previously.

The Bonet scheme for the counties of Leitrim and Sligo will cost £250,000 and the area to be drained is 3,100 acres. The scheme will take about two years to complete and 80 men will be employed. The position is that it has been decided to ask the Department of Finance for approval to put a scheme on exhibition prior to confirmation and the start of the works but the Department might not agree at this time of financial stringency.

Deputy John L. O'Sullivan asked when the River Ilen at Skibbereen is likely to be drained. This river has been examined under the intermediate river arrangement. The proposal has several features that are unattractive but it is being studied carefully to see if there is any possibility of a viable scheme. The same Deputy asked about the Argideen. The Office of Public Works have no responsibility for maintenance of that river which was surveyed in conjunction with the neighbouring Owenkeagh. The Argideen is very uneconomic. The details have been sent to Cork County Council and their reactions are awaited.

At this stage I would like to say in reply to Deputy Tully, regarding the pension scheme for workers, that views on this matter are being heard by the Department of Finance and by Congress.

Mr. Tully

I have a question down about that today.

Mr. Lemass

This is a general scheme in which several Departments are involved and on that account it has to be handled sensibly by the Department of Finance.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.