I wish to compliment the Minister of State on his appointment to the Office of Public Works. At the same time I must say that I have great sympathy for him. I can say that honestly because I was formerly Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.
Too often the Office of Public Works is made the scapegoat by other Departments and I would hope that the Minister for the Public Service will take a hard look at how the Office works. I would hope that he would suggest to the Government that the man in charge of the Office of Public Works should be given a place at the Cabinet table. The Government might also incorporate the Department of Fisheries with the Office of Public Works. Matters relating to the provision of schools, piers, drainage, monuments and graveyards are linked with other Departments and it very often happens that the Office of Public Works is made the scapegoat.
I will give an example in relation to Caherciveen pier. This pier was sanctioned by the Office of Public Works and the matter was then sent to the county council for sanction. They said they would have to raise a loan and go to the Department of the Environment. They did so and it was over 18 months before it was decided that the work should go ahead. The people in charge of the Office of Public Works were blamed by everybody for the delay. I have great sympathy for the Minister in this regard. Often the office is made a scapegoat by the Department of Finance and this has become very obvious.
It happened during my last few months in office, and I see it beginning to happen with the new Minister of State, that a number of questions are sent to the office the night before, the Minister for Finance has gone to Brussels and 30 or 40 questions on serious financial matters that have been discussed at length at Cabinet level are left to the Minister of State, who cannot know anything about what is behind the questions. If the Minister of State has any sense he will insist that a member of the Cabinet who was in on the Cabinet discussions will answer supplementary questions in relation to things not in the print. I have sympathy for the Minister of State because the same thing happened to me when I was in office.
The Minister of State holds a unique position. It is a fascinating position which can be very exciting if the Minister really gets involved in the nitty-gritty of how his Department works. The Board of Works are involved with all parts of the country. The Minister of State will receive advice from his officials as I did. I have the highest regard for the officials in that Department, who are co-operative in every way. However, there are times when the officials will suggest that because there is no precedent the Minister should take a certain line; but the Minister must make his own decisions, and take responsibility for them in Dáil Éireann if somebody wishes to ask him about them.
When down in Killarney in my official capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance I met the local community who were looking for a couple of acres at Muckross to bury their dead. As the Minister knows, there are hundreds of acres of national parks in Killarney and I felt that the local community were entitled to bury their dead in their own parish. The officials told me at the time that I was doing the wrong thing. I accept they had reasons, but I insisted that the graveyard go ahead and asked the Minister for Finance to sanction the ground for the graveyard. My direction was accepted by my officials in the spirit I gave it and they passed it on to the Department of Finance for further sanction. I inquired day after day about the graveyard. For some unknown reason it was held up in the Department of Finance. Eventually I lost my cool and went to the then Minister, Deputy Richie Ryan, and asked him what the holdup was. The then Minister told me that that was the first he had heard of this. The Minister looked at the file and then gave a direction that the few acres should be given to the people. I am just bringing this to the notice of the Minister of State.
Recently the Minister was in Kerry and visited the National Park, Muckross House and that historic building, Derrynane House, in Caherdaniel. During the course of his visit, we learned from a press release, he met various groups. I am sure the Minister met the Caherdaniel GAA club in connection with the football field. I know the Minister said to these people that they could not extend the field because it would interfere with car parking facilities, buses and tourists. As a Kerryman talking to a Corkman, I say to the Minister that he should do his own thing in this matter. There is no reason why the GAA club in Caherdaniel cannot get the extension. I am sure that if the Minister granted permission to the club he could incorporate conditions in the permission to prohibit the use of the field at inconvenient times for tourists, coaches and so on. The Caherdaniel GAA are in a bad way at the moment because the South Kerry GAA board are deciding that no further games can be played there due to the inadequacy of the present pitch. The Minister has seen the field. I know the Minister has one suggestion from his officials, who will be forceful on this issue. But there is the human side. The young lads of Caherdaniel will be deprived of playing before their supporters in their own important championship or league games. I urge the Minister to take another look at this issue. The Minister replied to a Dáil question about a fortnight ago saying that he could under no circumstances change the status quo. The Minister can if he wishes to and the officials and the chairman of the Board of Works and all his commissioners will respect him if he makes the decision.
The other point is in relation to the extension of the Caherdaniel graveyard. There is plenty of room on the little island there to give the extension they are looking for. When visiting the graveyard with the local parish priest and other members of the community I said I saw no reason why they could not get this extension. The officials who accompanied me agreed that we could give them a certain part of the island. I appeal to the Minister to give that the green light and to make sure that it goes ahead, because the Caherdaniel people wish to bury their dead in their own parish, in the traditional burial place. People like to be buried with members of their own family. It will knock no skin off anybody's nose to give a little bit of ground for a graveyard.
I was disappointed that the Minister did not pay tribute to Mr. McShane in Killarney for the thousands of acres he has given to the Board of Works at a very nominal cost. The song asked: "How can you buy Killarney?" But Killarney was bought by Mr. McShane. Public tribute should be paid to him for the way he has co-operated with the Board of Works. A tremendous debt of gratitude is due to him. Tribute should be paid to him. Although I did not do this when I was in the Minister's position—it is one of the few regrets I have—I hope that when the Minister is replying public acknowledgement will be given to Mr. McShane for the tremendous good he has done for our people in providing lakes and woodlands at a very nominal cost.
The Minister said a good deal about drainage. I wonder if all the drainage schemes should be examined at national level, especially at Cabinet level. I believe the major drainage schemes have outlived their usefulness. I said last year that the time has come when there should be a complete review of arterial drainage. In 1975-76 we tried to get the Ballinrobe scheme off the ground but objections came from all over the place. It would be fascinating to find out how many farmers objected to different aspects of that scheme—there must have been hundreds. Every objection has to be processed and by the time that is done the officials concerned must be addled. Instead of objecting to that major scheme these farmers should have been thankful that the Board of Works was moving in to do a good job for them. I think the Minister should examine all the major schemes. If the Minister implemented smaller schemes involving 30 or 40 farmers I am quite sure that in County Wexford as in County Kerry and County Cork farmers would be delighted to have a small scheme started and some of them would even be prepared to contribute money towards such a scheme. The Minister would have goodwill from the beginning. That is what we should concentrate on and we should forget the major schemes.
There is much talk now that the EEC will come up with the money to solve all our drainage problems in the west, but if the EEC put up the money there will be an obligation on the Government to provide £1 for £1. This is where the failure could come. Judging by the present cutbacks we hear of in various Departments it would be very difficult for the Minister to get money from the Government for the drainage schemes. But it will be quite easy for him if he concentrates on smaller schemes and gets a contribution from those involved just as in the case of a rural improvement scheme which involves five or six farmers and they pay £200 or £300 without complaint. There will be no objection from those people. They will not complain that the sluice is not a certain height, that their land will be destroyed by spoil; they will not seek compensation. They are the people we should help because they want to help themselves. These major drainage schemes are only a headache for the Board of Works and for every Deputy interested in his constituency.
I want to put my views on record. The problem of the maintenance of these schemes has escalated out of all proportion. Yet the people who live on the banks where those schemes have been carried out say that no maintenance is being done. Local authorities are questioning the amount of money they must pay to maintain the schemes. It has increased enormously. Members of local authorities are complaining that they are paying £70,000 or £80,000 for maintenance because they are statutorily obliged to do so. Again, if there were small schemes and if the local people were involved, maintenance there would not cause half the noise we have at the moment.
I have some local experience in regard to the dredging of harbours. Taking the case of my own town, Dingle, the Board of Works carried out a dredging scheme there in 1971. It was a complete failure because of the type of dredging carried out. A gadget was used, not a proper dredger. It came by road to Cromane Harbour. It went into the sea there and floated up to Dingle Bay. Eventually, it would up on the scrap heap somewhere around Foynes. They did not let it go any farther. I pointed this out in a debate in this House to the Parliamentary Secretary, the late Deputy Lemass, and he told me a new one was on the way. It never arrived in Dingle.
The Office of Public Works will have to be very careful about the kind of contractors they employ to carry out dredging schemes. The company in the case I mentioned had no roots in Ireland. They produced a card showing all the harbours they had dredged in other countries, but in this instance they sold a pup to the Office of Public Works. The boats have to wait for the tide to come in before they can come into the harbour. The proper development of Dingle harbour will mean locating the pier in another place.
One of the conditions that the Office of Public Works wrote into their agreement with the Kerry County Council was that the council would have to carry out maintenance on Dingle harbour every two or three years. Kerry County Council have been informed by the Office of Public Works that the necessary maintenance work will cost £10,000 and the county manager is refusing to pay it. An alarming situation has developed.
I hope the officials of the Office of Public Works read last week's edition of The Kerryman because there was a summary of the debate that took place. The law officer advised members of the county council that legally there was no such commitment and that if we went to law the Kerry County Council would not have to pay. That was one of the most serious statements made by an official to the council members. I challenged it because the result would be that Government Departments would not have any more dealings with officials or members of the Kerry County Council if we did not honour a commitment, whatever about the technicalities. I challenged the manager on whether he was accepting the statement and I am glad to say he was not. However, he said he wanted to meet officials of the Office of Public Works to find out how the cost had escalated. I think he has asked the Minister of State to meet a deputation of officials from the county council, in addition to some members of the Dingle Harbour Board, on the matter. My views are well known. If a county council or any other statutory body enter a commitment, they must honour it. However, there must be a complete itemising of the cost and reasons must be given for the increase. The Minister and his officials should give this information to the council members when they meet them.
Now that we have abandoned our claim for a 50-mile limit I presume we will get a considerable amount of EEC money for piers and harbours. I hope that the Minister will urge the Minister for Fisheries to ensure that a substantial grant is sought for improvement work. I am not talking about assistance from Roinn na Gaeltachta. They helped when other Departments would not do so. We should press for a substantial grant to improve landing facilities in Dingle and for a deep water pier so that boats may come into the harbour and leave it without having to wait for the tide. Such plans are with the Office of Public Works; a distinguished marine engineer from that office came to the area and drew up the plans. I hope the Minister will forward them to the Minister for Fisheries who, in turn, may submit them to the Council of Ministers in Brussels with a view to getting a substantial grant. The harbour has expanded very considerably in the past four or five years. We will not have a successful fishery harbour in any part of the country unless 75 foot trawlers can land their fish as soon as they enter the harbour.
The Office of Public Works could do more work on ancient monuments. I am not being critical of them when I say that. We have ancient monuments at Gallarus, Reask, Kilmalkedar, Killarney and Caherdaniel. A brochure should be available pointing out their historical value. This would not cost very much and it would be a great help to the many tourists who visit the monuments. They should be able to obtain literature detailing the background and relevant data. This is available on the Continent and in England. I hope the Minister will ensure that such literature is available in Irish and English. I hope the Minister will seriously consider that point.
As far as Riasc is concerned, it is a phenomenon. One needs to see it to appreciate the wonderful ancient monument it is. I should like to pay tribute to the delicate way the Board of Works archaeologists worked at that monument. It was fascinating to see them working and it is also fascinating to see the end product after all their meticulous care. Riasc has got very little publicity from the national papers and the tourist literature. I hope the Board of Works will publicise it.
As far as the National Parks are concerned, how many proposals has the Minister of State got from the Muckross House Committee? During my term of office the State took over Muckross House and made it a national museum. There must be expansion proposals with the Minister of State for this building. I hope he will give serious consideration to some of them. I have the feeling that the Office of Public Works are beginning to drag their feet as far as Muckross House is concerned. I remember the historic night the State took over this building. There was goodwill on the trustees side that they were handing over something to the State which they had preserved at their own cost. Many people feel that not enough interest has been shown in this building since the State acquired it.
The Minister visited Muckross House, he saw the tremendous potential there and he has the figures before him of the thousands of young boys and girls, adults and tourists who have visited Muckross House. There is a chequered history attached to Muckross House. It was a case of "us versus them”. I am not taking sides in regard to the past, because the Office of Public Works were good enough to take over this building. They did so on the clear guarantee that it would not be allowed stagnate, but I am afraid this is what is happening. I know only nine months have passed since it was taken over, that a new Minister is in charge now and that he had no money to spend on Muckross House. If I have dwelt a bit long on this I have done so because I was involved in the negotiations. My spirit at that time was that we would expand. If the Minister is bringing in a Supplementary Estimate later on in the year I hope he will seriously consider expanding Muckross House.
When I was in charge of the Office of Public Works I was very keen on new legislation to cover the Office of Public Works but the Minister did not mention this in his speech. A Bill was prepared when I was in office and this was circulated to different Government Departments. I will not disclose the Bill.
