When progress was reported, I was speaking about the question of the remuneration of the Government consulting engineer. The question was raised as to what other charges there were in respect of the work done by the consulting engineer in addition to the figures that I mentioned with reference to the years 1923-24 and 1924-25. Strictly speaking, the money paid to the consulting engineer, in addition to remuneration, covers the travelling expenses to and from London of the engineer or his partners, and it covers office expenses in London and considerable work done in London. The consulting engineer had the assistance of a staff provided and paid by the Government here. At present the staff consists of two engineers and a typist. The salaries of the engineers are borne on the Board of Works Vote; they are lent by the Board of Works. There is also the cost of an office involved. About £1,125 a year is the cost at present. In the year 1923-24 the cost was much higher and it reached the figure of £3,092, which Deputy Johnson indicated. There has been a very great amount of work cast on the consulting engineer to the Government. The total amount paid to him so far is £8,150. The amount of money that has been paid out on his certificate, or as a result of his examination, amounted to £834,186. The percentage is not by any means a large percentage. As a matter of fact, the consulting engineer and his partners have saved very great sums to the Government. The remuneration falls into various categories. There is £1,050 of a general fee for advice and general service to the Government. Then there was payment at the rate of 3½ per cent. on costs in connection with the erection of railway bridges. There was a fee for other railway work, and there was a percentage, which was generally a percentage of 1½ in most cases, on purchases. In certain cases it was 1 per cent., and in other cases it was 2 per cent. The total amount paid in respect of percentages on purchases amounted to £2,038. In connection with that there was a considerable amount of staff work involved in the London office of the consulting engineer.
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES. VOTE 5.—OFFICE OF MINISTRY OF FINANCE (RESUMED).
Would it be possible to indicate precisely what proportion of the £2,038 was paid as commission on the purchase of the trawlers?
£870.
Does the Minister know what was done in return for that £870?
I could not give the precise information at the moment. The work of the firm in connection with the settlement of railway claims was very considerable; of course they had the assistance of the staff provided by the Government. There is no doubt that as a result of the method in which the work was done very great sums were saved. The Government first became aware of the value of the assistance they might expect from the consulting engineer comparatively early, in connection with a bridge which was erected near Dundrum, in County Tipperary. The irreducible minimum suggested by the engineers to the Railway Company was £1,825. The work was carried out directly by the Government under the supervision of the consulting engineer, at a cost of £788 15s. 0d. That one instance had a very great effect on our relations with the Railway Companies in connection with compensation, and it enabled fair bargains to be struck in a way that perhaps would hardly have been reached if we had not had such a striking instance of the efficient way in which these matters could be handled.
The firm was responsible for the preparation of plans and the construction of seven viaducts. These viaducts were Mallow, Ballyvoile, Carrig, Taylorstown, Monard, Belvelly, and Douglas. In addition, the firm, on behalf of the Government, collaborated with the Companies in preparing plans and specifications and placing contracts for other works. For instance, the Great Southern and Western Railway, thirteen station buildings and eight bridges; Midland Great Western Railway, seven bridges; Great Northern Railway, three station buildings and five bridges; Dublin and South Eastern Railway, two station buildings and two bridges; London Midland and Scottish Railway, two bridges; Cork and Muskerry Railway, one station building and one bridge; Cork, Blackrock and Passage Railway, three station buildings and four signal cabins; Timoleague and Courtmacsherry Railway, one station building; Listowel and Ballybunion Railway, two station buildings; West Clare Railway, one station building. On behalf of the Government they examined and approved or modified, as the case might require, the plans for various works which were carried out by the Railway Companies with their own staffs, for the payment of which the Government were responsible. These included items like the following: Great Southern and Western Railway, sixteen stations, seventy eight bridges; Midland Great Western Railway, three stations, twelve bridges; Great Northern Railway, three stations and seven bridges; London Midland and Scottish Railway, one bridge and one signal cabin; Cork, Bandon and South Coast Railway, eight stations, six bridges, three piers, nine signal cabins; Cork and Macroom Railway, one station, five signal cabins, two bridges; Schull and Skibbereen Railway, two stations and one bridge; Tralee and Dingle Railway, fourteen stations, one cabin, four bridges; the South and West Clare Railway, eleven stations, two cabins, eleven bridges; County Donegal Railway, two stations, one cabin: Sligo Leitrim and Northern Counties Railway, one station, one cabin.
The firm, therefore, on behalf of the Government, had responsibility in connection with re-construction and preparation of plans and costs of 358 bridges, 197 station buildings, and 123 signal cabins. They had to deal with claims in connection with several hundreds of carriages, wagons and engines, which were damaged or destroyed had to be repaired or replaced, and for which the Government had to pay compensation. There were large numbers of cases of small repairs which were done by the Railway Companies on a time and material basis. There were about 2,000 such small repairs, which involved examination of the books and the taking of precautions to see that nothing was charged up by the Companies to the Government that was not due to be charged—that no consequential items were brought into account. The amount of Railway work which was paid for by the Government on the certificate of the firm was £480,556. There were various other claims investigated on behalf of the Department of Defence—the fitting up of armoured trains by the various Railway Companies, advice on matters like ammunition, searchlights, and so forth.
There were great numbers of compensation cases unconnected with railways in respect of which settlement has not yet been reached with the firm. These were compensation cases in which engineering considerations came into account; for instance, a claim by the "Cork Examiner" for destruction of machinery; claims by the "Cork Constitution"; claims by Slievardagh and the Arigna coalfields; claims by saw mills in County Sligo; Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company, Clifden; the Mahon Printing Works, in Dublin; various saw mills in County Galway, and claims in connection with creameries. A big mass of all sorts of matters of an engineering type was dealt with by this firm, and dealt with in a manner that gave us every satisfaction. We felt that, with less efficient treatment, costs amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds more might easily have been heaped upon the Government. I could not say exactly what sum is still due to the firm. It certainly would not be less than £1,000, and it might be more than that. The position, as I have said, is that the firm have, up to the present, received £8,150, and there has been paid out by the Government on their certificate the sum of £834,186. The cost of staff which assisted the firm might run to £6,000 or £7,000 additional.
I want to support Deputy Johnson in raising this matter of the Government consulting engineer. I am quite prepared to accept the statement of the Minister that value has been given for the £8,000 odd that was expended on commission and office in one financial year alone. I think value was rendered. My only comment would be that it seems to be very much better from the point of view of the individual to be a consulting engineer to the Government than to be Minister for Finance in the Government, and if the Minister was not so modest he might have boasted that he and his predecessors had saved even greater sums than the Government consulting engineer, and had been very much less adequately remunerated. I am accepting what the Minister has said.
There are two points I want to make in connection with this matter. One is that it is unwise for the Government to tie itself to any one firm for advice on a commission basis. For instance in this case, the Government consulting engineer, as the Minister has told us obtained £870 commission on purchase of some trawlers for the Ministry, of Defence. An ordinary civil engineering firm is not qualified to advise on the purchase of ships; it is altogether outside their beat. They either have to engage some persons specially for this job, or else they tackle it on the principle of a ship-broker. It is not within the ordinary knowledge of a civil engineer as to whether engines and so on are in working order or not. We might have made—I am not saying we did make, I do not know the details of the case—a bad bargain. The second point I want to make, with more emphasis, so far as my voice is capable of making any emphasis at all, is that in all cases where commission is payable to any individual, and especially in cases where commission is payable to an individual who receives an official salary, that fact should be clearly shown on the Estimates. Until this Estimate was discussed a week ago, the majority of the Dáil were quite ignorant of the fact that this gentleman, who was in receipt of a modest salary of £1,050 a year, had also in the financial year 1923-24 received over £5,000 as commission.
Not in addition. The £5,000 included his salary.
I will accept that at once. In addition to £1,050, this gentleman received £4,200. I suggest to the Minister that that is not good accountancy and not good policy; that we ought to know if we are to have, as I believe we have, a financial administration that will bear investigation. There should be no loophole left by which people could say: "You know the salary he got, but you do not know the commission he got." I do not think in this case there was anything wrong. I accept the Minister's position that the services rendered were adequate, but I think the Dáil should have been informed on an earlier date that this gentleman, or this firm, was receiving commission, commission scattered among a number of Votes, at least two Votes, some on the Army Vote and some on another Vote. That commission should have been made clear to the Dáil, so that if there was anything wrong it would have been open to us to criticise it. Those are my two points in regard to that matter.
I now want to turn from sub-head (a) to another matter affecting a constituent of mine, a matter with which I think the Minister is familiar, because I have written to him about it. That is the case of a Mrs. Byrne who owned a house in Henry Street, adjacent to the General Post Office which was burned down in 1916. This lady made a claim for compensation under the Dublin Reconstruction Act. She found then that she was unable to proceed with her claim because she was a tenant of a house on a lease that then had about twenty years to run. The landlord had sold her interest over her head to the British Postmaster-General. Eventually, she brought an action, being advised thereto by Counsel. I have the opinion of Counsel in my hand. I will not quote it because that Counsel has since been elevated to a more exalted sphere and it might be lese majeste to quote that opinion. The opinion was that though there was not a case in law under the Act there was a case in justice and equity, and that the Judge might make such remarks as would induce the British Government to pay some compensation—ex gratia grant. I do not want to repeat the whole report of the case. It will suffice to say that when my attention was drawn to the matter, I wrote to the late Lord Chancellor who tried the case. The late Lord Chancellor writes to me: “I tried the case, a unique case. The claimant has a great grievance. I did all I could by private letters at the time but in vain.”
That is the opinion of the Judge who heard the case against the British Government. This lady received injustice from the British Government. She then, when the Saorstat came into being, applied to the Minister for Finance for an ex gratia grant. It is admitted that there is no legal claim. She sought justice in the Courts of the Saorstát. The British Government denied that. The Judge who tried the case admitted that it was a hard case and one in which an ex gratia grant should have been made. But the Minister has followed precedent. He has hardened his heart and refused to make an ex gratia grant. I urge him now in public, as I have urged him in private, to reconsider the matter, to realise that this lady is being deprived of valuable property owing to the refusal of her head landlord, first the British Postmaster-General and now the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, to allow her to rebuild.
There are one or two matters that will require to be dealt with under this sub-head. I want to hang on for a little while to the Vote, which includes £1,050 for a Government consulting engineer. The position was not fully stated by Deputy Bryan Cooper. The year 1923-24 Estimates contain no provision for payment of a salary to such an officer, and the sum, I think, of £3,092, appears in the accounts afterwards as having been paid, and the attention of the Dáil was directed to the fact in the Appropriation Accounts. In the following year (1924-25) the sum of £1,050 is recorded as being provided for the same engineer, when it appears to have been within the knowledge of the Minister that a much larger sum was likely to be called for during that year for the remuneration of this officer. And so it is in this year £1,050 is placed in the Estimates for the Government consulting engineer, and the Minister thinks that £1,000, at any rate, will be required to be paid this year, whether as salary, commission or payment of fees we do not know. I would like to have it quite clearly set out that this is a salary, if it is a salary, or is it an allowance, and are we to understand that we are providing for an officer at a salary of £1,050, for this year? If that is not the position, and the desire of the Minister is to make provision for a payment for engineering services, I suggest that it ought not to appear in the Estimates as a salary for a consulting engineer, especially as the Minister seemed to suggest the other night that it was questionable whether such an officer would be required at such a salary for the ensuing year.
The Minister read a very long list of work done for which the consulting engineer, or his firm, had some responsibility. I hope it is not suggested that we should imagine that all the work in connection with the engineering side of these operations was done by the firm or the engineer in question. That would be a sad reflection upon the other engineers already in the service of the Government who, I believe, did a very considerable portion of the work which is credited by the Minister to the consulting engineer. I have no doubt that had there been no such engineer the State would have been involved in considerably more expense, but one wonders whether it would have been possible in any case for any individual to supervise all the work that the Minister read out as having been done. Take the instance of the trawlers, for which we are told there was paid £870 as commission. Is it suggested that full consideration was given to the purchase of the trawler by this engineer, and that that purchase was a satisfactory one? I am very doubtful whether any work was done by the engineer in question in respect of these trawlers. There may have been a pretence of work being done, there may have been a general supervision of specifications sent out by the brokers, but if the information that has been pretty common knowledge with respect to the purchase in question has any foundation at all, the £870 was very badly-spent money.
Trawlers were purchased and were sold again at a very heavy loss, indeed, and I do not think the services that they rendered gave anybody any satisfaction. I wonder whether the services rendered in the purchase of these trawlers, for which £870 commission was paid, could be paralleled by other services rendered by the same firm in the same way, whether it was not rather a general supervision, and an automatic commission paid in respect of purchase and of work done of an engineering character which happened to go through the office, and that the commission was charged automatically. I have no doubt that on the larger and more important work a definite service was rendered, and I have no doubt that the Minister can make a very effective case to show that the State was rendered good service in the matter of financial saving with respect to these works. But I am inclined to think that the Minister is giving credit where credit is not due, and has paid money which need not have been paid, for which no effective useful service was rendered.
I would like to know whether it is the fact that the consulting engineer is to be provided with a salary or a retaining fee amounting to £1,050 for this year, or is this sum an Estimate of possible payment, of whatever kind it may be, to the engineer for services rendered in the past, or to be rendered in the future? In this form it would appear to be a definite fee or salary— £1,050 inclusive. If it is not intended to be a salary, I submit that it ought to appear in a different form. If it is intended to be a salary, I think the Minister will require to justify it, and in view of his statement a few days ago, that it was doubtful whether he would be required this year, that it ought not to appear. I will leave the matter of the consulting engineer, and sit down if I am free to raise another matter of importance on this sub-head as soon as this particular question is disposed of.
I only want to ask one or two questions, at the moment, in connection with the matter under discussion. The Minister stated that £480,566 was paid out to the railway companies under the certificate of the consulting engineer, representing the damage done to their property during the period of internal strife. I want to know if that represents the final settlement for all outstanding claims by the companies against the State in connection with the damage and everything else. I do happen to be aware of the fact, and the Minister knows it quite well, that a great deal of the work of investigation, and as a matter of fact, the final settlement of the smaller claims made by the railway companies against the Government, was done under the supervision of the Army Finance Department by the clerical and technical staff associated with the Railway Maintenance and Protection Corps.
I happen to know the majority of the officers who were associated with that particular corps, for the reason that they were all drawn from the ranks of the Irish railway service. I know that for months negotiations were going on, and I was informed by officers, who were previously in the service of the railway companies, that they were empowered to make settlements in regard to certain claims. I am not now referring to the big bridges. I know, too, of course, that whatever they agreed upon, as representing the Army Finance Department, had eventually to be agreed upon by the Army Finance officer. The point I want to get information on is this: are we to understand that fees and commission were paid to this consulting engineer for work which, in reality, had been negotiated and settled by the Army Finance Department?
With reference to the question of the trawlers, I really have very little knowledge or information about it. The purchase of them occurred before I was Minister for Finance. I think that perhaps it was a mistake to have bought the trawlers. It was not possible to get service out of them, and in any case the struggle was drawing to a close before they were in a condition to do anything. I really could not, at the moment, give any information to the Dáil in respect of the trawlers directly, but I do think that it was one of those mistakes which, I believe, occurred in warlike operations where it is desired to bring new weapons or new forces into play, and which do not always turn out to be of any particular value.
As to the figure of £1,050, I think I explained the other night that, at a certain stage an offer was made to the consulting engineer of a fee of £1,050 for general work and general advice in connection with the Government service and Government departments generally. That figure of £1,050 then appeared in the Estimates of last year. As a matter of fact, it never was accepted by the consulting engineer, who asked for, I think, a fee of £1,500. The offer remained open until a few weeks ago, when the consulting engineer was written to in the sense that I mentioned to the Dáil. Certain matters still out were dealt with, suggestions were made with a view to arriving at a settlement, and there was also the opinion expressed that we now had come to the conclusion that there was not going to be any work that would justify the payment of this fee or salary as a standing retainer, shall I say, and that in our opinion, for the future, arrangement should be that a consulting engineer would be paid a fee whenever his services were re-required.
I certainly am very clear that, contrary to the expectations we had at the time that this offer was first made, there will not be any very frequent or continuous work for a consulting engineer, and I think that the position now is that we will have to reach a settlement in regard to the past with regard to the consulting engineer. Some final payment will have to be fixed for services already done, and an entirely new arrangement will have to be entered into for the future. There is certainly a substantial sum due, because there is an amount of compensation work not connected with railways, in regard to which a settlement has not been reached.
As a matter of fact I think that there is probably a good deal in the point that Deputy Cooper did make: that no one engineer can cover the whole field of the requirements of the Government. There is something unsatisfactory in having one engineer who selects his partners to do various works and where the Government is really dealing with, as it were, a corporation, and where it would be much preferable to deal with an individual in each case, and in that way have somebody responsible. I could not say at the moment whether the sum of £480,000 is the last figure due to be paid or not. I should say that if there is anything to be paid it cannot be any very great sum.
The work in connection with the railways, except the bridges, was not paid for on a commission basis at all. There was commission for the railways, but the other work was not paid for on a commission basis. I have no doubt that every item was dealt with, but the responsibility for the whole general policy and for the check was with the Government's consulting engineer.
I want to deal with a matter which has arisen within the last few days in connection with the Local Government elections. The Department of Finance sent a circular to certain Departments of State, possibly to all Departments of State, to this effect:—
"The attention of the Minister for Finance has been called to the fact that there is a likelihood of some civil servants becoming candidates for membership of local bodies at the forthcoming elections, and after due consideration he has decided that such candidature is not desirable in the interests of the Government service. In view of the foregoing, no civil servant can be allowed to become a candidate at these elections and any individual civil servant who wishes to do so must resign his position in the service. The attention of any officer who is a candidate at the elections in question should, accordingly, be drawn at once to the terms of this circular and a report made if necessary."
That circular was brought to the attention of a number of candidates in different parts of the country on Monday last. In some cases it was only brought to their attention on Monday morning of this week; in other cases on Monday evening, and in some cases on Tuesday, the day of the polling. The nominations took place, as we all know, a week ago, but the attention of candidates was only called to the existence of this circular on Monday of this week, and in some cases, as I have said, on Tuesday, the day of the polling. Now I do not know whether it was by any oversight or not that this circular was issued and the attention drawn to it of postal servants in many parts of the country. It is from postal servants that I have had the facts—by 'phone, letter and by personal inter view.
resumed the Chair.
It appears from the staff rules in operation in the General Post Office that "an officer in the Post Office may become a candidate for or serve on any municipal or local council (Rule 619), provided that the duties involved in such candidature or service do not conflict with the officer's duties to his Department. If the duties are found to conflict the question of requiring the officer to retire from the council will arise and the postmaster should consult the surveyor." That is the rule which is contained in the general staff rules, and a similar rule is contained in the smaller book of rules, which is the guide of the postal service. It is well known, as a matter of fact, that postmen, sorters and postal servants have been allowed hitherto to serve on municipal or local councils. Now, quite apart from the question that is involved in the lateness of the notification, I can only think that this circular was sent out to postal officials by mistake. I think it is fairly well recognised in the Civil Service generally, and particularly the postal service, that officials are not expected to take an active part in controversial political subjects or parliamentary questions and parliamentary elections, and I think, in the main, except for an occasional lapse, that general rule has been observed. But I do not think it could be justified that a direction of the sort sent out last week and brought to the notice of postal men, should apply to such men in the case of local governing bodies. Surely, if it is desirable that local governing bodies should be manned by men of character, it is unwise to limit the choice by removing from the area of choice a body of men who, by the very fact of their being in the public service, is some evidence at any rate of character. We ought not to allow it to go out that you can deprive citizens who happen to be public servants of their rights which have been understood and recognised and set down definitely in the rules of the service by a mere circular issued on the eve of the elections, and only brought to the notice of the people concerned, in some cases after the elections had taken place, and in other cases on the night before the day of the poll.
It is quite obvious that in the case of such postal servants, the order could not be obeyed, because the elections had already been entered upon and the evil, if there were an evil, had been done. I think the only explanation that is likely to fit this case is that the Ministry, fearing the possibility of higher officers in the Civil Service entering into political activities, thought to restrain that desire, and that by inadvertence a similar direction was conveyed to the Post Office, and through the Post Office to men in all parts of the country, who possibly by accident happened, in the majority of cases, to belong and to be representative of the party in the community to which I am glad to give my allegiance.
That is an unfortunate circumstance, but I am not going to stress that. I think the only explanation can be that this circular was sent by inadvertence, and was not intended to apply to postal carriers, sorters, auxiliary postmen and the like. What harm possibly could happen to the public service in a postal official serving his town or county or district in the capacity of a councillor? It is dangerous, I think, to allow to pass, the incident of depriving postal servants of rights which they have clearly set out in their statutes by a stroke of the pen in this fashion. I hope that we shall hear from the Minister that there is no intention of enforcing this order in the case of postal servants, and that it was sent out to them by mistake. In any case, it surely is not to be contended for a moment that an order of this kind, sent out on the eve of the elections, as I say, in some cases after the actual polling has begun, can be sustained or enforced. I hope the Minister will give us an explanation which will clear the air in this matter.
I would like to admit at once that the complaint that Deputy Johnson makes in regard to the lateness, is justified fully and, I think, because of the lateness of the circular, some modification of it will have to be made. This matter was considered some considerable time ago, and the feeling then was that definite steps would have to be taken to pre vent civil servants becoming members of local bodies, but, as no election was in the offing at the time, it was decided to issue no circular, or take no steps at the moment. The result was that the matter was dropped for the time being, and when eventually the elections came upon us, action was not taken in reasonable time, and I believe I can say that we must modify the circular, because of the fact that men had already become candidates, and in some cases, had perhaps even been elected, before the circular reached them. I accept the position at once that it would not be fair, or practicable, to enforce it against them.
On the general question, however, it is very difficult to see how you could exempt any grade of civil servants. It will be clear to Deputies, I think, absolutely clear, that dealing with the higher grades, it is most undesirable. For instance, you cannot have a position where an official of the Local Government Department is a member of the local council, and perhaps carrying on a wrangle with his own Minister or, in his capacity as a councillor, defying himself in his capacity as a civil servant. You cannot have an auditor of a Local Government Department a member of a local council.
You could not have employees of the Department of Agriculture members of, say, the county committees of agriculture. It is obvious where you are dealing with officers of a certain grade they could not have a dual capacity. It then becomes a question of drawing a line, and it seems almost impossible to draw a line. I considered the matter myself in connection with an individual case that came before me recently where a girl who was, I think, a temporary clerk or typist—I am not sure which—was secretary of a Cumann na nGaedheal club. In her capacity as secretary to the club, she was writing in very strong letters to various departments. She was told that she would either have to leave the secretaryship of the Cumann na nGaedheal club or the Government service. It was argued that she was only a typist or a temporary clerk, and what harm was it? I felt myself that really the position was one that could not be tolerated. You could not have—I do not say it happened in this case—a girl who was, say, in the Department of Justice writing stiff letters to the Minister for Justice or the Secretary of the Department about some incident in prison. As a matter of fact, I think this particular girl was in my own Department.
When you come down to consider the matter, it becomes clear that it is practically impossible to draw a line. If you permit a civil servant in a particular grade to do a thing, it becomes extremely difficult to say, "Here is the line, so-and-so may do it, but a person one grade above may not do it." I realise that there is less harm and less danger —there is not a positive type of danger —in having civil servants in lower grades of the service in these positions. There would be, of course, positive danger to the public in having people in the higher grades. For instance, it would be undesirable to have the Secretary to the Ministry of Finance a member of an urban council which might be formulating demands for relief grants. It would be undesirable to have people even two or three grades down in the Ministry of Finance, who might be handling these problems, who could not look at them solely from the point of view of the Department of Finance, if mixed up with local bodies and having a double responsibility, responsibility to the Department, and responsibility to their constituents. If you have a lower type of officer obviously they could not influence things very much. It is impossible to deny to the higher officer something you grant to the lower officer. The position seems to me, while the argument could be made for exempting from such a rule certain grades of the Civil Service, that in practice it is impossible to draw a distinction between one grade and another. I have thought it over and I feel that you really must have one uniform rule for the service.
With respect to Parliamentary candidature, as a matter of fact, the rule applies not merely to higher civil servants but to working men in the Board of Works who are not dealing with clerical or administrative work at all. It applies to all sorts of employees of the State that when they become candidates for the Dáil they must resign. With respect to this matter of local bodies, I feel that it is impracticable, if not impossible, to make a dividing line.
The Minister says it is impracticable, but fortunately there is experience to go on, and the thing has been found quite practicable. There are certain definite rules regarding the entry into Parliamentary elections of civil servants, that on announcement or, on deciding to go forward, they will cease to act; they will be in suspense and if they succeed will resign. I think that is the rule. The Minister says you cannot draw a definite line. I do not think you require to draw a line, any more definitely than has been drawn hitherto. As the rule says, you require of public servants that they should maintain a certain reserve on political matters. That is in respect to Parliamentary elections. The Minister has indicated certain possible difficulties that would arise in certain Departments and instanced the lower grades. The rule we are quoting makes it clear where a decision of justice, equity and reason lies. If the duties of the officer who is elected on a local body and the duties of his Department are found to conflict, the officer will be required to retire from the Council. That is a rule which is quite reasonable and is accepted by everyone. Let us wait until we see whether they do conflict. Undoubtedly if they are found to conflict there has to be withdrawal or resignation. Let us find out whether they do conflict before we issue a general order that there must not be any service to the community. Surely it is desirable to encourage voluntary public service, on the part of officials of the State, on local bodies.
I feel confident that this matter can be left with the Ministry to consider with reason and with due regard, not only to the interests of the service but the interests and rights of the citizen, and that we shall not be retrogressive in this matter, and go back upon a position that has been attended with a great deal of satisfaction to the service, which has been recognised as reasonable and right, and has not done harm to the service. On further consideration of this matter I hope that no decision will be arrived at of a rigid kind, which will cause difficulties, and that the Minister will take into account all the circumstances, and, at least, leave men who are serving the State in a public position some rights as citizens.
The Minister has given a number of hypothetical cases. Let me suggest another to show how matters would be if a rigid line were drawn. Haulbowline may conceivably be, or may have been, a centre of shipbuilding repairs, and engineering, and having a large number of public servants. The town of Cobh was populated to a very great extent by public servants, and a rigid rule of this kind would have prevented the majority of the intelligent citizens of that town from taking any part in the administration of the town services. That position is not as strong to-day, because of an accident, but it is a hypothetical case as illustrating the arguments on the one side, just as the Minister's hypothetical cases are illustrative of the arguments on the other side. I put it forward to show that it is impossible, with due regard to the circumstances, to draw a rigid line. I suggest the line that has been drawn hitherto, and that is in operation up to date, is quite fine and sharp enough, that where the duties of the civil servant are bound to conflict with the duties of public councillor then is the time to ask for a withdrawal, and not to prohibit civil servants from serving their fellow-citizens in a public capacity.
I see the force of the argument Deputy Johnson puts forward. I believe that if the State had very large numbers of industrial employees, especially if they were concentrated, it might become necessary to seek some way out, but on the question of a general rule restraining civil servants from entering these bodies I have very little doubt. In recent years we had a considerable amount of trouble, and we had civil servants suspended because of their actions on public bodies, and they actually lost a considerable amount of pay in consequence. We had one, I think, a postal official, who was dismissed from the service because of his actions on public bodies. It produces an extremely difficult situation if you allow a man to become a member of a body on which there is a certain amount of political or semi-political activity going on, and then ask him to resign because you do not like his political thought. It is hard to avoid imputation of unfairness, and a belief on the part of some people that there is something like political discrimination or persecution of civil servants. It is desirable to prevent such a situation arising. I think that for some years, even on the local bodies, we are likely to have a conflict of one sort or another. On the question of whether in certain individual cases permission might be given to people to go on public boards, I am prepared to look into that, but I think we must stand for the general position, and the rule must be that they do not go forward. If we except a particular individual it is as much as can be done.
I think the Minister realises that permission to individuals would be much more dangerous than permission to classes or bodies.
It would have to be for classes or bodies.
I will not press the matter further at this stage, for I have faith that the Minister's good sense will decide his future action, but I will ask him not to assume that the conduct of affairs in the future has to be based on the likelihood that the conditions of the past four or five years are to be permanent.
I would like to take advantage of this vote to ask for information in regard to a certain matter which was brought to the Minister's attention by a question on the 18th instant. I regret that the Deputy who asked the question is not in the Dáil, but as this will be the only opportunity I will have of raising the matter, and as I have been asked to deal with it, I must take advantage of this opportunity. An award for compensation was made to the owners of the Irish House, Tipperary. The award was made for damages caused to these premises by British forces. The case was heard by the Shaw Commission, and an award for £43,244 was made some time in 1922. It appears that £11,000 of this award was conditional on rebuilding. The inhabitants of Tipperary town have remained under the impression that this rebuilding clause still stood in the award, and that at some future time the owners of the premises would start rebuilding, but recently, as a result of inquiries made by me, it was found that this conditional award of £11,000 had been commuted for a cash payment of £7,000. I would presume that as the destruction of the premises was caused by British forces that the amount of the award would fall on the British Exchequer, but on that point I am not quite clear, for it would appear from the answer made on behalf of the Minister for Finance that the charge would partly fall on the Free State. How that arises I cannot see. But apart from that, the original award was considered by everybody who knew anything about it to be altogether excessive. The question arises whether the Minister has a right to commute the conditional award by the acceptance by the person who has received the award of a lesser sum in cash. I think it was not the intention of the Compensation Act that people who had business premises should get possession of a lump sum, clear away with that sum, and do what they like with it, and leave the premises partly derelict, an eyesore, useless from the point of view of business, and a great injury to the town from the point of view of disimproving its appearance, and having a bad effect as regards tourist traffic. There is no prospect of rebuilding, and there is a great deal of unemployment in the town. Thousands are unemployed, and there is a great demand for work. I suggest that the commutation of the conditional award is, if not illegal, certainly quite unfair to the town.
It certainly is a bad precedent for other people who know if they come to an agreement with the Ministry they can get out of their rebuilding clause. I would ask the Minister if he could give any explanation of this matter, because there is a great deal of feeling about the case in the town in question. The people of the town feel that they have been very unfairly treated. There is also the question of rates. Naturally the town loses the rates, and in its present condition there is no prospect that the town will gain any advantage out of the rates for that site for the future. There is another matter I wish to raise also, but as it is rather late I will not refer to it now.
Unfortunately, I do not know this case so well that I could trust my memory with regard to the facts. I have not the papers with regard to it here. I understand that there was some complication in the business in connection with the arrangements with insurance companies which the Government entered into earlier in our dealing with that question of compensation; and that actually by agreeing to the elimination by the Wood-Renton Commission of the rebuilding clause some £6,000 or £7,000 was saved to the Government. There is also, I understand, in the lease a rebuilding condition, and, if my memory serves me right, I have been informed that legal proceedings have been started for the purpose of enforcing that condition in the lease, and, apart altogether from the reinstatement conditions in the award, lessees are bound to rebuild. I believe the house will be rebuilt. My attention was drawn to this particular case by the Deputy, but I would not like to say for certain that I remember the facts accurately at the moment.
I have given notice to the Minister and also to his Parliamentary Secretary that on the Vote providing for salaries under this estimate, I would ask for some definite statement in regard to matters for which the Department of Finance is responsible. The matter to which I am going to refer has been already a matter of question and answer and the subject of discussion in this House. As this is the only opportunity which we will have for endeavouring to secure some kind of definite statement, I hope the notice I have given will enable the Minister and his Secretary to meet the demand. In the first place, I referred to the question which was asked on two occasions in the House, and in reference to which on the last occasion an additional promise was given by the Minister in regard to the setting up of a Banking Commission. I would not support the demand for setting up a Commission of this kind if I thought that its recommendations, after a long inquiry, were likely to be shelved in the usual way. But rely on the statement of the Minister himself when he made a speech on the last occasion which held the view that that would not happen in this par ticular case. The Minister stated, roughly, that he realised as a result of the separation of our connection with England that the relationship of the State, as it now exists, should be defined and properly defined, as between the State and whatever banking institutions are in the country. If the Minister is not in a position to make a definite statement in the matter now, I hope he will be in a position to make such a definite statement before the House adjourns for three or four months.
The other question is in regard to the statement made by him in his Budget statement, when he said it may be necessary to introduce a No. 2 Finance Bill in relation to the alteration of the existing methods of taxation on motor lorries and on motor cars. Statements were made in the Dáil a short time ago, or at least answers were given to questions in relation to the position of the railways, which made one feel that all the blame for the existing state of disorganisation on the railway and the alleged consequential losses were due to the Railways Act. I do not by any means subscribe to that view. but I do hold, and I think it is very largely shared, that unless there is some limitation placed on the weight of the motor lorries plying over the roads, that there is a serious danger from that point of view to the existence of the railways, especially under the regulations laid down in the Railways, 1923. Act. The reason, however, that I want a statement on the matter is this—the Minister for Local Government and Public Health stated, when the estimates were under discussion, that proposals for the construction of trunk roads and the expenditure of an amount of money exceeding £1,000,000 would be laid before the Minister for Finance inside one month. That month has now expired, and the Minister, if he is going to raise or spend a large amount of money, exceeding £1,000,000, must have his mind made up as to what method of raising that money he is to take, and if he has his mind made up, and if he is in a position to make a statement upon that matter, I think we are entitled to have that statement before the House adjourns. This is the only opportunity that can be afforded to enable the Minister to make a pronouncement on the matter. The other question is in connection with the River Barrow. We have had placed in our hands a report by Professor Meyer-Peter, where he criticises the previous scheme by two different parties for the drainage of the Barrow, and where also he makes certain recommendations indicating that the preliminary work can be carried out without legislation. I want to say, in connection with this matter, that before the Christmas adjournment a Bill was promised, in connection with this particular work, and that that Bill, up to the present, has not been put into the hands of the printer, or at least it has not been put into our hands. I realise that until legislation is introduced, which will give the Government the right to enter the lands, that no work involving any great expenditure of a useful kind can be undertaken. In this report by Professor Meyer-Peter, and in a statement made by the Minister outside this House some time ago, it was indicated that £50,000 was to be spent during the present financial year. If the Minister would only ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce as to what are the numbers of unemployed in and around Athy, Monasterevan, Portarlington and the whole are covered by the Barrow, he would see the necessity for undertaking that particular work at once, because no work of any kind that will do any benefit in the area can be carried out during the flood season of the year. In the Athy No. 2 Rural District at the present time there are over 500 men unemployed. Most of these men are not entitled to unemployment insurance benefit. They will have to wait a long time if they are to wait for the benefits of the good weather of the past five or six weeks, and the employment that may be created as a consequence of that. I think that will probably carry them over the winter period.
One reason that has been given to me for the delay in connection with the carrying out of the work was the doubt that existed in the Minister's mind and in the minds of his advisers as to whether the people living in the area concerned would be in a position to bear a certain portion of the charge. I happened to be a member of a deputation that, with a number of other Deputies, waited upon the late Minister for Industry and Commerce, who was accompanied by the chief officials of his Department and of the Department of the Board of Works eighteen months ago. At that interview a statement was made by an official of the Board of Works that plans and schemes were in the pigeon-holes which would enable that work to be undertaken shortly. An offer was made on that particular occasion on behalf of the largest ratepayers in the locality that they would put up pound for pound. I expressed doubt at the time whether these people would be in a position to carry out that offer, and I may say that that doubt has increased since, because in the interval these people have gone through a very hard period. I think that the Government and the Minister should deal with that matter in the same way as they intend to deal with drainage affected under the Shannon scheme. In a clause in the Shannon Bill it is laid down that if the Minister is satisfied that lands are improved by drainage work, he may make, in this particular case, a charge on the people who own the land or who live in the locality. One does not yet know what it may mean, but I think that some such method should be adopted in regard to the drainage of the Barrow, and if that is the excuse of the Government it should not be the reason for holding up the Barrow scheme. This has been discussed for a hundred years, and we ought to have arrived at the time when the Minister for Finance, after his three years' careful study of the matter should be in a position to make an announcement. I have reason to realise and understand the conditions in the locality, and I have reason to know the benefits that would be conferred on the unemployed, especially in the areas of Kildare, Leix and Offaly, and if the Minister has any statement to make, I can assure him that it will be welcomed by the unemployed workers who are in a state of privation in the particular areas to which I refer.
Before the debate proceeds I desire to say that I allowed Deputy Davin to ask the Minister, or the Parliamentary Secretary, a number of questions. There is a rule which I am afraid seems to lie very deep in forgetfulness at the moment, that in discussing estimates Deputies cannot advocate legislation. I am afraid that a good deal of legislation would be required to do all the things which Deputy Davin has asked the Minister to make a statement upon. We cannot, on a Vote for the salary of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, have a discussion on banks, the expenses of railways, and the relations of the expenses of railways to the taxes on motor-lorries, the drainage of the River Barrow, and all that that implies. Seeing that Deputy Davin has only touched on the fringe of the subject, I feel that there are a great many other Deputies who have a great many other things to say from a great many other points of view, and I am sorry they cannot get an opportunity of saying them. The best I can do, having allowed Deputy Davin to say these things, which are undoubtedly important, is to allow a reply, but I cannot undertake to have a discussion on banks, railways, motor lorries, the drainage of the Barrow and other subjects on a vote for the Ministry of Finance. Deputies will realise that, on such a system we would never get to the end of the Estimate, which involves the salary of the Minister for Finance, whose authority is required for every expenditure of public money.
On the point on which Deputy Davin is most anxious to have an answer, it would, I think, be better if Deputy Professor O'Sullivan would speak. As regards the other matter, the question of the selection of the personnel of the Banking Commission is proceeding. I am not yet in a position to give names to the Dáil, but I may possibly be in a position to do so before the Recess. I am not sure. We have to get men from outside the country and careful inquiries have to be made before any one of these men can be approached, and no announcement could be made until people consent to act. As regards the Finance Bill No. 2 Bill to deal with vehicles, it has got no further. It will require serious attention by the Ministry for Finance, the Ministry of Local Government and the Ministry for Industry and Commerce. I do not think I indicated anything further than that, I hoped that we would be in a position to effect a change by the autumn. We, and certainly I, have not been in a position to give the time necessary to the consideration of what is really a difficult problem, and I think Deputy Davin will realise that it is a very difficult problem.
Would I be in a position to raise a question on the salary of the Parliamentary Secretary as to the work, which he is doing, or rather which he is not doing, under the 1924 Drainage Act?
Certainly, that is a question dealing with the administration of the Act. We will, however, hear the reply to Deputy Davin first.
In replying to this point, it is not to be taken that I am admitting responsibility, seeing that there is no legal responsibility on my particular Department in this respect. I quite realise, however, as Deputy Davin realises, that this is a very serious problem, and I think that that is the point of view not merely of my particular Department but of the Government generally. Some people refer to it with, perhaps, pardonable exaggeration, especially those living in the neighbourhood of the Barrow, as a national problem, but that feeling is less strongly shared the further you get away from the Barrow. There is a certain amount of truth in that description, and those who live near the Barrow might regard it rather as a national scandal. One writer to the Press, with whose views on other matters I generally disagree, rather picturesquely described the lot of the farmer who lives on the banks of the Barrow, and said that he had a sporting chance of a crop of natural meadow, but it was merely a sporting chance. The improvements that could be carried out and the benefits that would result from the proper drainage of the Barrow are very considerable. Palpable improvements, such as the improvement of the land, I need not mention, and some lands can be made very good. The improvements may not, however, perhaps be as great as some members of the deputation, to which Deputy Davin referred, expect. Other portions of it would probably continue to be poorish land. There are other benefits that might be effected. Some of the towns also suffer considerably from periodic flooding from the Barrow, and it is probable that the general health of the neighbourhood, not merely of the flooded areas but of other areas would be improved, and it has been suggested, I think with truth, that as a result of the drainage of this area and of the drainage of other areas in Ireland, the climate of the country might be improved and that we might have less rain and that the rainfall would be carried off more quickly. That is undoubtedly one side of the problem, but let us face the fact that there is another side, to this particular problem, that I should like Deputies from the different portions of the House and the country as well as the Deputies from the Barrow region to bear in mind, that is that the costs are undoubtedly very heavy. I do not say that the latest estimate of a proper scheme of drainage for the Barrow which amounts to £1,130,000, in the report of Meyer referred to by Deputy Davin would be sufficient to deter the Government from going on with this particular scheme, but remember the expense is a serious factor and the fact that it exceeds £1,000,000 is also a serious factor.
Roughly speaking, if you take money at 5½ per cent. and allow 40 years for redemption the sum paid back on the capital would amount to £70,000 a year. I doubt if the improved value of the land would amount to more than £20,000 per annum. As we are on this subject perhaps I might remove certain misconceptions that are in the public mind, that appeared in the public Press and that apparently, to a certain extent, are shared by Deputy Davin. He says that an official of the Board of Works present at those particular deputations said there was a scheme ready at hand in the pigeon-holes that could be worked out. I cannot find any record of that in the Press reports or in the official reports. Any way, the fact remains that statements of this kind are made—that plans are available and are in existence, and that it is some inherent cussedness of the Government Department which prevents them being carried into effect. All that has no foundation in fact. The Board of Works are not a kind of museum where excellent schemes are presented and are kept in glass cases for admiration and not for use. The report of Professor Meyer-Peter shows that there was a wealth of material in the sense that there was a lot of material in it. There was not a wealth of material in the sense that it was not valuable for immediate use, at all events.
There were two main schemes. They are 40 years old now. One was due to an eminent Irish engineer named Manning. On the whole, that was an incomplete sketch. There was not a scheme that could be taken up and worked out. But great hopes were based on the fact that there was a lot of material mainly from the investigations of another engineer named Gamble who had been employed to carry out a certain scheme propounded by the Allport Commission. He did a great deal of detailed work but never finished the work. The scheme was never completed. How incomplete it was we are now in a position to know after it has been investigated in the last few months. He was not a Board of Works engineer. The plans were simply given to the Board of Works after he had carried the business out.
I might refer to the costs. Manning said his scheme would cost £470,000 roughly. Hassard, an engineer member of the Castletown Commission, said that was insufficient. He said you would have to pay £560,000. In that there was to be no work below Athy, the assumption being that the drainage of the Barrow above Athy would do no damage, and would not cause flooding below Athy. Manning strongly argued for that view. The latest investigator we had on the matter entirely disagreed, and how entirely the Deputies can gather if they refer to Professor Meyer-Pter's report, where a great deal of the cost of the work is attributable to the work necessary below Carlow. Gamble's scheme was too much tied up. It is not radical enough and I am afraid the general purpose was to cut down expense as much as possible. He was carrying out a scheme not his own. This must be said in his favour. But the scheme was imposed upon him by a Commission, on which you had two engineers from across Channel. An examination of the documents he left behind him shows that not merely was the scheme incomplete, but that the costs of the scheme were cut altogether too fine. You will find undoubtedly the costings for taking out the material from the stream of the Barrow, and putting it on the banks, but there is no separate estimate for the making of that into embankments. In every possible way there was a decided effort to cut down the cost of the scheme. We determined to have those documents which are at our disposal thoroughly examined. We got one of our own engineers to examine the scheme, and he suggested we should employ an engineer whose reputation was above cavil to give it a thorough examination. He did; the report has been submitted to the Dáil, and presumably the Deputies have read it. The general results of the report were by no means favourable to the idea that we had anything to start working on. I may read out one or two passages relevant to this scheme. First, with regard to Manning's:—
"As regards the working out of the two schemes it must be mentioned that Mr. Manning's scheme, except for a very short report, consists chiefly of an outline longitudinal section. Nothing is shown regarding the details of the manner of determining the new course of the river. Mr. Gamble's scheme is worked out more fully, as detailed plans on a considerable scale are available for the stretch from Clogrennan to Monasterevan. These plans, however, are radically incomplete."
I want to emphasise the last sentence. "There are several alternatives ... Hence it is absolutely out of the question to carry out at the present time either the Manning or the Gamble scheme without studying afresh the whole problem from the beginning." On page 5 we have "Direct water measurements do not exist." Then he points out the actual cross-sections prepared by Gamble really only deal with the bed of the river, and do not extend beyond the river banks, and, therefore, do not take into account the immediate neighbourhood of the river. It was one of the features of the Gamble scheme that back drains would have to be built and so it was necessary to know the contour of the land beyond the banks of the river. That is not done. The cross-section is stopped at the river bank. Also borings were not carried out. In river construction a great deal will depend on the existence of rock. That affects not merely the regulation of the river as an engineering problem but still more seriously it affects the question of costs.
There are undoubtedly places where rock exists, but there may be other places, and we are in this position, as a result of the works carried out forty years ago, that we do not know whether rock exists in these other places. Consequently we are recommending borings in the different parts of the river and wherever it is proposed to put new canals. This refers to the unsatisfactory nature of the estimate of the cost by Mr. Gamble. Then you will find at the close of the report, or practically at the close, at the end of Chapter 5, various things that have to be done before works of this kind can be undertaken, pages 38 and 39: "It is always a risk to attempt to regulate a river before all the necessary data have been ascertained beyond doubt. The longitudinal section suggested might require to be altered according to the result of the borings. On that account it is to be recommended that all the preliminary investigations should be carried out during the summer of 1925. These consist of:—The completion of the ground measurements in the district, contour lines showing levels from foot to foot will be required for the whole flood zone, cross sections should be checked. The river axis should be divided up into miles with a starting point at Duke's Weir as the zero point. Determination of the depth and character of the foundation of the bridges. Completion of the bridges, plans, completion of detailed side plans at all bridges; exact determination of the present water power conditions at all the mills so as to be able to meet possible claims made later on," and, finally, in No. 7: "Elaboration of the detailed scheme based on the present general scheme and the surveys suggested above."
That is the engineering side of the problem we have to face, but in addition there is the question of valuation. That was the rather disconcerting result of the examination of the very considerable mass of documents we had at our disposal, that in reality there is no plan that at the present moment can be carried out. One of the first things that would have to be done is the drawing up by a body of engineers of a proper plan based on proper surveys, borings, and so on. As regards the other side of the scheme, the financial side referred to by Deputy Davin, for the modern history of the scheme we need not go back a couple of hundred years. We have been in charge of this for the last three years, but fifteen months is quite sufficient to refer to. I will refer to the deputation which was received by the Minister for Industry and Commerce on the 3rd March, 1924, and to an account given in a paper that, unfortunately, is no longer with us. "Barrow floods. Influential deputation meets the Minister. Spirited offer. £1 for every £1 of Government grant." So far as any deputation could be described as representative at the time, it was a representative deputation. It was introduced at the Government offices by Deputy Conlan and Senator McEvoy, and comprised Messrs. Conlan, T.D.; H. Colohan, T.D.; G. Wolfe, T.D.; W. Davin, T.D.; Senator MacEvoy, clergymen of both denominations, various professional, business and manufacturing gentlemen, and so on.
Were there many privates in the ranks?
Then the really interesting point of real departure comes. As I say, the modern history of the Barrow scheme dated from that visit and the interview with the Minister. "Senator MacEvoy informed the Minister on behalf of the Barrow Drainage Committee representing the upper reaches of the river, that the Committee would be prepared to pay £1 for every £1 granted by the Government, and the Minister replied that, so far as he knew, this was a considerable improvement on previous propositions." I want to take that quite seriously. If a work of this kind is to be undertaken by the Government it is reasonably certain that people will expect a grant from the Government. Such an expectation on the part of the people affected might not be unreasonable. There is also what Deputy Davin has suggested, people whose lands benefited should be asked to pay to the extent of the benefit they are expected to get from this particular scheme. In addition to that, however, it is quite fair, as the deputation suggested, that besides the Government grant to bridge over what might be a reasonable offer from the Government, and what the improved lands should fairly bear, that the other lands of catchment area, as suggested by the deputation, or the counties affected ought to bear their share. That is, if the Government representing the country as a whole, is going to contribute money to a scheme of this kind, if people in Tirconaill, Mayo and Kerry are to contribute in a special way to this particular scheme, that is all the more reason why a special contribution should be made in the counties affected and directly benefited, and from the counties in which the money will be spent.
Therefore, the offer of that deputation, that is, the fifty-fifty proposition put up by the deputation, is a practical one to suggest as a basis for going on with it, a Government grant, a contribution by the land benefited and a contribution by the rates of the different counties in which the benefited lands are, or in which the money is spent. That is a fair proposition. The amount, of course, to be borne by the county rate as distinct from the rate on improved land will vary in the case of each county. It might go up to 7d. in some places. In other places it might be much less. The first step, however, we will have to consider is the necessity of putting forward a workable scheme. We will have to set our engineers working and get them to draw up a scheme, a particular kind of scheme that will be carried out, that will rest on detailed measurements and valuation. That is the first step, and we are quite willing to take that preliminary step. I think that is the principal matter I have to refer to on this question.
Is the Minister prepared to make any announcement in regard to the preliminary work to be carried out this year?
The preliminary work you will find detailed in the pages I referred to, but does Deputy Davin mean another thing altogether, does he mean, not the preliminary work in the sense I used the words, but the portion of the work that might be carried out before the preliminary work is done? I wonder is that what he means.
How is it proposed to spend the £50,000 which the Minister for Finance said is to be spent this year?
I said that amount was available, and as a matter of fact we were advised that probably it might be quite usefully spent or that a considerable sum might quite well, safely and economically, be spent prior to the completion of the plans. I understand, however, that doubts have been thrown on that and a suggestion has been made now that very little can be spent with the certainty that it would be usefully spent. We did not know until Professor Meyer-Peter had been called in how incomplete and how imperfect the existing plans were.
I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a few questions. In the first place I would like to know the qualifications of this engineer and the experience he had in the drainage of rivers. One would think that the last place in Europe that the Government should have gone to for an expert in drainage would be Switzerland, a country of impetuous torrents quite the opposite to the Barrow, which is a sluggish river, with, in some places, a fall of 12 inches to the mile. This gentleman, except he made excursions into Holland, I am sure never saw a river like the Barrow before. The Parliamentary Secretary's speech will be very disheartening to people looking for relief from the flooding of the Barrow. Early in the Session a Barrow Drainage Bill was included in the Government's programme of legislation. It was very near the bottom of the list, but we expected that before the close of the Session that Bill would have seen the light. It is a great disappointment that it has not been introduced. With regard to the finance of the scheme, I would not advise the Parliamentary Secretary to rely too much upon the fifty-fifty proposal as a basis.
Another broken promise. You are trying to rival the Minister now.
I think that offer was made without much consideration, and that it would be impossible for the lands benefited to bear such an impost.
What about the counties?
That is another proposition. In all the schemes that have come up there were three areas of charge fixed: first, the lands immediately benefited; secondly, the lands partly benefited, and third, the catchment area. That was considered a very fair proposition. If the Parliamentary Secretary would like to go outside the catchment area, I am sure the people inside would have no objection. The question of the Barrow drainage has been discussed for the last 40 years but we have never got any forwarder. In the upper reaches of the river there are obstructions which could be removed at very little cost, such as fallen trees, and weeds which have been allowed to grow in the bed of the river. If there is money available that preliminary work might be done. We are told that £50,000 is available, and that preliminary work would give considerable relief from abnormal floods.
How many acres approximately will be benefited by this drainage scheme?
Forty-five thousand acres.
I wish to support Deputy Davin's appeal that something should be done to relieve the people along the valley of the Barrow from the effects of this flooding. I believe it is much longer than 40 years since this question was first mooted. A large amount of unemployment in that area could be relieved if this work was started. In the town of Carlow-Graigue the people have been suffering great hardships for many years past.
I hope the Deputy will be able to persuade the Minister of that.
During the last two years I passed through the principal street of that town on two occasions and had to drive through three feet of water for over a quarter of a mile. That water remained for a fortnight or three weeks. The people have to block up their doors with bags of sand or cement in order to keep out the water. After the water has subsided the houses remain damp and cold for a long time. One can imagine the effect that must have had upon the health of the people, especially young children. Some years ago there was a very extensive factory in that town, but, owing to the encroachments of the Barrow, the business had to be given up. I join with Deputy Davin in appealing to the Government to do something soon to relieve the great hardship which exists all along the Barrow.
Professor Meyer-Peter in his report definitely mentions that work can be done this year with advantage that must be done, such as cleaning the river from end to end of weeds, and that certain rocks should be cleared out of the way between Monasterevan and Athy. These are two things that could be done at once, and must be done whatever occurs. That work would give a fair amount of employment and show the people that the Government intend to keep their word.
If the Government have any doubt in regard to the opinion of the local people as to the amount of the charge to be put upon the locality concerned, would the Parliamentary Secretary undertake to consult with the new county councils or the Drainage Committee, which has been in operation, with a view to arriving at some agreement?
I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what is being done throughout the country under the 1924 Drainage Act. Is any work being done, or what benefits have come to the State since it was passed? What are the intentions of the Government with regard to the administration of that Act? Some time ago certain necessary works in my constituency were brought to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary, and inspectors or engineers have gone there and made reports. Was there any intention, when that Act was being passed, of carrying out any work under it? I suggest that it is time that some work should be done. Conditions at the moment permit of the doing of this work at perhaps a lower cost than might be possible later.
The rivers are considerably lower than they were at any period since the Act was passed; that in itself makes it possible to do work that could not have been done as well at any other period, and there is the possibility of receiving better value for any money spent. The Parliamentary Secretary is well aware of the conditions that exist in my constituency. He knows the need that exists in regard to certain works. Those works ought to be undertaken at the earliest moment. We want to know the intentions of the Parliamentary Secretary. To a certain extent we are getting tired of thinking that the work is going to be done. There is no sign of any practical effort being made to commence the work. If the Act is going to be of any service it is time that its provisions would be put into operation. The time is now opportune, and if there is no intention to apply the Act it is as well that we would be so informed.
The question I intend to raise has reference to the Government stockbroker. I see that there is a sum of £1,000, inclusive, provided in this year's estimate as salary. What functions are carried out by the Government stockbroker? What appertains to this office? Does this gentleman get, in addition, any fees in connection with the purchase of stock? I presume he deals only with the National Loan stock. Can the Minister give us some indication of what he actually does?
He buys and sells stock for the Government. We attempted to get an arrangement made whereby the Government stockbroker, who does a very considerable amount of work for us, would do it at half fees. We could not get the Stock Exchange to adopt any rule that would enable that to be done. They did agree to a rule which would enable a fixed fee or salary to be paid, in lieu of the ordinary fees, on every transaction. I think the salary comes to about half of what the amount of fees would be. Not only does the stockbroker deal with National Loan, but he invests any funds that may be in the hands of the Government. For instance, we have now over £2,000,000 in the Post Office Savings Bank. Some of that is advanced, in the form of Ways and Means advances, into the Exchequer; but some is invested. It would be preferable that all would be invested. For convenience sake some of it has been used by way of Ways and Means advances. There are various funds that have been invested from time to time and investments have to be changed. All these things are done by the Government stockbroker for the remuneration that is set down here. The amount is considerably less than if the work were done on the system of paying the usual commission. It was an arrangement arrived at for the purpose of economy.
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would give the House some information as regards the intentions of the Government in the matter of drainage? During the last few years very large areas of land were submerged; in some instances people were obliged, by reason of the heavy floods, to use boats. It is very necessary that something should be done to have the area subjected to flooding properly drained; work of that nature would, to a great extent, relieve the unemployment in the country.
A question was raised in regard to Professor E. Meyer-Peter. Unfortunately, I have not got a full list of his qualifications here. When experts were being sought for the Shannon scheme and people from different portions of Europe were considered, Professor Meyer-Peter was chosen as an hydraulic engineer. We found that he was a man whose experience was considerable in this matter, and a man on whose judgment, on whose hard work, and on whose capability of presenting an unbiassed statement we could absolutely rely. He has had wide experience of embankments and the drainage of rivers. We did consider that we would get the best satisfaction from him, and we felt that, on the whole, we would get better value from Professor Meyer-Peter than from anybody else. Not merely has he had experience in Switzerland, but he was in Italy and France as an hydraulic engineer. I am quite sure I could satisfy Deputy Conlan with Professor Meyer-Peter's qualifications. Whatever may be said about not carrying out this scheme, the qualifications of the engineer are certainly above question. It is quite possible that he may never have seen a river like the Barrow—not actually the river itself but the way in which it has been neglected, and the fact that the problem has never been tackled properly. That is a fact that would strike any continental coming to this country. He would be impressed. not merely as regards the drainage, but as regards various other matters as well.
Deputy Conlan described my speech as very disheartening to people looking for relief from flooding. I had to face the facts. We could introduce a Bill, but we had no scheme. Until we received Professor Meyer-Peter's verdict, we had hopes that we could use some of the material we had in hand with some modifications. Now his description is that any investigations and schemes prepared before were radically incomplete. Deputy Conlan struck one note which was very serious and disheartening. He suggested the Government should not take too seriously the pound for pound offer made. If the Government is undertaking this scheme, it is undertaking it on that basis. It would be unfair to ask the rest of the country to undertake what, if the counties concerned did not give assistance, would amount to, roughly speaking, about four-fifths of the cost of the scheme, the rest to be paid by the improved lands.
Will that scheme be applicable also to the Shannon area that is likely to be drained?
There was one thing in Deputy Davin's speech that I was incapable of following. That was his reference to the Shannon. The Shannon scheme is not a drainage scheme.
It has nothing to do with this Estimate for the Department of Finance, and we will not hear anything about it.
I was merely going to point out that there is no analogy between the two cases. In both cases there will be lands that will benefit and they will have to pay, but it is quite clear that the lands benefited cannot pay anything like the whole cost, and it is equally clear that the Government should not be asked to meet the rest of the cost in a scheme of this kind.
Where is the money to come from?
There was another point as to the work that could be done this year. Professor Meyer-Peter issued a very strong preliminary note of warning. I have not the report at the moment, but he does issue a warning as to the danger of undertaking any work before the scheme is fully worked out. Having done that, he suggests that certain work is, perhaps, possible. The precise point referred to by Deputy Wolfe was the clearing away of certain rocks between Monasterevan and Athy. Professor Meyer-Peter says that if the rocks at Bert and Monasterevan are removed, it commits you to the longitudinal section being possibly determined, which you may change.
Furthermore, there is the question of the depth, how far down you are to go in removing the rock. Until you drain the waters lower down, the removal of the rock will cost ever so much more. The proper thing in the case of a river is to start below and work upwards. It is quite possible that there are obstacles and obstructions, such as trees lying across the river at Mountmellick and places like that. These could be usefully removed. I do not say that this work ought not to be done or will not be done, but the question of the staff at our disposal has to be borne in mind. If we set men apart to do this work, then we shall have complaints not merely from Deputy Baxter but from other Deputies about the work in their areas—work of maintenance under the Act of 1924. They will naturally protest and say that there is work of this kind to be done and why not do the work which the Department is entitled—not to say required—to do before tackling this other work which will naturally form portion of the general scheme of the Barrow drainage.
That brings me to the point raised by Deputy Baxter. It is not a fact that we have not done any work under the Act of 1924. We have done work in various counties. We have put up various schemes. Various schemes have been put before the Ministry of Finance and have been approved of by the Ministry of Finance. We have sent down our engineers to see when the work could be started and, in many cases, we have started the work. Notwithstanding the recent fine weather, in many cases in the West of Ireland, owing to the excessive rains during the winter, work could not reasonably be started. But work has been started in Kildare, Galway, Mayo and various other parts of the country. In all, about twenty schemes have been put up. Deputy Baxter complains that in his particular county no work has been undertaken. Deputy Baxter has the misfortune, or perhaps good fortune, to represent Cavan. Cavan furnishes an extremely difficult problem. The points that Deputy Baxter dealt with are extremely difficult. The Deputy is particularly interested in the drainage of the River Rag. That river raises not merely a difficult engineering problem but, as I pointed out to the Deputy, almost an international problem. The River Rag belongs to an existing drainage district on which the whole rate has not yet been paid back. As a result of that, that portion of the river is liable for the existing drainage rate for repayment of the capital sum on the Lough and River Erne drainage district, of which seven-eighths are in the Six Counties. That is a problem in which Deputy Baxter is interested and I am interested. It is a problem that I would be very keen on getting settled but it is extremely difficult.
Where you have one drainage district imposed on another drainage district, with a double drainage maintenance rate for the inside district such as in the case of the two drainage districts—Loughs Gouna, Oughter and River Erne and Lough Oughter and River Erne—the problem is difficult to deal with. How to do work within the limitations of the Act of 1924, and not put an unfair burden on the people of the inner area, which has to bear a double charge, is a problem that has, up to the present, baffled us. But I am not without hope that we may be able to do something in that particular district. As regards the Awbeg, I cannot help the Awbeg at present. I have no responsibility for the Awbeg flooding roads in County Cork. It is not an existing drainage district. Therefore, the Board of Works cannot go in and do anything to it. I have often wondered how such a sluggish river got into the County Cork. It is not what I would expect from that county. Apart from the engineering question, which is rather difficult, we cannot deal with the Awbeg. We would be trespassers if we went in. The Deputy will have to wait until the Bill, which passed through the Seanad to-day, has become law, and then proceed in the way prescribed by the Bill. The initiative can be taken by the local people affected by the flooding, and I hope the engineering difficulties will not be too great. As I pointed out, they are very considerable. There will then be the question of compensation. In order to relieve the upper lands, you will have to buy lands lower down to which the water can flow. How far the whole scheme will be an economical proposition is a question that can be considered when the initial steps are being taken by the local people affected.
Might I ask whether I would be in order in drawing the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to an area which is continuously flooded during the winter in the city of Dublin. The area is known as North Lotts, in the parish of St. Laurence O'Toole. From 300 to 500 houses are flooded to the extent of three or four feet three or four times a year in that area.
All these questions should have been raised on the Estimate for the Board of Works and not on this Estimate at all.
I thought when I heard Deputy Bolger mentioning a special case that I might do so too.
I heard all that Deputy Byrne heard in that connection. If Deputy Byrne proposes to follow the example of those other Deputies in that regard he is quite justified in doing so. We can go into the flooded areas all over the country, if we are to proceed from the Barrow drainage to other drainage schemes and to a flooded area in the city of Dublin.
I have no legal power to deal with the area referred to by Deputy Byrne.
It is not in a scheduled district.
It is not an existing drainage district. There is no such drainage district in the city of Dublin.
I will raise the matter on another occasion.
An opportunity can easily be got for doing so.
I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he intends to take more active steps to find a solution for this problem in Cavan, which he says has so far baffled him.
I am trying to do so.
How often has the Parliamentary Secretary tried to do so?
Every week at least I think it over.
Thinking is not enough.
I move that the Committee report progress.
Agreed.