It was agreed yesterday that Votes No. 10 and 11 would be discussed together.
IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE No. 11—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £262,150 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Chárta, 1929, chun caiteachais i dtaobh Foirgintí Puiblí; chun coinneáil-suas Páirceanna agus Oibreacha Puiblí áirithe; chun déanamh agus coinneáil-suas Oibreacha Dréineála; agus chun Ildeontaisí i gCabhair.
That a sum not exceeding £262,150 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for expenditure in respect of Public Buildings; for the maintenance of certain Parks and Public Works; for execution and maintenance of Drainage Works; and Sundry Grants in Aid.
—(Minister for Finance) (Resumed).
I referred yesterday evening to the position of a weir in County Leitrim and pointed out that the work in connection with it had been undertaken over eight years ago but that the effect of the work was nil because of the attitude of Lord Leitrim, who insisted at that time that the work would interfere with an ornamental lake adjoining his demesne. The scheme was carried out eight years ago at the public expense, but it was of no benefit to the farmers because of this weir. As I say, it was contended for a long time that the weir was necessary for fishing purposes. Within the last twelve months the present owner has withdrawn the claim that there are fishery rights attached to it because he was confronted with the Fishery Department, who contended that he should make alterations in the weir in order to comply with the fishery regulations. The position has now been fined down to the point that the only purpose of the retention of the weir is to preserve the lake. I understand that legally if the lake is to be preserved for ornamental purposes for the demesne it should be exclusively within his territory. In this case it abuts his demesne on one side and the lands of the adjoining farmers on the other side. In that case he cannot legally maintain the position which was put forward. Therefore I urge that it would be only reasonable that the weir should be removed, as the drainage scheme was carried out eight years ago and was since maintained by the farmers, who got no benefit from it because of the flooding caused by this weir. In my opinion it is the duty of the Board of Works to undertake that work and see that the work which they were primarily responsible for is made effective for the benefit of the farmers.
As I pointed out yesterday, the Board of Works is to a great extent ineffective as regards the main object which it should serve, and that is, beneficial works for the farmers. On looking over the Estimates for County Leitrim, I find that a sum of £11,555 has been estimated for the building of Civic Guard barracks. I can understand the necessity for such barracks, but I think that there should be a certain sense of proportion in regard to the amount of money spent in County Leitrim, and that the amount of money for housing accommodation for the Civic Guards should have a certain ratio in regard to the amount of money spent on drainage schemes or for the improvement of dwelling-houses for farmers. I would like to know what amount the Board of Works has spent in Co. Leitrim on any of these drainage schemes, and what money has been spent upon the repair of schoolhouses. I can tell those responsible for the condition of schools in County Leitrim that these schools are a disgrace to any community. I go further and say that, while agriculture is about the only industry in the county, when an agricultural class is being given by the Education Department in County Leitrim, the housing accommodation provided for it is generally a loft over a byre. That is the accommodation provided for the most important industry of the country, and that is the respect which is shown to the young men who are asked to follow that particular industry which should have first consideration in regard to accommodation.
When it comes to providing accommodation for four or five young men, the amount spent out of the public purse varies from £1,500 to £1,700 for housing accommodation alone. I would like to contrast these things, not from any spirit of vindictiveness but to show that the measures and policy of the Board of Works are not at all in keeping with the requirements of the people. I would urge that the Board of Works should be brought down to what are the real requirements of the community and that their organisation should be directed to serving the people in the most suitable way. There is certainly one side to which they are very attentive, the extent to which they come forward to build palatial buildings up and down the country for one set of officials, but there is complete neglect for the essential services by which the country is maintained. Recently I had to make application to the Board of Works on behalf of a farmer who was applying for a grant to make improvements on his farm buildings, but I was told that the Board of Works no longer carry out that work and that loans would be allotted through the Agricultural Credit Corporation. Having some knowledge of the working of the Agricultural Credit Corporation in my part of the country, I can only conclude that so far as further loans for repairs or improvements in the way of farm buildings are concerned, they can come to an end because the Agricultural Credit Corporation has almost invariably turned down applications coming from County Leitrim or the adjoining counties.
We can conclude, therefore, that as far as loans for building accommodation or for the improvement of buildings are concerned, there is no source to apply to. I consider that most unfair. I consider that the Board of Works could be a very useful institution if it were remodelled to deal with a situation such as each locality requires and not to be setting up standards beyond the ability of a locality to meet. There are various schemes of drainage that would have been very useful but they have been turned down by the Board of Works because a Board of Works scheme is watertight and unless a certain standard is attained the Board of Works will have nothing to do with it. There is the drainage of patches of bogs and of little rivers which cause considerable damage in various districts, but from the point of view of the Board of Works such drainage schemes would not be an economic proposition. If, however, they were undertaken by the farmers of the district during the slack months of the year much benefit could be derived from such a scheme. Until the Board of Works is remodelled to meet the situation as it exists in rural Ireland, the Board of Works is not a useful asset. Its expenditure is colossal and is entirely out of proportion to what the country can afford. For these reasons I shall oppose this Vote.
The Parliamentary Secretary stated in his opening remarks that when drainage schemes are undertaken the farmers are consulted and that care is taken that they will understand the position created after the scheme is completed. I had reason to make some inquiries in connection with a maintenance scheme in County Waterford, and it was pointed out to me that the farmers had not been consulted with reference to it. The position now is that these men have to pay a very considerable sum for fifteen years for work which will be of no benefit to them whatsoever. Had they been consulted before the scheme was undertaken and had they understood what they were liable for, that scheme would never have gone through. I trust that before undertaking such schemes in future care will be taken to see that the farmers will understand what their liability will be. The question of the Barrow scheme has been dealt with by previous speakers, and I do not propose to go into it in detail. What has been said applies to Waterford as well as to other places.
A sum of £25,000 is to be spent on the barrack in Waterford. The people of the district are glad to have the money spent in reconstruction, but many people are asking why so much money should be spent when practically no use will be made of the barrack. They are inquiring when men will be drafted into it, and if not they fail to see why so much money should be spent. Perhaps it would be no harm to draw attention to the fact that before any such expenditure is undertaken in future care should be taken to see it will be justified, that the premises will be occupied and that some return will be given for the money so expended.
I do not know if anybody has dealt with the question of ancient monuments, but I have had reason to put a question to the Minister for Education in connection with some excavations that took place in Waterford County. I understand that the ancient monuments protected by the Board of Works consist mainly of buildings of stone, of which a large remnant is most deserving of preservation. Perhaps it would be no harm to call attention to the fact that there are other monuments worth preserving and which are liable to be raided by any inquiring outsiders. We all know what happened to the Irish gold ornaments when they came into the hands of foreigners. It is just possible that there may be valuable remains in the country yet to be discovered, and I would like to know if there is any means of protecting these things when they are discovered. At present any outsider who cares to come along and who gets permission from a local resident can excavate in the vicinity of monuments, and perhaps make valuable discoveries there. These people are not particular as to the rights of the people of this country. We know what has happened in Egypt where tombs have been rifled and very valuable treasures taken out of the country. Perhaps it would be no harm if precautions were taken to see that the same thing may not happen in this country. It is quite possible that there are many very valuable relics yet to be discovered in Ireland, and every care should be taken to see that strangers are not allowed to come along and get possession of them.
In connection with this Vote, I wish to draw attention to the condition of the residents in the Ballinaglera district, County Leitrim. Recently the mountain rivers, the Stony river and the Yellow river, have done considerable damage to the crops of the people who reside there. On Wednesday, the 24th October, I addressed a question to the Minister in connection with this matter asking him to give a grant or otherwise to help these poor people to tide over the distress which would result in consequence of the flooding. The answer that the Minister gave me was that there was no existing drainage district and that consequently no action could be taken by the Commissioners for the improvement of the drainage conditions in this area. At the same time I wrote to the Minister for Local Government directing his attention to the distress that exists there, and the Minister replied that it was a matter for the Leitrim County Council to deal with this distress. I do not think it is. I think it is a matter for the Government to take up and see what they can do there.
When I asked the Minister for Finance a supplementary question, if it was not the duty of the Local Government Department to relieve distress of this nature, the Parliamentary Secretary replied that that was a matter which did not concern his Department. That is a very callous way of dealing with distress of this nature. I visited the place on Tuesday last, and it is a miracle to me how the houses in the little village of Stradrinan, where there are eight families living, were not swept away by the flood. The people are living in constant dread that if a flood comes from the mountains their houses will be swept away. I understand the Land Commission sent down inspectors, and that the Government have their reports. The Local Government Department and the Board of Works should see that something is done for these people. The land is mountainous and of very poor quality, and it is a mystery to me how the people eke out an existence there. I understand that the inspectors who were down there said it would be necessary to build houses. If it is necessary to do so, that work should be undertaken at once. If the Board of Works has the matter in hand, they should see that the houses are built immediately, so that the people would be taken out of danger. There is another remedy, of course. The Land Commission have power to deal with this matter by removing these people. There are only 234 families in the parish, and when the young people reach fifteen or sixteen years of age they have to go to America. The district is as well known to three Deputies on the Government Benches as it is to me, and I am sure that it is their duty, as well as mine, to press the Ministers responsible, so that something would be done for these poor people. I hope we will not have to bring this matter up again, that the Ministers responsible will look after this district and, if it is necessary to do anything—and I know it is—it should be done at once. It is not when a disaster occurs it should be done. A disaster may occur any time, and then everyone will motor down and will wonder why something was not done. Now is the time to do it. The Government have the money and the means, and surely to goodness they should take steps to ascertain what could be done for these people at once.
In connection with this Vote, there is the Rinn and Black River drainage scheme. There is a Drainage Board there, and from the 15th October, 1923, to the 31st January, 1928, levies amounting to £1,758 were made on the ratepayers in connection with that drainage scheme. The people who are called upon to pay these levies complain that they are not getting value for the money. Deputy Maguire referred to the reason—because there is an illegal weir at Tarmonbarry that must be removed. In October, 1927, as a result of local pressure brought to bear on a Government Department, the owner of their weir, Colonel Clements, was served with notice to have a proper pass constructed, and that if he did not do so legal proceedings would be taken. Whatever pressure the landlord was able to bring to bear upon the Department in question, the order which was originally served on the landlord was revoked, and an order was served on the Drainage Board. The Drainage Board is not responsible for this weir at all. They want to get it removed, but the Government stepped in and saved the landlord in this instance. Deputy Maguire stated the reason why this weir is being kept there. It is kept there to beautify the landlord's demesne, and the people are asked to pay £1,750 for the drainage of this district, while all their work comes to naught because the weir is kept there. I hope we will not have to bring this matter forward again. The landlord is the lessee and owner of this fishery pass, and the Drainage Board cannot understand why they should be held responsible. They believe it is simply a move by a Government Department to save the landlord. A resolution was passed by the Drainage Board some time ago asking the Government to take steps to remove the weir wall on the Shannon at Tarmonbarry, in order to prevent flooding on the upper reaches of the Shannon, between Lough Allen and Tarmonbarry. I addressed a Question to the Minister for Finance in regard to this matter, and the reply I received was to the effect that the removal of the weir wall would have no considerable effect on the flooding unless the channel of the river were improved between Rooskey and Tarmonbarry, and that the cost would be £100,000. As a result of the refusal of the Government to undertake this work, the land is flooded from Lough Allen to Tarmonbarry. The flooding is caused by this obstruction, and, since the Government does not intend to carry out an improvement, they should at least either compensate the people whose land is constantly flooded, cease charging them rent, or have the lands revalued. It is but the merest justice that the Government should do that. If it is necessary to spend this money removing this obstruction on the Shannon between Rooskey and Tarmonbarry, they should undertake that work, because, as a result of that obstruction, the land on the upper reaches of the river is constantly flooded. There is a suspicion in the minds of the people there that the Board of Works wishes to facilitate the interests of the Navigation Company—that is, that the level of the river must be kept up to suit the Navigation Company. On the other hand the farmers are persecuted and prosecuted for rents that they should not be asked to pay. I am told by people who know, that the level of the river is kept higher now than it was thirty years ago. They say the reason is this: that the landlords, bad and all as they were, took an interest in their tenants, and, when they came to pay their rents, made an allowance for the flooded lands. The Land Commission get these rents now, and the people get no redress. The Land Commission does not concern itself with whether the lands are flooded or not. The Board of Works takes no interest beyond extracting rents. I trust this matter will be seen to at once.
In connection with the Aghavilla drainage scheme, I addressed a question to the Minister for Finance on the 17th October asking by what percentage it was intended to increase the amount of the Government grant. The reply I got was that the basis on which free grants under the Arterial Drainage Act, 1925, were made has been fixed by the Government, and that it would not be feasible to alter this basis in the case of the Aghavilla proposed drainage scheme. That is not at all in accordance with the letter written by the Board of Public Works on the 3rd August, 1927, to the Leitrim County Council, in which it is stated that the Government intended to give a grant of 50 per cent. of the amount required under the drainage scheme. The letter states that if the County Council think it desirable that the scheme should be pressed, the Minister for Finance is willing to ask the Dáil to grant fifty per cent. of the actual cost of the scheme, which, on the figures at present furnished, would be £975, provided that the County Council will grant out of the county funds twenty per cent. of the actual cost, say £300.
Mr. BOURKE
Is the county council willing to contribute?
My question has nothing whatever to do with that. I was simply asking by what percentage you intended to increase the Government grant, and you did not answer me. We never can get an answer to a question we put, or, if we do, it is an evasive answer. This is an evasive answer. I asked by what percentage you intended to increase the Government grant. The Board of Works in their letter offered us fifty per cent. of the cost, and what I wish to know is if the Minister is still prepared to allow us the fifty per cent., or if he will increase it, and if so, by what percentage. That is what we want to know before we go on with the scheme. In connection with the rebuilding of old R.I.C. barracks, everybody wonders what they are required for and why they are being rebuilt at all. The people are not able to live and pay their way, and here we have thousands of pounds being spent for the accommodation of the police. The total sum for the work in connection with the Leitrim ex-R.I.C. barracks is £1,750. In 1920 this house, with a farm of land of thirty acres, was sold for £2,300. The house was valued by an architect, who was engaged by the landlady, at £1,800, and that was a close estimate, because we see here that it will take £1,750 to rebuild this house. In 1920, a short time after this lady bought the barracks, it, with a private house attached, was burned. The landlady was not allowed to attend the English courts then existing to plead her case for compensation. I understand that Judge Brown was first going to award her the sum of £300, but somebody interfered on her behalf in the court, and finally he awarded £750. Then the Compensation (Ireland) Commission, known as the Shaw Commission, came along, and they awarded £750, with a reinstatement condition under which £400 was to be deducted for the rebuilding of the premises. The unconditional portion of the award, with accrued interest and costs, is alleged by the Department of Finance to have been discharged to this lady on the 1st February, 1924, that is, the difference between £400 and £750—£350. The premises were conveyed by deed to the Commissioners of Public Works in March, 1927, and a sum of £200 was awarded to the landlady for her interest in the premises. A sum of £200 was also alleged to have been paid in respect of repairs carried out to the private house attached to the barracks that was burned in 1920. I consider from my reading of the whole case that this lady has been systematically robbed by the Government, and that a grave injustice has been done. This is apparent to anybody who hears the details of the case. A sum of £1,750 is included in the Estimate as the amount which it will take to rebuild this house, and all that this lady was allowed was a sum of £350—the difference between £400 and £750. I would like the Minister to pay particular attention to this case, as there are other features in connection with it which I am investigating at present. On all these grounds I oppose the passing of this Vote.
Mr. BRODRICK
Whatever the faults of the Board of Works may be in the matter of schools, I certainly believe that they deserve great credit for the amount of work they have done during the last few years. In the West there has certainly been a great change. There the schools are very modern, and certainly the sanitary requirements are up-to-date. I hope they will keep the pressure up, because in the West we have a big number of very poor schools. On the matter of drainage a good deal has been said, but under the 1924 Act a considerable amount of work has been done. The Board of Works have taken on schemes, and I know that in County Galway for two years about five hundred men have been working under the 1924 Act. Then we come to the later Act. In County Galway at present there are schemes with the County Council amounting to in or about £70,000. Five schemes amount to about £34,000; and of that the Government are giving grants to the extent of £16,000. The County Council is asked to pay a small contribution to each scheme, some contributions being as low as a six and one-third per cent. Up to the present they have refused to do that, although these schemes have been with them for the past twelve months, and the cost out of county funds, in connection with that expenditure of £34,000, would amount to in or about a halfpenny in the £ on the rates. So far no headway has been made, and unless the local authority is prepared to give the contributions necessary I do not see that the Board of Works can put forward any more schemes.
There is another old drainage question in Galway, of which the Parliamentary Secretary has been aware for a long time, and that is the Corrib. The Corrib has certainly been giving great trouble for a number of years. I know that the Board of Works have had several reports on the matter, but we have got no further than that. It would be a big scheme, I agree, to make drainage effective in Galway and portions of Mayo, but I believe that something should be done in the way of the necessary cleaning of the channels in the Corrib. In the month of September there were families in small villages close to the Corrib who had to leave their houses. Their hay was carried away with the flood in the months of August and September. What must it be like in the months of November, December and January? I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to give a little more attention to the Corrib.
I think that there should be more expenditure on monuments, because where they have passed into the hands of county councils the county councils have done nothing to repair them, or if they have done any repairs they have been very small, and they have not restored the buildings as they existed. Some more attention is certainly needed, because if they are left as they are I would not be surprised but that at the end of seven, eight or ten years the county surveyors will be taking them down for the stone crushers. The amount allowed is very small, and I would certainly like to see it increased in order that these monuments may be kept in a proper condition of repair.
I would like to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that the Board of Works should take up some of the schemes passed by the Leix County Council, and by the Commissioner when he was in Offaly, and carry them to completion. In our county some two years ago they started preparing schemes, several of which were passed by the County Council. The Board of Works inspectors investigated the schemes and they considered that the expenditure of money would be justified, but up to the present nothing has been done. I shall mention in particular the Cush, Castlebernard and Clondolisk schemes in Leix and Offaly, and also the Erkina. A lot of land has been laid waste there as a result of flooding. There is also the Crooked river which, I was informed some time ago by the Board of Works, was part of the Barrow drainage scheme. In that area there are thousands of acres destroyed. The scheme in connection with that river was one of the first passed by the County Council and approved by the Board of Works, but nothing has yet been done to remedy the deplorable conditions arising from the flooding. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will see that the necessary work will soon start. I would like also to know how much money has been spent up to the present on the Barrow drainage scheme. A sum of £75,000 has been voted, and I would like to know how much will be spent between this and next March.
There is one aspect of this drainage work that I would like to refer to. When introducing his Estimate yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary explained the position with regard to the different drainage schemes in the country and their cost, and he stressed the fact that one of the reasons—and perhaps he seemed to put it as the chief reason— why many schemes were not economic and could not be carried out was because of the greatly increased cost of labour. In case Deputies might be under the impression from that statement that the workers employed on those schemes by the Board of Works are in receipt of anything like decent wages, I would like to say that so far as I know the rates of wages vary from 24/- per week to 30/- per week. Out of that the national health insurance money is stopped. The Board of Works holds that those men are not entitled to unemployment benefit, and consequently they do not get unemployment stamps. What is more serious is that not only is the weekly wage a very small one, but there is what is called broken time. Small as the wage of 24/- to 30/- a week is, there are many weeks when a man might not get 5/-, 10/-, or 15/-. That is the amount often received by a man who, in many cases, would have to work all day standing in water. I do not think that that is a proper wage to be paid by a Government department. We were told yesterday on this estimate that when Government departments were building houses they should build decent ones and set a good example to the country. That principle should be brought a little further, and Government departments ought to set a good example by paying fairly decent wages to the men they employ. That is the principal matter that I desired to refer to.
I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us what is the exact position with regard to the Nenagh River, Tipperary. I believe the cost of the work on that river was estimated nearly two years ago, but since then we have heard nothing at all about it. I would like to know whether it is the intention to carry out the scheme, what its cost will be, or whether it will be economic. I would like some information on those matters. The subject is one which affects quite a large number of people in the county, as it is a river that at this period of the year is responsible for flooding many thousands of acres of land.
I am afraid I cannot compliment the Board of Works on some of the drainage work that they have carried out in Co. Roscommon. I make particular reference to a sum of £16,000 which they have spent on restoration work in connection with the River Suck, which runs between the counties of Galway and Roscommon. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is aware that numerous complaints have been made to the Board of Works since those particular operations were carried out. As I have stated, a sum of £16,000 was spent there, and portion of the cost of the works carried out was to be levied off benefited lands. I am afraid there will have to be a hunt in order to look for the benefited lands, because, as far as I can make out, there has been some faulty engineering over the whole scheme. In the original scheme of drainage there very many years ago it appears that the engineers purposely left some shoals and rock in various parts of the river. These held up large floods at certain times of the year after a heavy rainfall, and prevented more low-lying districts from being inundated. The Board of Works engineers came along under the late restoration, and as a result of their operations all the lands are flooded now. In my own neighbourhood they have drained the district, which was bog or cut-away turbary, into callow land, with a view to taking the flow of water from there into the Suck. The result is that the callows are covered with water which cannot be got away, and the people who own the land are refusing to pay rates. Until the situation is remedied there will be agitation against the payment of any rates. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to take notice of this thing and to ensure that in all such works in future more care will be taken in regard to engineering operations.
With regard to the Board of Works estimate, I think there should be more money spent, if possible, on schools, on drainage schemes and other matters. Much has been said about Civic Guard barracks, but I think there are not near so many barracks as in the British time. There are plenty of barracks left unoccupied, and the Gárda in the neighbouring districts do the duties in those areas. We all know that there will have to be some place in which to house the Civic Guards. It is really necessary that barracks will have to be built; we cannot get away from that. I do not think there has been any waste of money in the building of Civic Guard barracks.
The schools in the County Leitrim are in a bad state. It is not at the present time that they are being neglected; they were very much neglected in the past. At the present time five or six schools are being built there; the contracts have been settled in more cases, and it is hoped that the work will be soon begun. The school referred to by Deputy O'Connell in a question to-day, Tullybawn, is in a bad state. I have made inquiries at the Board of Works with regard to that school during the past few months and I find that a contract will be declared in the near future, within a week or so. There should be far more money spent on schools in Leitrim, because, as a matter of fact, we have very few good schools. Of course we have no secondary schools. In Ballinamore the school is very small for the number of pupils attending there, and I hope that the Board of Works and the Department of Education will do something in that respect.
With regard to drainage, the County Council of Leitrim does not think that the amount allocated under the Arterial Drainage Act is sufficient to carry out any drainage schemes of the sort contemplated. It is a poor county and the people are not able to pay for the maintenance of those drainage schemes. I think the people in Leitrim are suffering more heavily than the people in any other county in Ireland in the matter of flooded lands. There should be more money allocated for the congested areas in Leitrim. The weir on the Rynn and Blackwater rivers should be removed. If it is in the power of the Parliamentary Secretary to order the removal of that weir he should do so at once. There was a question asked last week about the drainage of the Stoney River and Yellow River in Ballinagleera, and also the Aughavilla and Eslin rivers.
This district is situated on the banks of Lough Erne. There is a high mountain country over it. The floods come down and overflow the banks, and in some cases these floods take the houses and crops with them. I think the Land Commission should interfere in this case and spend some money on it so as to clear the beds of these rivers. If there was some more money spent on that work it would in my opinion, be a very wise thing for the Board of Works.
I wish to refer briefly to the Corrib drainage scheme already mentioned by Deputy Broderick. I do not purpose going into the history of that scheme, which would go back over one hundred years. I admit the Government's contention that it is a very large scheme and one if carried out on the full plan that would involve an expenditure of £100,000. We are told that that is not economic. But in that connection it might be well to get a definition of the term "economic." I say that because the health of the riparian farmers along that river is affected for a distance of 50 miles from Lough Mask down to Galway. That is a point to be taken into consideration when interpreting the word "economic," just as much as the value of the land to be reclaimed, or the land that may be saved by putting into operation a scheme which will prevent further damage. That Corrib River and the lakes connected with it extend to the borders of the Gaeltacht, from the centre of Mayo to Galway City. I should like to know if the Joint Committee or board of co-operation set up between the different Departments of the Government to consider the problem of the Gaeltacht has given any consideration to the Corrib schemes. It would be well, in any case, after all the reports and recommendations that have been made for the last 100 years and the several reports that have been made for the last nine or ten years, to have a definite reply as to whether it is the intention of the Government to go on with the Corrib drainage scheme or not, so that the tenants concerned may know where they stand, or rather where they float at times. I was boating myself last summer over one of those farms, for which the people there are asked to pay annuities. From the reports I have heard, it is possible, I believe, to give partial relief. It is stated, truthfully I think, that the moneys at present expended on maintenance are not sufficient and that the position is gradually growing worse and that other land will be involved. The village of Móinteach is under water. The floods are doing a lot of harm in Clare-Galway and other districts, and if the Government does not care to undertake large schemes I wonder will any consideration be given in the matter of rebatement of annuities? If partial schemes are to be undertaken—and some are being undertaken—I suggest that an attempt should be made to provide a better outlet for the water near Galway City. There are a few minor schemes which could be carried out there, which would not interfere but would be subsidiary to the main scheme and would give relief rather than the drainage of the upper reaches of the main rivers or tributary streams, because the portion undertaken in the upper reaches of the main rivers or the tributary streams only makes matters worse near Galway City and in Clare-Galway and within nine or ten miles of the City.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to the matter of the drainage of the River Robe. In answer to a question I put last week, the Parliamentary Secretary stated that all the formalities necessary had been complied with. In the course of this reply he stated that the Galway County Council should also come into the scheme. I have here a letter addressed by the Secretary of the Board of Works to the Mayo County Council. It is dated the 18th May. It is a long letter, and is relative to the drainage of the Rivers Robe and Moy A letter of a similar nature was addressed to the Sligo County Council, but in this communication there is no mention whatever of the County of Galway. It is strange that at the last moment, when the Mayo County Council had agreed to the conditions laid down in this letter that the Galway County Council should be brought into the affair. The letter is as follows:—
"We beg to inform you that the estimates for the drainage of the Rivers Moy and Robe submitted to the County Council in our letter of the 27th ultimo were based on preliminary investigations by our engineer and valuer, and provide for the improvements reasonably necessary and sufficient for moderate drainage. The costs cover work on the main rivers and petitioned tributaries, with intervening portions which should be improved for proper treatment of the schemes.
"We enclose herewith schedules and one-inch scale map, which show the rivers and streams proposed to be included in the schemes.
"A separate communication is being addressed to you in connection with the Aile River proposal.
"We have received no petition in respect of the Newport River, and the Bellakip proposal was rejected by the County Council, and consequently we do not propose to investigate it.
"As will be seen from the enclosed map, a considerable portion of the Moy proposal extends into County Sligo, and we are approaching the county council of that county in order to ascertain whether, if the scheme were to proceed, they would be prepared to make a contribution towards the cost. Assuming that the total contribution of £90,000 would be required from the county councils, the Mayo County Council should give approximately £76,700, and the Sligo County Council £13,300. If the total contributions were divided amongst the two councils in proportion to the annual benefit to be derived from the scheme in their respective counties, these contributions would involve annual charges on the respective county funds of the counties of £4,970 and £860 for 35 years.
"We enclose for your information a copy of a letter which we have this day addressed to the Sligo County Council in connection with the proposal."
In that communication there is no mention whatsoever of the County Council of Galway. Still at the last moment, when our County Council had fulfilled all the conditions laid down, the Minister beings up a question that the Galway County Council must also bear a portion of the cost of the drainage of the Robe.
I would like the Minister, in his reply, to state for what reason this has been done. Will he also state, or will the Minister for Education state, when it is proposed to go on with the building of the proposed Irish college in Tourmakeady district? It is well known that this is one of the principal centres of the Gaeltacht in the country. It is a very poor and congested district, particularly during the last two or three years owing to trade depression in England. A lot of men from that district used to cross the Channel during the summer months and get employment in England. They have no business in going there now, because if they do go they can find no work. In view of those facts, will the Minister try and push forward the proposal to build this college which would provide so much needed employment during the coming winter? It is strange that this necessary work, that has already been approved and sanctioned by the Government, should be held up while there is no difficulty in providing money for other things, such as the item we see here in the estimate of £20,000 for Civic Guard barracks.
I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain the present position with regard to Board of Works loans for the erection and improvement of farm buildings and farm residences. I ask him to take into his consideration the question of extending the old system of loans to a type of people in the country who are most in need of some relief in regard to housing and who are not likely to get any help under the new Housing Act. They were debarred from getting any assistance under the last Housing Act. I refer to small farmers, those occupying average-sized farms. We all know that, at the present time, conditions are very bad in the country, particularly throughout the tillage districts in the Midlands. We know that the amount of money that would come into the household of an average farmer in a Midland county, where the people depend almost entirely on the growing of barley and oats, is very small indeed. That is the only means they have of paying their way. After providing for the maintenance of their households they have very little, if anything, left, nothing at all events that they could put by to provide for the repair of out-offices or even the residences they reside in.
Yesterday, the Minister for Justice referred to the provision of Civic Guard barracks, and said it was the duty of the State to provide proper sanitary housing for the Guards. I venture to suggest that amongst the farmers of the country with valuations ranging from £10 to £15 you will find more insanitary houses to-day than amongst any other section of the people, and apparently there is no one to say a word in that regard. The old system of Board of Works loans was suitable. I refer to the pre-war system when money was lent for long terms and at a low rate of interest. From the remodelled system, which had been in operation for the past couple of years, would be helpful, and I think something should be done to meet the needs of the people on whose behalf I am speaking. I know several houses in the country and the occupiers of them are in such a condition that they cannot afford even to thatch them. The people are in such a low position financially that out of their own resources they are not able to do anything in that respect. Whatever hope they had of getting repairs done and paying for them when barley was £1 per barrel, that hope has now completely vanished, since the most they can get for malting barley is from 12/- to 14/- per barrel.
I make an earnest plea to the Parliamentary Secretary that the Board of Works should continue the old system of loans to these people. Not alone that, but I ask that the policy of the Department should be clearly defined so that the farmers of the country, and others, will be in a position to know what it is without referring to anybody else. The policy of the Department should be so clearly defined that people would know how to go about the matter themselves. Schemes are there, but very few people know about them.
It is well known that many people would have taken advantage of the reconstruction grants given during the past couple of years under the Housing Acts but for the fact that they were debarred from doing so because they resided a certain distance from a town. I know people in the country at the present moment who would send in applications immediately for reconstruction grants if they were available for them. I think it is a shame, when we hear so much talk about providing sanitary houses for well-paid men, that the average hard-working farmers who are the backbone of the country are, in many cases, with their families, obliged to reside in very poor houses.
I desire to support what Deputy Aird said when he urged the Parliamentary Secretary to press on the work of the Cush river (Clonaslee, Leix), and of the Clopook and Figile rivers in Leix and Offaly. With regard to the Cush river, I know that the Board of Works has done a good deal. It is not their fault that the work on it has been held up. As a result of the inquiry that was held, it was found that there was a good deal of opposition to it. As far as I can ascertain, the real opposition of the people to it is that they do not like to accept at the present time an increased burden, to pay further money when they are in such a low financial position themselves. I know that the Cush scheme is a good one, and that it is badly needed. If the scheme is not proceeded with then the breaches in the river banks there should be repaired. The county council should be urged to repair the breach that is there, because there are several farmers in the district whose lands have been submerged by water. I think it is unfair to expect the owners of such farms to pay annuities and rates when their land is derelict as a result of the flooding, and is no good to them. In some cases the land is covered with from one to two feet of sand. There is another point that I would like to put before the Parliamentary Secretary, and it is in regard to the Figile river. The people in that district are anxious that more work should be carried out there.
On the last occasion that I referred to the Barrow river I was told that it was an engineering necessity that the work should proceed slowly. Now that the main scheme has progressed so far, I think that more preliminary work should be carried out. In the present condition of things in the Midlands, and in view of the fact that the Barrow scheme is a big one, I think that more money should be voted for it, and more men taken on to finish up the work. I cannot see how we are to expect people in North Leix to pay for land which, during the last two or three years, they have been unable to make any use of. They are expected to pay annuities and to pay taxes for such land, which I think is most unfair. I think it is urgently necessary that more money should be voted and more men taken on to finish off that scheme.
I would like to draw attention to the acute differences that exist between the county councils and the Board of Works in so far as drainage is concerned. Within the past two or three years the Board of Works have undertaken and carried out certain drainage works in my constituency. Great dissatisfaction prevails not alone in the minds of the county council members, but also amongst the people for whom the drainage has been specially provided, that is, the farmers in the immediate district. What the county councils complain of is that the Board of Works come down to a district and carry out certain works, and they do not let the county councils know what particular work they are about to do. The county council know nothing about it until the job is supposed to be finished, and the drainage area is then handed over to the county council. In two or three places in County Wexford the county council have refused up to now to formally take over the drainage areas, as the Board of Works are not prepared to disclose certain information which the county council require and think absolutely necessary before they take over the area. In one case we asked for details of the original awards to be disclosed to the county council. That has been refused up to this.
If the Board of Works require, as I believe they do, a proper understanding between the county councils and themselves in so far as drainage is concerned, they will certainly have to give more information to the county councils concerned. I have repeatedly, when the Board of Works Estimate was under consideration in this House, referred to the Cahore drainage area in my constituency. There have been difficulties in the past, I am prepared to admit, as regards the Board of Works entering on this drainage area. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me that he has had reports from his engineers time and time again that this drainage area is in a disgraceful condition, and also that the drainage board have neglected their duty, with the result that the people in the district are suffering severely. I would again ask the Parliamentary Secretary to have his engineers sent there with a view to having something done. The drainage board have neglected their duty in the past and, as I said, the engineers recognise that the place is in a disgraceful condition. Surely it cannot be left that way for all time. For six months in the year the roads in the vicinity of that area are under water to a depth of three or four feet, with the result that the people are completely cut off from the clergy and the doctors, and so on.
With reference to what Deputy Corish has said with regard to the Cahore drainage area, I would like if the Parliamentary Secretary would state to whom the drainage board of that area are responsible. If to the Board of Works why do not the Board compel them to carry out their duties? I understand in that area the people have been paying a drainage rate for a great number of years, and ever since the start of the European war the drainage board have failed to carry out any of their duties, with the result that 300 acres of land are under water for four or five years and the people are expected to pay rent and rates for that land. This land is unpurchased and non-judicial. I understand the Land Commission have powers to vest this land in the tenants, and to keep back some money for the maintenance of these drainage works.
I believe that amongst the many other disconcerting idiosyncrasies of the great Dean Swift it was the custom with him when invited to dine by clergymen's wives, and similarly highly-respectable and sometimes impecunious old ladies, to look around him and if by any chance he observed a tiny little hole or tear in the tablecloth, it was his habit to start toying with it and tearing at it until ultimately it was so large that he could slip his plate under the tablecloth and very comfortably and deliberately drink his soup out of the hole that was made, to the great consternation and humiliation of his hostess. In listening to Deputy Sean MacEntee I could not help feeling that he was attempting to expose the Board of Works in a manner very similar to that of the venerable Dean. Deputy MacEntee had a tolerably arguable case. If he had to stick to the facts he had a case that might have been maintained from a particular point of view, but he branched away from it and started quoting figures which, I think, were wholly fantastic. The custom in the Board of Works of our architects doing work for private individuals and not confining themselves absolutely to the working of the Department has been handed down to us from the time the British were here. At that time I do not suppose there were as many big public works being carried on as at present, and the officials had more leisure, and accordingly there was no objection taken to that custom developing.
At present we are out to discourage that. We are not at all in favour of it, but there is really no technical rule against it. Officials so long as they are not engaged between the hours of 10 in the morning and 6 in the evening are free to spend their time as they like, but in the case of the architects who were taken on during the last couple of years we are insisting that this practice should cease. We have not, as I have said, as yet laid down any definite regulations for those who came into the office before that date. I am not at all sympathetic towards the practice. I do not know how the Deputy arrived at his figures for the cost of the architects in proportion to the cost of the works carried out. In any case, it is not a fair way of arriving at the value of the work done by the architects. The Deputy produced figures to show that the cost of the Board of Works' architectural staff was between 13 per cent. and 14 per cent. of the cost of the new works in 1926-27. He left out the maintenance work, apparently thinking that the architectural staff had nothing to do with it.
This vitiates his figure in two ways; in the first place, because the architectural staff is as concerned with maintenance works as with new works. Indeed, the junior members of the staff are more concerned with them than with the new works. In the second place, the duties of the architects in regard to maintenance works largely consist in keeping down their costs, so that it is hardly fair to reckon the payment of the architects as the Deputy did. To illustrate that point, I might say that in building the Custom House it was originally thought the work would cost £700,000. The work has been actually carried out for £260,000 owing to the fact that our architects, when dealing with the matter, did not adhere to the original idea of reconstructing the building right from the ground floor level, and instead they left as much of the old walls standing as possible. It is not fair, therefore, to work on a percentage figure of the cost of the reconstruction. Since Deputy MacEntee raised the point, I had some figures taken out, based on the actual charges by our Government to the British Government for the year 1926-27. We carried out services for the British Board of Works as agents for them here. The charge for the services of the Office of Works as a whole is made at the rate of 9 per cent. on the actual cost of the work, and it works out on the actual cost of the stuff. In this charge I find that the architectural staff count for less than one-half—about 4 per cent.—as against 13 or 14 per cent. calculated by Deputy MacEntee. These are calculated on actual facts.
Deputy MacEntee also referred to the position of our engineers. I understand that Deputy MacEntee is an engineer himself, and I do not know that his colleagues in the profession will thank him for this particular criticism, because I remember last year one of the grievances they had against the Office of Public Works was that we were not paying the engineers sufficiently well. It is very hard to know where to draw the line or what exactly is the happy medium. At all events, we are convinced that these engineers are giving excellent value, and we are very well pleased with the work they are doing.
Deputy Davin drew attention to the fact that the Office of Public Works has a habit of over-estimating. This was a pet subject of Deputy Cooper's in previous years, and on one occasion before, at least, I remember dealing with this question. It must be borne in mind that the Office of Public Works is, to a great extent, an agency Department. We have not got control to any great extent of policy. We carry out the works for other departments, and when these departments change their minds it naturally re-acts upon our estimate. For instance, in connection with the building of Civic Guard barracks, two or three of the barracks may be cut out, or it may be decided to have cheaper barracks in some places than was originally intended. The same applies to schools and other Government works. In adition to that, many of these works are not carried out directly by ourselves. We have to employ contractors. Usually they do their work very efficiently, but they are not always absolue masters of the situation. A strike may arise, such as the coal strike the year before last, which held up all the works on public buildings where steel structure had to be employed. Any little upset of that kind reacts on our estimate in a way that it does not react on other estimates. I might also say that this year it will probably be found that we have not exhausted certain Votes because of the fact that the estimates were not passed in time. We have no power to commit the Government to expenditure until the Votes are passed. As I say, no matter what we do there will always be a certain looseness in estimating for this Department, but I hope that, in the near future, when conditions become more stable, when departments realise more clearly what exactly they require, and when we are more familiar with the carrying out of these various works, we will be able to estimate much more closely than we have been doing for the last few years.
Deputy Boland referred to the question of our accounts. He seemed to think that our accounts staff was unduly large. But we have very important duties in this respect. Accounts have to be kept of constructional work and contracts and claims have to be very carefully checked. That accounts for a large part of the staff. Rents and dues are also an important item. Another large part is occupied with the issue and recovery of loans. About £500,000 has to be dealt with in this way every year. Then the ordinary forms of Government accounting are necessary and must be maintained for the information of the Dáil as well as for other purposes. The staff really comprises a comparatively small proportion of the whole staff of the Office of Public Works.
Deputy Boland also referred to the position of land improvement loans. There is nothing definite with regard to the policy on that subject at present. It has been mooted, I understand, that at least portion of this service should be taken over by the Agricultural Credit Corporation, but nothing definite has been decided up to the present, so that it is scarcely a matter for discussion on the Estimate.
Deputy Tubridy dealt at some length with the policy with regard to the housing of the Gárda Síochána. It has been our policy all through, in this as in other matters, to avoid capital expenditure as far as possible, and where we can rent a house at a reasonable figure, or purchase one already built, we are always disposed to do so. The question of housing the Gárda Síochána is often one of great urgency. Sometimes we have to accept a building which is not in all respects thoroughly satisfactory, either from the point of view of rent or accommodation. When we are obliged to build a barracks, we naturally do our best to give complete satisfaction from the point of view of accommodation and sanitation, and in all other respects to make the work worthy of a Government office.
There has been some criticism as to the number of such barracks. The number required outside the metropolitan area is 844. The number in existence in pre-Treaty days in the same area was something over 1,000, so that we cannot be accused of extravagance in that regard. Deputy Corry, of course, objects to expenditure on Civic Guard barracks in his area, but I think every reasonable Deputy will have to admit that in that particular part of the country where Deputy Corry and Deputy Wolfe live, generally in a state of armed neutrality with reference to one another, a little latitude should be allowed with regard to expenditure on this very capable force.
Deputy Tubridy also referred to the matter of boats and boat-houses for the Gárda. These are required in connection with policing maritime districts which cannot be very easily reached in any other way than by means of those boats. We are not, I may say, taking the bread out of the mouths of the fishermen by taking away their boats and fishing tackle. These boats are Government property. A number of them were left by the British Government, and we find it necessary to incur some expenditure in purchasing new boats or in converting some of those old row-boats into motor-boats.
A question was also raised, I think, by Deputy Tubridy about building a military college, and he asked why is it necessary to incur expenditure in this matter. That is, of course, a question for the Minister for Defence. He will decide where this military college is to be situated and he will be guided by questions of discipline, health and the opportunity for training. It is not a matter that concerns us at all. Wherever we are instructed to build this college we are prepared to carry out those instructions.
There are no coastguard stations at present under our control. We have a number of coastguard stations, but, where possible, we rent them out as dwelling-houses. We have to hold on to them, because most of those coastguard stations are the subjects of contracts, in some cases with the British Government, and in other cases with private individuals. That accounts for the Vote under this particular head. Killeagh Aerodrome is in the same position. We let this aerodrome at the best possible rent we could get for it.
Deputy O'Reilly referred to the position of ancient monuments. I am glad to see the Deputy is interested in this very important subject. I consider that the preservation of these monuments is of very little less importance than the preservation of the language. Our ancient monuments, particularly the prehistoric ones, are of the very first importance. Archaeologists all over the world are extremely interested in their preservation—very much more interested, I am sorry to say, than the Irish people themselves. This question of preserving the national monuments of the country is, to a great extent, one for the people themselves. The best way to preserve these monuments is by inculcating a feeling of reverence for them and of interest in them in the general public. It has been found in other countries that it is almost impossible for a government to do very much in the way of protecting them unless there is a lively public opinion supporting the government in doing so. At the same time we are práctically powerless in regard to protecting them from vandalism. We have on the tapis at the present moment a Bill which I hope will be introduced next session for dealing with this particular subject. We find it comparatively simple to draft a Bill that would adequately protect standing monuments of considerable size. A mound like Tara, the Rock of Cashel, and places of that kind are comparatively simple, but it was considered, when dealing with ancient monuments, that it was advisable to deal with fine, small objects, gold ornaments and flint objects also. Oftentimes even bones may be of very great archaeological value, and we found great difficulty in finding any legal formula that covered these objects. That has been the principal cause of delay. We are extremely anxious that we should be in a position to protect all these objects that are of historical or archæological interest to the country.
Deputy Derrig raised the question of the amalgamation of the supplies departments. That is a question that can be argued, but it involves a question of policy which the Board of Works is not in a position to decide. Deputy Boland's complaint that there was considerable overlapping and considerable duplication of services between the Board of Works and other departments, in this respect, is without any foundation. Deputy Derrig, I think, also referred to the position of the Commissioners. These officials are carrying out their onerous duties very efficiently, and in a very painstaking way. They not only carry out duties in connection with the Office of Works, but they very often carry out duties apart from those that are strictly their own. I might in this connection refer to the fact that the late Commissioner Healy, a valuable Government official, actually died in harness. He certainly rendered very useful. I might almost say pre-eminent, services on the Unemployment Commission and on the Economy Commission, and members of these Commissions, I am sure, would be quite prepared to confirm what I have said. These officials are performing very useful services to the State, but it is not intended to fill the vacancy created by the death of Mr. Commissioner Healy.
I could not understand Deputy Derrig's point of view in criticising Votes 10 and 11 on the ground that they were increasing every year. A very cursory examination of the Estimates will show that they are, in fact, going down. He also referred to the fact that the estimates for particular works varied from time to time. I think I covered that point by explaining that we are only the agents for other departments, and their opinions as to what works are necessary vary, and accordingly our estimates reflect that variation. He also referred to the question of drainage, and he appears to be under the impression that we had not yet clearly made up our minds as to when a scheme is economic and when it is not. Other Deputies appear to be under the same misapprehension. There is not the slightest doubt in our minds as to what is and what is not an economic scheme.
A scheme is economic when the annual payment by the benefiting landowner in respect of the interest and sinking fund in respect of the cost of the scheme, plus the annual cost of maintenance is not as great as the annual increase in the value of the land benefited by the scheme. The Government does not expect every scheme to be economic. Very few schemes are, as a matter of fact, economic in this respect. That is why grants are necessary. That is the reason why the Government came forward with grants so liberally. I believe that if the country were to avail of the Act as rapidly as we thought at one time it would, it would probably be necessary to reduce the scale of the grants. The grants are, if anything, too liberal. The Government is prepared to contribute a free grant to the extent of thirty-three and one-third per cent. of the work. That is irrespective of whether the county council or anyone else contributes anything. Over and above that, if the county council is prepared to contribute, the Government will contribute pound for pound with the county council up to fifty per cent. of the cost.
Up to the present, the Department of Finance have never on one single occasion turned down any application for a grant up to fifty per cent, so that any refusal of this kind comes either from the county council or from the benefiting landowners. Thus it is not true to say that in any given case the Government have turned down a scheme. We have on a few occasions turned down schemes that were hopelessly uneconomic, schemes which we knew, if they were put before the landowners, would be turned down, but there is no point in incurring expenditure on preliminary survey if we know that at a later stage the scheme will not be accepted by those whom it is intended to benefit. It is only on rare occasions that the preliminary survey shows that to make a scheme economic it would require a grant of 100 per cent. or more. Sometimes it would require more than 100 per cent., as the cost of maintenance would be very high.
Deputy Brady raised the point with regard to the electrification of Dun Laoghaire Pier. Our functions with regard to that pier and to all ports are only those dealing with navigation. So far as I could gather from the Deputy's statement, this proposal would not affect navigation in any way. In fact, if it affected it at all, it would probably be in an adverse way, because it would be to the interest of vessels coming in not to have too many lights near the harbour. It is much better to have a powerful light at a danger point than at other points in the port. For that reason lighthouses were constructed in such positions. If the local authority, however, in this case is prepared to foot the bill, we are quite willing to look into the matter. Deputy O'Connell dealt with the position of national schools, and was looking to me for some enlightenment on the matter. That is a question of policy which has to be decided by the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Education, and the managers of the schools concerned. We only carry out the instructions given to us, and we comply with the conditions laid down by these authorities. I might say, however, that I expect that this Vote will be fully expended this year. It is, as a matter of fact, one of the few Votes which were exceeded last year.
Deputy Maguire suggests that we should pay a little more attention to the views of local people when we are carrying out drainage operations in the country, as they might be in a position to give us very useful advice. Our experience is that the views of local people in this matter are not helpful, as they usually have erroneous ideas as to what is required in order to carry out effective drainage operations. They often fix on some obvious obstruction, like a weir or a fallen tree, and get the idea that if such obstacles were removed flooding would cease. With that in the back of their minds, they form altogether false ideas as to what the cost of carrying out a scheme would be. Very often a weir or a fallen tree is comparatively an unimportant obstruction, and in order to relieve the flooding it may be necessary to carry out very important excavations in the bed of the river and along the river banks. If that happens to entail the blasting of a rock or other hard material, the cost may be very high. There is no doubt, however, that if the farmers whose lands are flooded would come together and co-operate they could carry out many small schemes much more economically than the Board of Works. Unfortunately, however, that does not appear to be the disposition of these people. They ask us to carry out the work. When we go into a district and carry out these operations we have to see that as far as possible our work will be above criticism.
If there is the slightest little excuse for complaint the landowners concerned will refuse to pay for the scheme and create all the trouble possible, whereas if they carried out the work or if an independent contractor or a local contractor carried out the work, there would not be nearly the same objection. As a matter of fact, since the Board of Works have been credited with spoiling all the drinking water of Connemara I do not think we have ever been able to do anything to the satisfaction of the people of this country. We do not seem to be able to do anything right.
I might say also in this connection that the Minor Schemes Act should be very useful, as supplementing the larger Act, and I hope that Deputy Maguire will see that that Act is availed of in his own district. He also referred to the Black river drainage district. We have absolutely no connection with that district at all. We have got no control over the board and it rests absolutely with the trustees to decide what action they should take in this matter. He also asked for some figures in regard to the expenditure on land improvements and national schools in Leitrim. That is information that I can give in reply to a question at a later date, but if I were to have that information, or similar information, available for every Deputy here I would require nearly the whole Board of Works staff to bring over files to the Dáil.
Deputy Holt again referred to flooding by the Yellow river. That is a mountain torrent and their is no possibility of drainage. There is no good in raising a caoin here about the deplorable conditions of these people. We all sympathise with them, but we have got no statutory function to deal with a situation of that kind. Deputy Aird referred to the position of certain drainage schemes in Leix and Deputy Gorry dealt with the same question. The Cush river is now being voted upon by the occupiers concerned. I am glad to say they have assented, and it is very probable that we will be able to begin operations in that river some time in the spring, perhaps April or May. I have no information available in regard to the other rivers to which he has adverted.
Deputy Morrissey referred to the Keenagh river. That is a river that has given us a great deal of trouble. We prepared a very elaborate scheme in the beginning for the draining of this river, but that scheme proved too costly. We have since carried out a re-survey of the river in the hope of cutting out all expenditure that is not absolutely necessary. We hope some time next year to be able to bring forward a scheme that will give satisfaction to all parties concerned. The Corrib drainage has been referred to by various Deputies here. That is one of the knottiest problems we have to deal with, and not the least difficulty we are confronted with is the fact that no two Deputies from the magnificent County of Galway are exactly in agreement as to what should be done with the Corrib. They have all different schemes and none of them is satisfied with the schemes that others are prepared to accept. The large comprehensive scheme that Deputy Fahy has referred to would be absolutely uneconomic. What I mean by uneconomic is that the riparian owners, or the people whose lands would benefit, would, I am sure, refuse to pay the piper. What is the good in going to the expense of carrying out preliminary surveys when we know that would be the final result? I am very anxious to find a solution for the problem, and I may say it would help me very much if the Deputies concerned would first of all come to an agreement amongst themselves as to what they wanted.
Deputy Walsh referred to the Robe. This is really a case where the Board of Works, in its anxiety to oblige Deputies and to carry out constructive works in the country, has really done more than it need have done or should have done. Representations were made about this river by Deputies and other representative people, and, before waiting for the ordinary statutory preliminaries to be carried out, which take a certain amount of time; before even the six interested landowners who are required to petition before we take action petitioned in either Mayo or Galway, we made inquiries and we were satisfied by our inquiries that we could formulate a scheme, and that it would pay the county council to support us in carrying it out. We put it before the county council and they agreed, but we have not got statutory power to proceed in this matter until those six landowners both in Mayo and Galway come forward and say that they want this scheme carried out. When that is done we will be prepared to expedite this scheme as rapidly as possible.
Another Deputy—I think it was Deputy Walsh—referred to Tourmakeady. This is the site of an old monastery that was to be used as one of these training colleges, but the existing building is not suitable for adaptation, and it will be necessary to erect an entirely new building. The plans of a new college have been completed, and a tender has now been accepted. It is not likely that students can be accommodated at this centre before November, 1929, but we expect to have the work carried out very shortly. Deputy Corish, I thought, capped the whole debate with his contribution. On the one hand he was taking the Board of Works to task for carrying out drainage operations in County Wexford, and he was supporting the county council in its refusal to carry out its obligations and its duties under the Act, and in the next breath he was urging us to carry out another scheme which was very similar. I assume that when we have done our part in that matter he will take up the same attitude as he has taken up with regard to the other schemes.
Before you put the Vote, I think that some of the remarks which the Parliamentary Secretary made require a certain amount of elncidation.
Is the Deputy proposing to make another speech?
Well, this is in Committee, and I do not think there is any limit to the number of times a Deputy may speak.
I would like to point out to the Deputy that the practice has been that when a Minister concludes his reply the Vote is put, but the Deputy has a right to speak if he wishes.
The points I would like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary are these: First of all, are we to understand that he does admit that it has been the practice of members of the permanent staff of the Office of Public Works to carry on private professional practice, apart altogether from carrying out their official duties? Is that done with the cognisance and the consent of the Parliamentary Secretary, and, I presume, of his colleagues in the Government? If it is done, what proof has the Parliamentary Secretary for his statement that this work is not done during official hours? Is he aware that it is the usual custom to carry out the contracts, which these architects are supposed to supervise, in their capacity as private individuals, between the hours of 8.30 in the morning and 5.30 in the evening? If, as I presume must be the case where you see one official engaged in at least two instances supervising two separate contracts for the one individual, the persons who retain these public servants as private professional advisers are satisfied that they are getting good value for the fees which are paid to them, and that therefore these public servants do adequately supervise the contracts which are carried out between 8.30 a.m. and 5.30 p.m., how can the Parliamentary Secretary adhere to his statement that the whole of this work is done in private time by these individuals and is not done during office hours?
I think that that is a matter upon which we are entitled to have a categorical statement from the Parliamentary Secretary. His excuse for permitting this custom to continue is that the officials who are carrying on the practice do not discharge their obligations to their private clients in public time but do it in their spare time. In view of that I should like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary how it is possible for one individual on the staff of the Board of Works, who is paid, I presume, a salary, including bonus, of something approaching £800 a year— it may be a little less or a little more —to give value to the State for the salary which he receives and at the same time in one year to carry out work for these private clients of his, involved in eight separate contracts, the total value of which was about £29,900. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to give to the House his reasons for believing that that particular individual does not do some of his private work in public time.
There is another important point. In this paper which I have in my hand I notice that every one of these eight building contracts was carried out by the same contractor. I have here, as a matter of fact, a copy of a letter which was written by the particular official concerned in which he refers to three contracts, at Beauford, Rathfarnham, a house in Sydney Parade, and a garage at Terenure, which obviously this builder was carrying out for him at one and the same time. How did that man find time to prepare the plans of these works and to supervise them in his private time after office hours? No building work is done after office hours. Another point upon which I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to give us some information is this: Every one of the eight contracts carried out under the supervision of this architect was carried out by the one builder. Was that contractor a contractor for public works under the Office of Public Works? I think that we are entitled to know whether a builder, working for an official architect, obviously engaged in at least a questionable practice, was at the same time employed as a contractor for buildings carried out by the Office of Public Works. Did this officer of the Department stand in a dual relation to that contractor, first of all in his capacity as an architect engaged in private practice, supervising works for private clients, and secondly, as an architect in the public service, supervising work for the State? I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to give us some information upon that matter. I should like him also to inform the House whether, in his capacity of a public servant, an architect carrying out work for private individuals, might not on occasions be able to secure precedence for work carried out by him over work carried out by other architects, and whether, in certain cases where official regulations were being complied with, this public official might not sit in a judicial capacity upon plans submitted by him as a private architect.
I think before the House passes this Vote it is entitled to have from the Parliamentary Secretary the fullest information on these points. The Parliamentary Secretary is to be congratulated upon his dexterity in dealing with this matter. He prefaced his remarks with an historical anecdote. Obviously he was on the horns of a dilemma. He did not know whether to confess or deny that this practice was being carried on. Possibly it would have been more congenial for him to deny it, but he was not certain as to how much exactly was known on these Benches in regard to it, and, therefore, since he had to make a confession, he thought he would try the narcotic effects of a dull story, drearily told, in order that the full force of that confession might be lost on this House. The story about a long deceased dean and a hole in the tablecloth has very little to do with the matter. A hole in the tablecloth over two hundred years ago is of very little interest to the people of to-day, but a hole in the public purse at the present moment, when already the revenue is over £1,000,000 behind what it was this time last year, and when we are faced next year with a Budget deficit, is what is concerning those who are taking thought for the future, and we want to know whether the Parliamentary Secretary, who is responsible to this House for expenditure of close upon £1,000,000, is going to permit officials in his Department to feed themselves from the public purse with both hands.
Mr. BOURKE
I do not intend to reply categorically to all the accusations made by Deputy MacEntee. If he wishes a reply of that kind he had better put his charges on paper, give us the names of the individuals concerned, and all about them. I would then undertake to inquire into the matter. I stated at the outset that we had nothing to hide or conceal in this matter. It would be quite consistent for the Board of Works to have continued the old policy in operation here under the British Government and the policy that is in operation in Great Britain at the present time, where they rather favour this practice of architects carrying on private business in order to gain experience for carrying on work for the public Departments. But, as I say, we have taken a different view of the matter.
What about the carpenters and typists—why would they not do the same?
They are only working people.
Mr. BOURKE
They have not to go outside their offices to gain experience.
Parliamentary Secretaries would need experience, too.
Mr. BOURKE
That may be. So do Deputies sometimes. We have taken the line all along that this practice should not be encouraged, and for the last couple of years we have been bringing pressure to bear on the parties concerned not to carry on this practice to the same extent as formerly. In the case of new architects coming in, we have made a hard and fast rule, but in the case of old officials who came in under different conditions we do not feel justified in putting on pressure to the same extent. But if there is any case of a definite breach of the regulations, or if it can be clearly shown by any Deputy, or by any other responsible person, that these individuals are not carrying out their duties to the State properly, or that the work they are doing outside is interfering with their work for the State, I promise to give that matter the fullest consideration. More cannot be done, and there is nothing to be gained by making debating points about it here.
I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us whether, if it is decided to make the change regarding the land improvement loans which he states is under consideration, the approval of the Dáil will be taken on the matter?
Mr. BOURKE
I could not give you that information.
Vote No. 10 put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 80; Níl, 53.
Tá.
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Clancy, Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cooper, Bryan Ricco.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davin, William.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Níl.
- Allen, Denis.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Carty, Frank.
- Clery, Michael.
- Colbert, James.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Holt, Samuel.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killane, James Joseph.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire Ben.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Leary, William.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipperary).
- Smith, Patrick.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle. Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Allen.
Question declared carried.
Vote No. 11 put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 79; Níl, 53.
Tá.
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Clancy, Patrick.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cooper, Bryan Ricco.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davin, William.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Níl.
- Allen, Denis.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Carty, Frank.
- Clery, Michael.
- Colbert, James.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Holt, Samuel.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killane, James Joseph.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Leary, William.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipperary).
- Smith, Patrick.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl; Deputies G. Boland and Allen.
Question declared carried.