Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 12 Nov 1953

Vol. 142 No. 13

Private Members' Business. - Adjournment Debate — Lough Gara Drainage.

Deputy Cafferky has given notice that he wished to raise the subject-matter of Questions Nos. 27 and 28 in to-day's Order Paper.

This afternoon I addressed Questions Nos. 27 and 28 to the Minister for Agriculture and I have seen the replies from the Parliamentary Secretary. My reason for raising this matter on the Adjournment—which is a thing I do not like doing, to be quite frank, to be holding Deputies or Ministers or officials over and above their ordinary time—is that I feel it is of importance, and judging by the replies I received to-day I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister consider that it is of importance.

The whole of East Mayo and West Roscommon is subject to flooding for well-nigh 100 years and the people have waited patiently for the day when some relief would be forthcoming. In 1948-49 they felt that relief was at hand, when the then Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Dillon, was generous enough to provide out of his Estimate a sum of something like £60,000 with a view to removing the main obstacle that prevented the carrying out of the work of drainage that I referred to in the two questions I addressed to the Minister for Agriculture.

The people of East Mayo and West Roscommon consider that the action of the then Minister for Agriculture in providing that substantial sum of money, £60,000, was an act that they appreciated very much. Away back when Deputy Dillon's father was a Member of Parliament in the British House of Commons, he, in his day, also played a very important part in trying to bring about an easement of the flooding that took place in that area, but, due to powers totally outside his scope and outside the influence of any Irish Member of Parliament inthose days, his efforts did not come to fruition. But we did hope, and we did think, that an Irish Parliament, not subject to any outside influence, direct or indirect, would make available the essential funds and machinery to have this drainage carried out.

You, Sir, may not be aware that in East Mayo and West Roscommon we are very small farmers of £3 to £10 valuation and we depend on every perch of land in order to eke out a livelihood, and then it is only a miserable livelihood. But in most cases two-thirds of the holdings of those smallholders are subject to flooding and only one-third is available for cultivation. The Parliamentary Secretary would like me to accept it and to believe what he tells me that he can do nothing there and can hold out no promise because of the arterial drainage scheme. I do not accept that. This arterial drainage scheme, which became an Act away back in 1945, almost ten years ago, is being used very frequently to cover up the delays of the Board of Works and to cover up the failure of the Minister for Finance to provide essential funds to initiate a scheme such as I have in mind at the moment. I do not believe for one moment that this could be coupled with a catchment area. I am now, Sir, through you, going to ask the Parliamentary Secretary for what purpose was the bed of rock removed? Why were the bridges underpinned? Was it just for exhibition; so that people could go and see an engineering feat? Was it just for the sake of giving employment? For what purpose was this work done? To reduce the amount of water in Lough Gara, to provide a fall for the waters from the rivers I have in mind?

That is the purpose for which it was removed and no matter what clearance is carried out to-day in any of the rivers known to Deputies Finan and Seán Flanagan, who are here in the House, it will not mean one pound's worth more of water will flow into Lough Gara than is flowing at the moment. Lough Gara is well able to take it. It could rain for three weeks, day and night, and it would make nodifference to Lough Gara at the present moment owing to the removal of the bed of rock. I want to make it known that it is essential to take into consideration the Boyle river. I want to say very clearly that I have been asked by the people of East Mayo to raise this matter in the Dáil over the past two years. I waited patiently because I do not get any kudos out of raising a matter of this kind here. I do not want to make any political capital out of it either. I want to make it clear that every Deputy in the area is interested in the drainage of that area. I have been forced by the apathy of the Department of Finance, the Department of Agriculture and the Board of Works in not providing funds to bring this drainage to completion to take this action.

There is, I understand, arising out of the removal of this rock and the underpinning of the bridges, a fall of from ten to 20 feet at the present moment, and we are asking neither more nor less from the Government, the Board of Works or the Department of Agriculture than the provision of the essential machinery, the labour and money to clean up these rivers and let the water get through. That is all we are asking.

I asked, I think in one of the questions, if the Minister for Agriculture had received from the inspectors of his Department recommendations regarding the draining of the rivers connecting with Lough Gara from East Mayo and West Roscommon so as to enable the farmers to avail of the land rehabilitation scheme and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter? I do not know whether they have made representations at all to the Department. The Minister did not say so. He did not reply to that part of the question, but from what I understand, they have made such representations, and I want the Parliamentary Secretary to understand that there is not one small farmer in East Mayo able to avail of the land rehabilitation scheme because there is no fall for the water and they cannot put in French drains as requested under the land rehabilitation scheme. Are all these farmers to continue to go withoutfacilities and help and aid which they would get under this rehabilitation scheme? Are they to sit back and suffer the loss of being unable to avail of a scheme of that kind because the Government has failed to give the matter attention when all the obstacles have been removed?

I could well understand, and appreciate the Parliamentary Secretary's and the Department's and the Board of Works' attitude if the groundwork were not done, but the groundwork has been done, thanks to Deputy Dillon. Whether we agree with his politics or not, we must give him credit for providing this sum of money. I asked what was the motive behind the provision of this £60,000? It has served no purpose so far.

Unless the drainage of the River Lung and its tributaries is brought to its ultimate conclusion the spending of this £60,000 is just a waste of money. The farmers in East and West Mayo thought the machinery that was there would be kept there and utilised to the full. They thought that some day they would read in the Press or hear over the radio that a sum of money was being voted for the completion of the scheme. All they got, however, was a lot of claptrap about the crannógs and experts from the Museum going down to carry out research work. Was it for the purpose of unearthing these crannógs and facilitating the experts in the Museum that the initial £60,000 was spent or was it for the purpose of having these rivers cleaned and opened so that water-logged lands would be drained. There never was and never will be any necessity for compulsory tillage to be applied there. There never was, or will be, any necessity for tillage inspectors visiting the farms there for the farmers there have always done their bit. They would do more if the land was available.

Thousands of acres of land are water-logged ever year. These thousands of acres if properly drained could be utilised and cultivated by the farmers. I am sure my colleagues are just as much interested in this matter as I am and I want to impress on the Parliamentary Secretary the necessity for ensuring that this scheme is proceeded with and concluded as quicklyas possible. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to approach the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Agriculture to see if something can be done in the early Spring of next year. Another £60,000 would go a long way towards completing the work. I do not believe the Parliamentary Secretary would begrudge that £60,000. He knows what it is to be a small tenant farmer and how difficult it is to make a living out of the land. He knows what every perch of ground means to the small tenant farmer. I hope that in the early Spring the necessary moneys will be provided to enable this work to be completed. If that is done I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary the people will appreciate it.

The first thing I want to make clear is that I have had no conversation of any kind with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture or with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance arising out of the questions asked to-day by Deputy Cafferky. I am very interested in the suggestions put forward by Deputy Cafferky and I confirm that I have been behind them, too. It is only recently that I have come to realise precisely what was done by Deputy Dillon when he made provision for a sum of £60,000 for the drainage of Lough Gara. He caused to be published in the national newspapers at the time an advertisement to the effect that £40,000,000 would be spent on land rehabilitation. He changed the name so as to disguise the fact that all he was doing was taking a scheme already initiated by Fianna Fáil.

That is travelling beyond the particular matter we are discussing now.

Deputy Dillon, according to Deputy Cafferky, caused £60,000 to be devoted to the drainage of portion of Lough Gara under the land project. I have only recently discovered that that was just another Coalition political ramp and that that boast of Deputy Dillon's that he would spend £40,000,000 was as idle as the event proved it to be. He discovered in the end that he had to make some sort of stunt andhe decided he would do this and a couple of other jobs and advertised this as a much vaunted land rehabilitation project. I have not spoken to the Parliamentary Secretary, and perhaps he will contradict me later in this, but I am inclined to think now that much as I am interested in the eventual drainage of this part of East Mayo, Deputy Dillon knew very well that the drainage could not be continued for the simple reason that there is so much flooding, and I agree with Deputy Cafferky that if the waters were in fact released Lough Gara would not be able to hold them and there would be as much flooding further down as would be relieved on our side of the county. That is the conclusion I have come to. This was just another political stunt just as Deputy Donnellan when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance——

Deputy Flanagan should not ramble around like that.

——dumped everything down in Galway for his own political purpose. That was another political stunt. I do not want to hold up the House or prevent Deputy Finan from expressing his views and I do not think that anything I have said is irrelevant to this debate. I am in the hands of the Parliamentary Secretary who will give the official considered view on the matter. The only thing I want to say is that the work that is being done and continued by Fianna Fáil was initiated by them by means of the Arterial Drainage Act and the land reclamation scheme and the only reason this work was undertaken in 1949 by Deputy Dillon was in order that he might make some semblance of keeping his promise of spending £40,000,000.

I think, therefore, to be honest with the people of East Mayo, it would be better to tell them that it would not be feasible for the reasons I have stated to continue with this project for the time being. I will be very disappointed to have to convey that news to them because these people aremy own neighbours and there is nothing I would like to see better than these people being able to avail of every possible scheme to improve their lands and of being able to use all their lands with greater productivity for their own comfort.

I am sorry Deputy Flanagan has made the approach he has made to this debate. It is true that for years the people in that area have been anxious to have this work done. It is also true that vested interests have stepped in every time for the purpose of preserving certain social amenities. It is equally true that the work now being carried out is conferring no benefit on the farming community.

I would not ask the Parliamentary Secretary to embark on a comprehensive scheme but some provision to remove obstacles in the river would not cost anything like £60,000. We had a survey carried out of that particular portion of the river and the estimated cost was £21,000. That included the tributaries. But I would not even ask for that. I would ask that a sum of money be provided to remove obstacles in the Lung River to allow the overflow of water into Lough Gara.

Deputy Flanagan mentioned one point that I want to contradict. It was argued by those vested interests for years that if that rock was removed the country below it would be submerged. The Board of Works engineers have disproved that. The rock has been removed and Lough Gara has been practically empty. There is no danger whatever of flooding. If a reasonable sum of money — as a layman, I would estimate a sum of £15,000 —were provided, either under the land project or by the Board of Works or somebody else, for the removal of the obstacles in the river, the people would be satisfied and valuable work would be carried out.

The only objection I can take to anything that has been said is to the suggestion underlying Deputy Cafferky's remarks that we lack sympathy with the people who are the victims of this flooding. Nothing could be fartherfrom the truth. The statement I made to-day cannot be improved upon, that is, that this scheme has been adjudged, by the people best able to judge, a scheme that can only be carried out as part of the Boyle river catchment area arterial drainage scheme. Neither is Deputy Caffertry nor am I permitted to challenge the opinion of these people.

I do not want to detract from the credit Deputy Cafferky has given to Deputy Dillon but let me pursue that subject to illustrate my point. I am prepared to concede to Deputy Cafferky that Deputy Dillon would also have done this. In pursuance of the objective mentioned by Deputy Flanagan to spend this £40,000,000, he would also have gone ahead and done this and found another £60,000 or whatever was the amount required, seeing that he had this £40,000,000. I want Deputy Cafferky to ask himself why was it not done. If he asks himself that question and answers it frankly and honestly he will find that it is indefensible to put the land reclamation administration on the spot.

I am sure that Deputy Cafferky, who is a member of the same Party as Deputy Donnellan, who was in charge of the Office of Public Works for three years, will be prepared to accept Deputy Donnellan's words before mine. It is on the records of the Department of Agriculture that Deputy Donnellan, in his official capacity, intimated that the work which Deputy Cafferky is advocating in respect of the Rivers Lung and Breedogue was at that time — and it still is — work which must be carried out as part and parcel of the Boyle river catchment area arterial drainage programme. I do not think any new factor has arisen since Deputy Donnellan left the Board of Works to change the technical reasons for that opinion. Deputy Cafferky knows the locality. I do not think he could indicate any change in the situation in respect of those rivers since Deputy Donnellan left office.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary permit an interjection?

Certainly.

There is this change that, since Deputy Donnellan left office, the cutting of the rock and the underpinning of the bridges has been completed. I agree that it is part of the Boyle catchment area and that in a comprehensive scheme the Lung River and the Breedogue River would have to be part of that scheme. We are asking for something temporary to ease the position. If the Parliamentary Secretary realised the position and could see the conditions he would be a partner to the request. I am sure his engineers will agree that there is no use in removing the rock or underpinning the bridges unless it is intended to bring about some other change, namely, the clearing of the Lung River. It would be idiotic to do that unless they intended to follow it up.

The Deputy is mixing matters. I am not challenging the strength of the case he is making to have this work done but that does not make a solution of it any easier. Let me make a distinction between what has been done and what Deputy Cafferky now wants done. Deputy Cafferky knows the work that has been done on Tinnecarra Rock, which was a cutting of the rock. Deputy Cafferky does not require to be an engineer to know that no maintenance arises from an operation of that sort. The main difference, I take it, between that scheme and the scheme now proposed is that this work on the Lung and Breedogue Rivers will require maintenance.

No, no, no. That is the easy way out.

That is the opinion supplied, again, by the people who are adjudged best able to give an opinion. The reclamation scheme administered by the Department of Agriculture does not provide for maintenance and, for that technical reason, the scheme does not come within the purview of the Department of Agriculture's land reclamation scheme. If Deputy Cafferky will not accept my word. I can assure him that Deputy Donnellanis on the files of the Department of Agriculture as indicating that the scheme is not one for land reclamation and that it is to be dealt with as part of the arterial drainage scheme forthat area. I do not think there is anything I can add to what I have said.

The Dáil adjourned at 11.26 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 17th November, 1953.

Barr
Roinn