Vol. 190 No. 1
I move:
That a sum not exceeding £330,700 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, 1962, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works (1 & 2 Will. 4, c.33, secs. 5 and 6; 5 & 6 Vict., c.89, secs. 1 and 2; 9 & 10 Vict., c.86, secs. 2, 7 and 9; etc.).
I propose to follow the practice of previous years by taking Votes 8 and 9 together.
Vote 8 speaks for itself. It covers the salaries and expenses of the various staffs needed to deal with a large number of services provided for in Vote 9. The increase in the Estimate is due in large measure to provision for the recruitment of extra architectural and engineering staff required to undertake some large building and harbour construction projects which will be commenced during the year.
The various services covered by Vote 9 fall into two main catagories, viz. architectural and engineering. The architectural work comprises in the main the erection of new Government Offices, national schools, Garda stations, post offices and telephone exchanges, agricultural buildings, etc., and the repair and maintenance of Government premises throughout the country.
New architectural and engineering works are provided for in Subhead B of Vote 9. The total for the subhead is £2,500,000 which is an increase of £330,000 over the amount provided last year.
As Deputies have been furnished with a statement setting out the particulars making up the bulk provision, it will not be necessary for me to go into detail. A few items, however, merit special mention.
When dealing with the Estimate last year, I referred to the fact that it had long been recognised by all Parties in the House that the accommodation for Ministers and the members and staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas was altogether inadequate and that it was imperative that improvement be effected. The only practical way to ease the situation is to erect a new building as an extension of Leinster House. The planning of the new structure has reached an advanced stage and it is hoped that construction work will commence before the close of the year.
Deputies will be pleased to learn that it is proposed to proceed with the erection of a statue of Thomas Davis. The foundation stone for the statue was laid in College Green in 1945 but due to a variety of circumstances, the project was in abeyance until recently. An artist has now been selected in consultation with An Chomhairle Ealaion and it is hoped that the statue will be erected before the end of next year.
Many of the buildings which are being used as Government offices are suffering from the defects of age, and the stage has been reached at which the provision of new buildings can no longer be deferred. The situation at Dublin Castle is particularly bad— in recent years, several of the buildings there have had to be vacated because they were no longer safe for occupation. A start has now been made on reconstruction work by the placing of a contract for the rebuilding of the block between the Upper and Lower Yards.
Work on the Garden of Remembrance at Parnell Square has started. The contract now in hands covers the construction of the Garden and should be completed in about two years. A separate contract will be placed for the statuary as soon as the design has been finally settled. There may be some change in the design of the statuary as outlined by me here last year.
Improvements to the Mail Boat Pier at Dún Laoghaire, which have been proceeding for some time past, will be continued during the year. We have already improved the east approach road and provided covered accommodation for queues at the root of the Pier. A high level platform has been built all along the east side, around the nose and along part of the west side. It will be continued shoreward. The works in progress include better toilet accommodation, left luggage facilities and some other improvements. We are also providing cranes, one on each side, to handle motor cars. The works already done have contributed greatly to the convenience of the travelling public and have been much appreciated.
In accordance with the Government's decision to adapt part of the McCann Military Barracks at Templemore as a training centre for Garda recruits, a provision of £150,000 has been made for the work. In addition we are embarking on a comprehensive programme for the building of new Garda stations and the improvement of existing stations. It is expected that that programme for this year will cost over £100,000. The rate of acceleration of the programme depends on our being able to recruit the necessary additional technical staff. This problem of technical staff applies to all our increasing activities in the architectural and engineering fields.
Progress with the national school building programme is encouraging. Since the establishment of the State over 1,400 new schools have been erected and improvements to some 1,500 have been carried out at a total State cost of £16,000,000. In the eight years ended the 31st March, 1961, 536 new schools to accommodate 88,000 pupils and 286 major improvement schemes affecting 73,000 pupils were completed at a cost of £10,000,000 approximately. Last year 84 new schools providing accommodation for almost 11,000 pupils were erected and extensions to 16 schools to give classroom accommodation to 1,200 extra pupils were completed. In addition, major works to give improved amenities were carried out at 22 schools housing 4,600 pupils. Thus it will be seen that some 17,000 pupils were served by school building works in 1960-61.
The expenditure in the year was £1.26 millions. These figures for 1960/ 61 are better than was hoped having regard to the bad weather we had over a great part of the year and to the general shortage of skilled labour which extended its effects to school building. For 1961/62 we are again providing £1.6 million. We have made a good start on this year's work. The expenditure in the first two months i.e. April and May, has been over £300,000, the highest ever reached in the first two months of any year. Work is on hands at present on some 100 new schools and 50 major improvement schemes and we hope that at least 130 new contracts will be placed during the year. There is still a large number of unsatisfactory schools in the country, but we are tackling the problem in a planned manner and it is expected that the programme will have been reduced to one of normal replacement in the next ten years or so.
A provision of £120,000 has been made for work at the five sites selected for development as major fishery harbours, viz. Castletownbere, Galway, Howth, Killybegs and Passage East. A considerable amount of preliminary work in the nature of boring surveys, soil analysis, etc. is necessary before final plans and specifications can be drawn up but there will be no avoidable delay in proceeding with the schemes. At the moment the progress and plans are being worked out with due regard for the Government's desire that the works be completed as early as possible.
There are provisions for a large number of works in agricultural interests including the provision of new residential school buildings at Athenry and Clonakilty schools. Construction work has begun at Athenry and a contract will shortly be placed for the Clonakilty job. Deputies will see that provision is also made for works at other places associated with agricultural development such as the Veterinary College, Abbotstown, Ballyhaise and the Munster Institute.
Arrangements have been made for the laying of a new water main from the mainland to Haulbowline Island. The work of laying the main requires suitable tides and good weather conditions. There will be six separate 2in. pipes and they are being laid at present. The job will be completed in a month or two.
As Deputies will be aware, the Government have decided to proceed with the erection of a new headquarters building for the staffs of the Departments of Social Welfare and Health on a site at Haddington Road. Aras Mhic Dhiarmada, the present headquarters of the Department of Social Welfare, will be handed back to Coras Iompair Eireann when the new building is ready for occupation. Planning is proceeding and the project will be pushed ahead as rapidly as possible.
Arterial drainage construction works continue to expand and progress has been very satisfactory. Schemes completed to date have brought benefit to 110,000 acres of land and opened the way for development of 40,000 acres of bog. Works are in hands in six catchments and on one embankment scheme. During the past year, schemes for two new major catchments were commenced—the Moy and the Inny— which are expected to benefit 48,000 and 39,000 acres of land respectively, and 24,000 acres of bog. The total cost of these schemes will be nearly £14 million.
During 1961/62, work is expected to be commenced on two further schemes, the Broadmeadow, Counties Dublin and Meath in a matter of weeks and the Killimor, in County Galway, later on in the year. Under the arrangements introduced about a year ago for intermediate river drainage, work will be started on four of the smaller catchment areas this year. A survey and design work is proceeding in a number of other schemes which are at various stages of investigation. With the start last year of a survey of the Suir, we have come half-way on the list of 28 major catchments, and the end of the arterial drainage problem is now in sight. I can see that it will be virtually solved in the next 15 years or so.
While the remaining Subheads do not, I think, call for any special comment, it will be noted that there is an increase of £30,000 under subhead C, Maintenance and Supplies, from which is met the cost of maintaining State buildings, parks, harbours and national monuments. I am conscious that our expenditure on national monuments has not been as great as we would like it to be. Owing mainly to shortage of staff, our outlay on this service has not kept pace with the extension of our activities in other directions. We are aware of the interest throughout the country in national monuments and their importance in promoting the tourist industry. We are at present looking into the matter and hope to be able to arrange for increased work and expenditure in the field on this service.
There are increases in Subheads E— Rents, Rates etc., and F—Fuel, Light, Water, Cleaning, etc., due mainly to increased accommodation requirements of various Departments.
Provision is thus being made this year for a general expansion of both architectural and engineering works particularly in relation to school building, arterial drainage work, and harbour development projects and it is hoped that the level of expansion aimed at will be maintained for several years to come.
That is a pretty general summary of the main duties of the Office. If Deputies should require further details, I shall do my best to facilitate them, as is the usual custom, when replying to the debate.
I move:
That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.
I do so mainly because I am a Munsterman or, shall I say, because I come from the south-east of Ireland. What I have noticed about Votes for the Board of Works for many years is that it seems as if the people of south-east Ireland are not tax-payers or that they belong to a conquered portion of the country and that the Government of the day are applying reconstruction to them as the United States Government applied it to the Southern States after the Civil War.
I am especially concerned about Passage East. Passage East was mentioned in the Minister's speech today and mentioned last among the fishing ports. I want to know who authorises the works that are being done or that will be done on fishing ports by the Board of Works? Is the recommendation made by the Minister for Finance to the Board of Works or by the Minister or the Department of Lands, or is this a matter for the Board of Works themselves? I have not yet been able to get an answer to that question. It seems to me that the Board of Works are prepared to spend any money on any kind of port in which fish are not caught.
Surely that is not a matter for the Parliamentary Secretary? The decision to expend money in any port is made by the Department of Lands and the responsibility lies with them.
I am delighted to know that and I am glad it is going on the record.
The carrying-out of the works is the responsibility of the Parliamentary Secretary, when the works have been authorised.
The Parliamentary Secretary spoke of what is being done or about to be done at these fishing ports. He gave no details and they are not in the Estimate. I should like to know how much of the money earmarked for fishing ports will be spent in Passage East? I am entitled to know that. The total for the subhead is £2,500,000, an increase of £330,000 over the amount provided last year and I want to know how much will be spent on Passage East in the coming year. I should also like to know how much will be spent on other harbours mentioned here. I am seeking information about them because they are put before the fishing harbours in the estuary of the Suir. When that is the case, I suspect that we may be passed over again. Provision of £120,000 has been made for work at five sites selected for development, Castletownbere, Galway, Howth, Killybegs and Passage East. We know the position in Castletownbere, Galway and Killybegs where factories have been put up and have been closed.
The Deputy may not pursue this line.
I want to make sure that another large amount of public money will not be spent on the same kind of work.
I have already pointed out to the Deputy that the decision to spend money on these fishing ports is one for another Minister and that the Parliamentary Secretary has no responsibility in the matter, except to carry out the works.
I am glad to have it on record twice. Thank you very much, Sir.
A considerable amount of preliminary work in the nature of boring surveys——
these surveys bore me——
soil analysis, etc., is necessary before final plans and specifications can be drawn up but there will be no avoidable delay in proceeding with the schemes.
I am quoting now from the Parliamentary Secretary's speech.
At the moment the progress and plans are being worked out with due regard for the Government's desire that the works be completed as early as possible.
I want to know how much is to be spent in the estuary of Waterford this year? As far as schools are concerned, this is an open and shut business about providing schools. I suppose the direction comes to the Board of Works from another Minister but let me say to the Board of Works—I am sure they would have had something to do with this—that I have seen a few schools opened recently in which there were some very fine pieces of sculpture, done by Irish sculptors in limestone and other Irish stone, which portrayed the patron Saint of the school, or perhaps Our Lady, or the founder of the school. That is to be commended. Instead of putting up the same type of school everywhere it is a good thing that there should be some relief by having these good, original sculptures done by some of our Irish artists.
I am glad to see three schools are being built in Waterford at present. That is to be commended also. I do not think they would have been built were it not for the fact that two of the buildings fell and the children had to be put in the free Library, or somewhere else, while the schools were being built.
There is another matter here on which I wish to express a personal opinion; it would not be the opinion of my Party. The Parliamentary Secretary's speech says:
Arterial Drainage Construction Works continue to expand and progress has been very satisfactory. Schemes completed to date have brought benefit to 110,000 acres of land and opened the way for development of 40,000 acres of bog. Works are in hands in six catchments and on one embankment scheme. During the past year, schemes for two new major catchments were commenced—the Moy and the Inny, which are expected to benefit 48,000 and 39,000 acres of land respectively and 24,000 acres of bog. The total cost of these schemes will be nearly £14,000,000.
It would be just as well for us to know are these schemes development work? Does the Government think they are development work or are they solely to give employment for vote catching purposes? I should like to know the answer to that. Fourteen million pounds for 110,000 acres of land—what kind of land will it be? Will it be good land, or will it be land of the kind of which you would require 35 acres to keep a goat?
I have here the Official Report for the 8th March, 1961. At Column 165 the Parliamentary Secretary answered a question of mine in which he gave me the priority list for arterial drainage of the major catchments of 100,000 acres. They are as follows: the Brosna, the Glyde and Dee, Feale, Corrib, Maine, Moy, Inny, Suck, Boyne, Erne, Little Brosna, Deel, Boyle, Maigue and then we come to the Suir. The Slaney, for the information of the Deputy from Wexford, is No. 28, the last in the list, and the Suir is No. 15. I know the land in the various areas and in the great catchment of the Suir; I know the land around Portlaw where the banks are maintained by the people themselves, and it is great land. The land around the Nore and the Barrow is also great land but nobody bothers about it; nobody cares about it.
We have spent £14,000,000 of the taxpayers' money reclaiming land which is of doubtful value compared with the land I mention around the Suir, Nore and Barrow. I notice that the Barrow is No. 23 and the Nore is No. 18 on this list. This question should be examined and the Parliamentary Secretary should tell the House whether this scheme of arterial drainage is for development work or to give employment for vote-catching purposes. I expect we will only have to wait but at the same time, if it is for development, I would draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary and the House to the fact that we should drain the catchments which contain the best land especially when the work is costing us so much money.
In regard to the State parks, State buildings and national monuments, I want to compliment the small staff in the Board of Works who deal with these aspects of the Vote, on the great work they have done. They have done magnificent work in Jerpoint and in Dunbrody. I am sure the Board of Works had something to do with the work carried out at Bunratty, or their advice was taken. That was great work.
They did the work.
I should like to compliment them on it. It is a wonderful job and a worthwhile job. I would say to the Parliamentary Secretary that that section of the Department is worthy of a better Vote. In regard to the extension of Leinster House, I am sure we are all very glad that they are to try to do something with our Parliament House. I hope that the architects and the heating engineer especially, will look after the heating, lighting and ventilation of this House. I have said before, and I want to repeat, that if this building were owned by a private concern and 147 people were working in it, just as we have 147 Deputies coming in here, and an inspection was carried out by an inspector under the Factories Act for ventilation, whoever was responsible would be prosecuted.
In regard to No. 5 in the Estimates, Busts and Portraits of National Leaders, I think we should bring to an end the buying of pictures of political leaders who are still alive. If such pictures are to be bought and exhibited in public buildings in Ireland they should be bought by the subscriptions of the supporters of these political leaders. If any unsuitable pictures are brought here, whether they are bought with the taxpayers' money or otherwise—and if they are bought with the taxpayers' money and are not works of art it is a shame—they should not be hung in public buildings here.
I would recommend to the Parliamentary Secretary that he read a story written by the late O. Henry which I quoted here last week "Art and the Broncho." There is always the danger when politicians are still alive that there will be pressure brought on people like the Parliamentary Secretary to buy pictures like "The Man Who.""The Man Who" mentioned in this story happened to be the grandfather of an artist. One senator who looked at the picture said: "I would not give six bits for it." The other senator says: "We must buy it.""Well" the other man said, "I suppose it is all right. We have plenty of attics and plenty of cellars in which to put it." I want to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that there is no room in the attics or in the cellars in the National Gallery. But such atrocities are bought and some of them are appearing on the market at very high prices at the present time.
In regard to the Fisheries Branch there is a provision of £5,000 for the erection of the Galway Fisheries Research Station. Surely it is not intended to spend another £5,000?
Is the Deputy against it?
I would suggest that you use that white elephant you have standing down on the quay——
What is it being used for?
This Deputy is always interrupting me and he seldom speaks himself.
He is from Galway.
There is a provision here in respect of works of economic development for other fishery harbours, £35,000. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to take a note of No. 37 here in respect of Harbours. Last year I asked what harbours the money was being spent on and I discovered one of the harbours was Greencastle on which a sum of £50,000 was being spent although only 2,000 boxes of fish had been caught in the place. I had to skim through page after page of this Vote to see was my constituency mentioned in it at all. There are various figures of £200,000, £10,000, £18,000, £41,000 and £329,000 in respect of other constituencies but in County Waterford for Ballymacarbery a sum of £8,500 is provided. This is one of the things I have to protest against constantly, that it would appear that my constituency is not in this State at all as far as the Board of Works is concerned.
I have here the amount of money spent on fishing ports by the Board of Works. It shows that the Fisheries Branch are not directing the money into the places where the fish are caught. In reply to a question at Column 323, Volume 182 of the Dáil Debates of the 31st May, 1960, I received the information that the Board of Works spent £102,865 at Killybegs, £67,000 at Galway, £36,000 at Schull, £21,000 at Dingle, £21,000 at Baltimore and £19,000 at Dunmore East. When will the Board of Works and the Fisheries Branch get some sense?
I see here that very late in the day we are going to erect a statue to Thomas Davis. I am glad we remember there is a history of that period, that it is worth commemorating, that Davis is worth commemorating and the people who were associated with Davis are worth commemorating.
There is a provision of £150,000 to adapt part of the McCann Military Barracks at Templemore as a training centre for Garda recruits. Is it not a good thing that we are decentralising something? It is good that there is a barracks there in Templemore to which to send them, that it was not burned. I note also the present headquarters of the Department of Social Welfare will be handed over to Córas Iompair Éireann when the new building is ready for occupation. I do not really understand what all this is about. Apparently the new headquarters of the Department of Social Welfare is on a site at Haddington Road. Is this a cheap way for C.I.E. to have offices built for them? What did C.I.E. pay for the construction of this building? Has it appeared in their balance sheet? Is the taxpayer going to pay for it? Will this be brought into the balance sheet of C.I.E. as a debit, as capital expenditure or as an outlay?
On previous occasions the Parliamentary Secretary has done me the courtesy of replying to questions I have asked. I have specifically asked him several questions regarding these Votes and I hope he will answer these questions when he is closing the debate.
In the programme of the Board of Works there is no greater demand for increased activity than in connection with new schools, the reconstruction of some of the old schools that are structurally sound and the provision of amenities in all cases including an adequate water supply. Where it is decided that some of the old schools will ultimately be reconstructed, water supply and toilet facilities should get very early attention in the interests of public health and also to provide hygienic training and proper facilities for the students. It would not cost a great amount of money. Very often, public water supplies pass near the schools. I am sure that the amount of money to bring that service into the school would not be very great.
I feel sure that the Parliamentary Secretary and his department will use all their efforts to keep pace with the amount of money provided for school building in the coming year. There is a great public demand for it. In many parts of the country, there is agitation and protest against delay. The programme was so immense that it was very hard to tackle all phases of it. It takes time to plan and to provide. What is being done is excellent. We must only hope that the progress will be accelerated. Of all public buildings, these are needed most and will serve the greatest number of people.
I mentioned last year that there should be a drainage unit in each county. The catchments are very big problems requiring long periods of survey and engineering accuracy. In consequence, they take many years to plan. There are primary streams, going direct to the sea, where there is no danger of flooding farms or holdings lower down by starting at the river mouth and working upwards. Many acres of land could be reclaimed in a very short time.
Some of these schemes have been done already. One was done at Minane Bridge during the term of office of the late Seán Moylan. It saved many acres that by now would be subjected to flooding. It reclaimed some of the very best land which had been submerged by the tides. That type of work can be done pretty speedily. Modern machinery can be secured by contract in the various counties to do a lot of that work. There is very pressing demand for it. We should not concentrate entirely on big catchment areas and, in that way, leave very many acres that could be reclaimed in a short time still growing rushes, and so on for certain months of the year.
I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department will take into account the best propositions in relation to the number of acres reclaimed and the cost. Some schemes undoubtedly will result in a fairly high cost per acre. In other schemes it is known that the cost per acre is not at all great and the proposition would be a financial success from that viewpoint. Primary streams should, therefore, get very early priority.
I mentioned again and again the River Owenabue which flows through a valley. The county council put up a scheme on one occasion for the expenditure of even a few thousand pounds which engineers of vast experience thought would be of lasting benefit but the Office of Public Works did not approve. They did not think those schemes would be of permanent utility. The cost would be comparatively light even if the Office of Public Works decided on a bigger scheme for that river and I am sure for very many others in various parts of the country. Also, it would help to give employment in the rural areas. Day by day we hear of the flight from rural areas. That is a scheme of a productive nature which would help in that regard. I feel sure that attention will be given to it.
As far as the provision of major and secondary fishery boards is concerned it is about time our fisheries were tackled in a big way so as to gather some of the wealth from the sea. We must all approve of that. I think experts were appointed to survey these ports and their potentialities. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department acted on the advice of these experts. I suggest that landing places around our coasts should not be neglected. The county councils concerned and the Office of Public Works should, together, help isolated fishermen so far as landing facilities for themselves and their catches are concerned. Furthermore, security for their boats will ensure a continuance of interest in fishing. If we neglect the local places here and there, it may subsequently be difficult to get sufficient people interested in fishing and to risk their lives on the angry waves.
I am glad that an interest is now being taken in our national monuments. They are a great record of our history. When we visit other lands we see monuments to the memory of their great men. The same tradition should prevail here. If we neglect these things, we are not giving cognisance to features of our history that help to perpetuate the spirit of the past and that serve to interest and enlighten the present and future generations. Our ancient castles are part of the scenic attractions of many localities. If these castles are allowed go into decay, the localities lose something of their history. Whatever is to be done should be attended to without delay or these ancient monuments may become irreparable before action is taken. There is a monuments advisory committee attached to every county council for which a token vote is passed each year. Funds are so sparse, however, that very little can be done. Therefore, it would be very desirable if the Board of Works and Bord Fáilte would come to their aid. I am glad a monument is being erected to Thomas Davis. He was typical of his period of history. His work amongst the various sections of our people perpetuated much that is valuable and inspired many later patriots to work for our freedom and culture. Davis himself paid great attention to history and culture. "Gentlemen," he said, "remember you have a country." He built everything on that. He inspired the coming generation and showed them the path to follow. He was gentle of nature and attracted to him those previously neglectful of such matters. A statue to his memory is only a small tribute to one who did so much for our nation.
I am glad to think of any honour being paid to the memory of Thomas Davis. But I often wonder, however, if the erection of statues to these memories is the most appropriate method of recording our past glory? Thomas Davis was the man who said that "righteous men must make our land a nation once again." Perhaps the most enduring memorial we could erect to his memory is to keep that precept of his in mind and operate, in public life at least, in accordance with his precept. It would be a source of much greater satisfaction to me to think that that sort of memorial were envisaged for Thomas Davis rather than a statue. I often feel that, once we have erected the statue, we think we have done all we think is necessary to be done. Of course that is a mistake.
Would not the fact that a foundation stone was laid and nothing done, show neglect of his memory?
I am happy to recall that I was present at the unveiling of a memorial to him in the house in Mallow where he was born and lived. I commend to the Deputy the inscription which appears there. He spoke of men turning their backs on the opportunity of advancement and preferment because they were too proud to sell their integrity for personal advantage.
I do not think it is expedient or desirable to spend too much Parliamentary time discussing every Estimate which comes before the House, because certain Estimates are necessary and do not contain any very revolutionary proposals. They are Estimates for the maintenance of work that has to go on whatever Government are in office. That is very largely the case in respect of the Office of Public Works. But there are two or three matters to which I should like to refer which relate to the policy of the Board of Works.
Arterial drainage is, in my opinion, most important. I do not agree with Deputy Lynch in that. As Deputy Lynch said, he expressed a personal opinion on it. I regard it as a most important work. I believe arterial drainage is work that ought to be got on with as quickly as possible. I have often thought we could get on much better with arterial drainage without the Board of Works superstition that you cannot do arterial drainage without doing the whole catchment area at the same time.
I believe that is wholly wrong. I quite agree that, if you want to do arterial drainage, you must survey the whole catchment area and get the picture of the average annual flow of water which the main channel of the arterial catchment area will ultimately have to carry when the catchment area has been exhaustively drained. I have always believed that, when you make a survey of a catchment area, determine that the capacity of the main channel must be so many thousand cubic feet per hour and provide against flash flooding and every other peril to effective drainage, it would be well worth while to add an arbitrary five per cent. or 10 per cent. to the estimated necessary capacity of the main channel and then proceed to drain that main channel right up to its source with the estimated capacity plus 5 per cent.
That would leave all the tributary rivers flowing as they now are—some of them adequately; some of them inadequately—but in respect of all of them the clearance of the main channel would provide a very substantial relief. We could then tackle the tributary rivers piecemeal, as convenience and economic considerations suggested. I have always felt that, if we did that, we would get two immediate and substantial advantages. One is that the relative rapidity with which we could deal with the main channel would provide a large measure of immediate relief in the tributary rivers. But, over and above that, we would leave behind us in every arterial drainage basin a large reservoir of public work that waited to be done and which we could undertake as local employment circumstances indicated might be necessary.
Having cleared the main channel of the Suir and the Boyne, in subsequent years, when we came to consider the Vote for the Office of Public Works, if a temporary unemployment situation arose from some fortuitous circumstances in the Tipperary area, we could direct a considerable sum of money to work on draining the tributary rivers draining into the Suir, whereas, in another year, if there were some fortuitous circumstances in the Louth-Meath area, which is drained by the Boyne, we could concentrate the bulk of our effort on that area and deal with the tributary rivers going into the Boyne, in the knowledge that the Suir and the Boyne were in a position to carry whatever water we released from the tributary rivers draining into them.
The present situation, as Deputy Lynch pointed out, is that nothing is to be done for the Suir until 27 other rivers are dealt with. From that point of view, I think it is a bad idea. I have argued this repeatedly with engineers from the Board of Works. So far as I can make out, the Board of Works engineers have been wedded to the idea in the past that you cannot do the main channel without doing the whole catchment area. I think that is an illusion, an illusion borne of an old reluctance. The arterial drainage engineers, when asked to drain sections of the main channel, have always resisted that idea, and they were right to resist it. They said: "There is no use in our draining a block half way down stream, stopping a couple of miles from the estuary and then travelling from one part to another. If you want us to do a main arterial river, let us start at the estuary and go all the way up." Up to that point I agree with them.
But they say: "If you want us to drain a big river, let us do the whole catchment area. Let us start at the estuary and come up the main channel, but if we come to a tributary river, either to the right or to the left, you must let us follow that all the way until we finish it. When we finish the one on the right, we will do the one on the left, and then we will resume upon the main channel." When asked why, they say: "Because that is the only way correctly to estimate what the capacity of the main channel must be. Once we have done the work, we cannot change it because the spoil on each side makes it impossible for the machinery to go back on the main channel, if we make a mistake as to what the capacity of the main channel ought to be." I think that is all rot. If they make a survey estimate and add five per cent., that will give them ample scope to carry off all the water that in any circumstances can be carried.
Another argument was: "If we were to do all these main rivers, we would have to tie up the machinery." That is all nonsense, too. They could do the main channels of all the rivers two or three times as fast as they do them at present, and still have ample time to tail off their operations and to see that they were not left with a vast surplus of unusable machinery which is of use only on main channels. If they did ten main channels in the first group, seven in the next, five in the next, and three in the last, they could, in that way, economically taper off their operations and use all their heavy machinery to the limit of its usefulness.
I see we are to spend £150,000 converting Templemore Barracks into a headquarters for the Garda. I fully appreciate that a decision about the Garda is a matter for the Minister for Justice and not the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance. The decision the Minister for Justice takes is: "I want accommodation for the Garda as a training headquarters." It is the Board of Works who decide what the accommodation should be and someone thought up the brilliant idea of going to Templemore Barracks and reconditioning it.
I want to warn the House of the danger I see in that. I have seen it happen time and time again. On both occasions when I was Minister for Agriculture, someone thought up a lovely idea: "Let us buy an old house and convert it." I never saw a case of that being undertaken that we did not end up by spending from two to three times as much as it would have cost us to pull down the old house and rebuild it from the foundations up. The end result was that we always had a relatively inconvenient premises, whereas if we had torn the old building down, started from the basement up and built according to the requirements of the new institution, we would have had an up-to-date and modern building and we would have had it for less money than ultimately we had to spend.
I find that these stories have to be told repeatedly before anyone will listen to them. We were left a property in Wexford called Johnstown Castle. We converted it into a research station for soil testing and experimental work. One of the conditions in the deed of gift to the nation was that we must preserve the fabric of the residence— God knows why, because it was a very ugly old house built in the middle of the last century as a false Gothic castle. But there the provision was, and when we proceeded to convert the building, it was discovered that there was dry rot in it. We spent over £120,000 on that structure, and when we were finished, we had this ridiculous mid-Victorian pseudo-Gothic structure, now structurally sound, but grossly inconvenient and ludicrous to look at. For a little more than half of what we spent, we could have had as fine a headquarters as there is to be found in Europe.
Then the Minister for Lands, my colleague, bought another place for a forestry school. Of course, as soon as we got into it, dry rot was found. I believe we spent three times the value of that house on reconstruction. I want to put it to the Parliamentary Secretary that if he is not committed to the reconstruction of Templemore Barracks which, indeed, is not an architectural gem, would he not consider forgetting about it and building a new Garda headquarters at Templemore or wherever else it is deemed expedient to build it? I guarantee that if he builds a brand-new building, he will have a much better building at the end and have it for substantially less than it will cost to reconstruct Templemore Barracks.
Why should we be wedded to an 18th Century barracks in Templemore, the only part of which we can possibly use is the four walls? The whole interior will have to come out. It would be much cheaper to build from the bottom up. I suggest that unless the Parliamentary Secretary is irrevocably committed, he should consider the proposal I now make. If it is desirable that it should be in Templemore, let it be in Templemore, but let us employ a good architect, erect a decent building which we can be proud to look at and which our neighbours can be proud to look at.
All over the world—America, Great Britain and everywhere else—you read of beautiful new contemporary buildings planned by the young architects of today. Why, in the name of Providence, do we choose to restrict our major construction enterprises within the four walls of hideous old structures, which are put up without any regard to architectural considerations, or anything else, are reminiscent of the occupation of the country, and have little else to commend them? There are plenty of good young architects in this country who would be glad of an opportunity to show what they are capable of. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that whenever there are buildings to be done hereafter, instead of reconstructing ancient barracks, he should employ young architects, hold competitions if necessary, and let us see what the rising school of architecture in Ireland can produce.
I see the Parliamentary Secretary is going to build new schools in Athenry and Clonakilty. I was going to do that, too, but one of the difficulties in Athenry was we never could make up our minds on which side of the railway we should build. That was the problem with which we were faced. I take it that problem has been resolved. The farm in Athenry is bisected by the railway and the railway cuts off the school buildings from the rest of the farm. Are we going to move the school buildings across the railway? How will that problem be resolved? If it is the intention to build in Athenry, I suppose the Parliamentary Secretary ought seriously to consider making these buildings the subject of architectural competitions. Let us do something to put up that which reflects the best we have to offer by way of architectural design in this, our generation. Let us bear in mind that in the old days there were patrons who were able to provide the arts and crafts in the society in which they grew with an opportunity for self-expression.
In this modern day and age individuals to provide that opportunity seem to have disappeared and there now only remains the State and the wealthy corporations. The Minister speaks here of a variety of buildings that the State has in contemplation. Surely we ought to give some of the young architects of the country an opportunity of showing what they can do. I think the best way to do that would be to put the buildings out to competition. In the biggest enterprises it might be expedient to have international competitions, but for buildings such as the schools in Athenry, Clonakilty and Templemore Barracks, sufficient scope would be provided, I think, for the young graduates of our own architectural schools. It would provide them with a very welcome opportunity of demonstrating what their capacity is. There are very few other places where they can get such an opportunity in the early stages of their professional life.
The Parliamentary Secretary spoke of his desire to attend to public monuments as soon as circumstances will allow. Let justice be done even though the heavens fall. I drew the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to one interesting public monument in Roscommon, which was in danger of being extinguished through neglect. It was, I think, the traditional coronation place of the O'Connors in ancient times. The Parliamentary Secretary promptly took measures to bring the site under the protection of the Board of Works and I think it is now effectively preserved. I should like to think that every public monument to which the attention of the Board of Works was directed should be given the same measure of protection. Adequate staff should be made available in the Board of Works to make that possible. It is not, I suppose, possible to attend to all the public monuments as fast as we would wish to do, but I think we ought to take precautions as quickly as may be. It is a matter of a technical staff to locate these monuments, to identify them and to schedule them for attention as soon as opportunity offers. I do not think that could be done without an adequate aerial survey of the country.
I sometimes feel like a voice crying in the wilderness. Unless I am greatly mistaken, as a result of our history, this island on which we live is the greatest archaeological treasure house in Europe. That is a remarkable affirmation, but I believe it to be true. The reason why we are a treasure house is because we have been relatively remote from the vast industrial revolution, not to speak of more recent wars. But the vast bulk of the archaeological remains that lie hidden under the surface of this country cannot be distinguished in the peripatetic survey of the Ordnance Survey because, if you are walking over sites, however vigilantly, it is impossible to detect them, whereas the same area photographed from the air throws up a clear profile of these sites which can then be identified and marked for future excavation, or determined as being of no archaeological significance and, therefore, requiring no measure of preservation. Though I am reluctant to repeat annually representations of this kind there is no other way in which I can hope to get attention drawn to this.
I had an aerial survey made of the Hill of Craughan when I was Minister for Agriculture. That was the traditional home of the kings and queens of Connacht. On the peripatetic survey of the Hill of Craughan, made and kept up to date, there are marked only seven archaeological sites. On the aerial survey of the same area there are no fewer than 35. If the Parliamentary Secretary wants to verify that he will find the relevant file in the Department of Agriculture, showing the peripatetic survey, and super imposed upon it a transparency indicating the sites revealed by the aerial survey. That situation obtains all round. If the work of preserving the ancient monuments of the country is to be done that aerial survey ought to be made. Quite a number of these sites are being inadvertently destroyed in the course of agricultural operations carried out with heavy machinery. In the past people did not plough an archaeological site because it was impossible to get a pair of horses to draw a plough through such a site with its plethora of stone, and so these places were marked and we all know them—certainly in the North of Ireland—by the description of "Gentle Places." There grew up a tradition that you did not plough a "gentle place" and you often saw them isolated in the middle of a field. In fact, they were avoided originally probably because they were too stony to plough. Then they became associated in people's minds with an area which had a sacred quality, an area it was not thought prudent to plough. So they became the "Gentle Places" but, with the advent of machinery, a great many such archaeological sites have simply been swept away because it was quite easy to pass heavy machinery through them.
I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to press upon his colleagues that he cannot properly discharge his responsibility regarding the archaeological monuments without that aerial survey to guide him. It is not a very costly operation. It could be done by the Army Air Corps or by a commercial firm specialising in aerial photography who would do it for a stipulated fee. It must be done in winter, for the simple reason that, at other periods, the leaves of the trees obscure too much of the ground. It must be done in daylight between certain hours so that the sun will not be too low on the horizon when the survey proceeds in order to get the right reflections to give the appropriate indications on the aerial map of where these sites lie.
There are a variety of other utilitarian uses to which such an aerial survey could be turned. It ought to be of value to the Geological Office. It certainly would be of value to the Department of Agriculture and the Agricultural Research Institute as well, but what is everybody's business is nobody's business. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should make it his business. I guarantee that he will get support from the Department of Agriculture. I do not doubt he will get support from the Agricultural Research Institute and I am pretty sure that the Geological Office will help him also. Between them all, I cannot doubt that the Minister for Finance would make the money available and thus there would be a sure foundation upon which to build up an adequate protective service for the archaeological monuments of the country. That is the main question.
There are a number of archaeological monuments in the form of buildings. Heretofore, I have been speaking mainly of subterranean monuments which belong mainly to the prehistoric period of our country. There are a number of buildings, structures and famous sites which are known to be historical and which archaeological authorities wish to have preserved. I think it is right to repeat what Deputy Lynch said in regard to Bunratty Castle. A beautiful job has been done there. I am sure there are certain utilitarian people who will raise their eyebrows and query the Parliamentary Secretary and his colleagues for having done this. He was prefectly right. I think it is a beautiful thing.
I defy anybody to go into the main hall on the first floor without being staggered by the beauty of the room, if it never had anything in it. It is, in fact, furnished with a good deal of medieval furniture about which some misunderstanding has arisen which I do not propose to foment, because I believe it would be thoroughly evil to do that. There are a number of people who have the idea that there ought to be in a medieval castle of that kind no furnishings that are not of Irish provenance. That is quite nonsensical.
The whole social pattern of our people living in such homes at that time was based on the commerce that passed between these areas and areas on the Continent of Europe. It was common practice for the McNamaras or those who succeeded them in places like Bunratty Castle to send out wool, textiles or whatever else they had to sell abroad and bring back to the great houses Continental craftwork, many contemporary examples of which now decorate the rooms of Bunratty Castle and properly decorate them. It would be quite illusory to imagine that to exclude such furnishings from Bunratty Castle would in any way contribute to the true reproduction of the atmosphere that obtained there when the Castle was in occupation of the McNamaras or those who succeeded them.
It is a beautiful thing. It is an imaginative thing to do and I commend the Board of Works for having undertaken it and carried it so far. It could not have been undertaken without the collaboration of Lord Gort. It was a splendid thing that this help was forthcoming and that his generous benefactions to that historic monument have made it as admirable as it is. We can only hope that others will be as public-spirited as he. It would help to add to the furnishings and decorations of the Castle. It will be done with the discrimination and the care that has characterised all the work carried out there so far. It would be wrong also if the fullest tribute were not paid to the Board of Works for the quality of the work they have done there and the care and distinction of the processes of restoration they carried out. It must have been extremely difficult to do it as it has been done and it reflects great credit on those responsible for it.
I think we make a great mistake in not marking the historic and archaeological sites more explicitly than we have done heretofore. I think the Tourist Board, which is amply endowed, should examine the matter. There is not much use having historic and archaeological sites if nobody knows what they are historic for. I think the practice of putting up a plaque with a short descriptive piece upon it cannot be too highly commended. I have repeatedly directed the attention of the House to my own personal experience on the field of Gettysburg in America. In that area, the matter has been carried to extraordinary lengths. It is now possible for almost anybody, whether with professional knowledge or not, to travel the whole field of Gettysburg and identify every site upon it with every great event that transpired during the course of that battle.
We can travel the roads of Ireland and pass hundreds of intensely interesting and significant sites without having the faintest notion of what significance they have. How many Deputies can point to where the home of Queen Meadhbh and Ailill was or where the Táin Bó Cuailgne started and where it ended? Yet anyone passing along the road from Dublin to Ballaghaderreen passes right through it.
Not every Deputy goes that road.
No, but a great many people pass that road. I do not believe that one in a thousand realises that the archaeological remains through which they are passing are the background of the Táin Bó. I feel sure that every member of the Deputy's Party is familiar with the Táin Bó, both in the original and in Miss Hull's translation. A plaque containing that sort of description would greatly add to the amenities of the countryside and would provide a distinct tourist attraction. It would be work which could very properly be sponsored by the Parliamentary Secretary as part of his general duty of preserving ancient monuments. Evidence of the desirability of doing it is readily available to us by the example set by the Tourist Board when they started putting up plaques marking rivers by name. I like to know the name of a river I am crossing and all of us must have had the experience that outside our own immediate area we would not know what river we were crossing until these plaques were put up giving the name of the river.
The same should be done in regard to these sites. I am certain that if it were done, it would evoke a large measure of local co-operation in their preservation, whereas unless these sites are marked, there is great danger of their being frittered away either by having stones removed from them for building or by obliteration in the course of agricultural operations.
It may be true that the Minister for Education has primary responsibility for the erection of national schools but that is not the whole of the story. I remember in 1948 it was decided that an energetic effort should be made to build new national schools and I look back with pride and satisfaction on the figures to which we can refer in Volume 186, of the Official Report for 23rd February 1961, where the number of new schools built and the number of enlargements and major improvements carried out since the year 1931-32 are given. That period covers the war years and also the years before. I imagine the average number of national schools built per annum was about 30 in the pre-war years. Naturally, during the war years, the figure fell much lower than that for the want of materials with which to build schools. But, when you come to 1948, you find that there were 21 new schools provided and that there were six schools enlarged; in 1949, there were 44 new schools built and 11 enlarged; in 1950, 46 new schools built and 22 enlarged; in 1951, 47 built, 21 enlarged; in 1952, 50 built, 17 enlarged; in 1953, 31 built, 17 enlarged; in 1954, 70 built, 34 enlarged; in 1955, 56 built, 27 enlarged; in 1956, 46 built, 24 enlarged; in 1957, 64 built, 40 enlarged; in 1958, 45 built, 16 enlarged; in 1959, 92 built, 62 enlarged; in 1960, 85 built, 51 enlarged and from 31st March, 1960, to 31st December 1960, 68 built, and 24 enlarged. Those years which were started off in 1948 show an improvement on past performance but I do not think that is work which can be excessively expedited.
I saw recently an article congratulating this Government on having switched its capital programme from housing and the building of schools on to more productive capital work. That I regard as one of the most pointless and revolting intellectual victories for the fools who do not understand the purpose for which money is made. There can be a philosophy in this world that the only purpose money can serve is to make more money and when that is carried to its logical conclusion under the Soviet socialist communist regime, you grind down humanity to the lowest level on which life can be sustained in order that more and more wealth can be produced in the service of greater and greater power and nobody stops to ask himself the question, for what?
I very much prefer the philosophy which deliberately looks at capital expenditure with a balanced view and appropriates what is right and prudent to what is commonly described by economists as productive but reserves an ample section of the annual national product for the provision for our people of the amenities of decency.
There is grave danger that the very success that has attended our efforts in the past to wipe out the slums and to do away with condemned housing throughout the country may blind our eyes to the urgent necessity of continuing to appropriate a proper share of the gross national product to the things that really matter in the long run. The highest priority, of course, was housing, to lift our people out of the loathsome housing conditions in which they had sweltered for so long, and we have substantially done that. There are bits and pieces to be tidied up still but we are getting on with that job. The second charge upon us was to provide the hospitals and sanatoria necessary to protect the people's health. We have done that job substantially. the great danger is now that those who did all in their power to prevent us undertaking that work, who warned us that it was improvident, foolish and dangerous to do it, will now get the bit between their teeth again and say: "You did too much in the past and do not ever perpetrate that folly again."
I glory in the fact that we taxed our resources to their limit to take our people out of the slums and to provide for those who could not provide for themselves the hospitals and sanatoria requisite to protect them, to preserve their health and to restore sick children cured to their parents.
I am afraid the Parliamentary Secretary might not be responsible for this.
For what?
The appropriation of funds for certain buildings is a responsibility of Departments and the Parliamentary Secretary carries out their construction. The fact that money is not provided is not a matter for the Parliamentary Secretary.
I am not talking about money not being provided. I am talking about getting the job done and I am long enough in this business, which officials do not understand, to know that the Board of Works is the instrument by which you stop building. No Minister comes in here and says: "I will not provide money". The tactic is to provide the money and then to tell the Board of Works not to spend it.
Did the Deputy do that?
The answer is on the records. When we were Ministers of State, the officials were not allowed to do that. We made no difference when we had turned our capital programme away from social services. The Deputy seems to overlook the fact that he is being duped into deriding us that we spent too much on houses, too much on schools, too much on hospitals and sanatoria. We did not let that happen and the figures show it because, we said, the primary charge upon the national product of this country is the welfare of the people. We do not believe in saving money and letting the sick die and the young emigrate and soothing ourselves that the deposits in our financial institutions appear to rise or that our external assets continue to pyramid. The Parliamentary Secretary should resist most strenuously any pressure from any quarter which may be brought upon him to prevent him not only from completing whatever programme for national schools is offered to him, but he should seek, in his turn, to be in a position to say to the Minister for Education: "The programme for this year that you committed to my care is completed and I am prepared to do more if you will ask me to do it."
This works both ways. If the Parliamentary Secretary does not complete the programme, the Minister for Education has a perfect alibi but if the Parliamentary Secretary completes the programme in November that was supposed to keep him busy until March and puts on the desk of the Minister for Education a notice to that effect, the Minister for Education will have to answer the question when his Estimate comes before the House in the following May or June: "Why did you not give the Parliamentary Secretary leave to go on? Was it that you did not think, or that your colleagues in the Government did not think, that it was desirable to build more schools?"
I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he could do a great public service in speeding up the programme of schoolbuilding by demonstrating to the Minister for Education that if he were given the job he could build many more schools than we are at present building. I also suggest that he should not play altogether so neutral a role as it is suggested he must play. I regard the Parliamentary Secretary as the architectural adviser in some degree to every Department of State and I want him to offer the Minister for Education this advice: instead of pouring out money to build seven small inadequate schools in one parish, none of which can hope to have sufficient children to justify the employment of more than one teacher and perhaps one J.A.M., the Minister for Education should in co-operation with the parish priest offer instead to build one parish school in which the Parliamentary Secretary could undertake to provide amenities that would be quite impossible for him to consider in several scattered schools.
I feel that we are going back to the debate on Education. This is certainly a matter for that Department. The provision of schools is a matter for the Minister for Education.
Who designs the schools? Does not the Parliamentary Secretary prepare the plans for him?
That is right.
I am not urging the Parliamentary Secretary to appropriate more money for schools. That is not within his functions but he is the architectural adviser. I am suggesting to him that he should impress on the Minister for Education that you cannot provide reasonable amenities in seven schools none of which has sufficient children to occupy more than the principal teacher and a J.A.M. whereas if you concentrate them into one parish school and employ six or seven teachers you can have vast rooms in which you can segregate the children in first, second, third, fourth and fifth books——
What about transport?
Exactly. If I go into the question of transport the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will be upset again. There is not a school in the United States that has not got a school bus. All you have to do is to hire some lad in rural Ireland and all he does is to go round the seven schools where you would have seven shelters. He picks up the children there in the mornings and takes them to school. In the afternoons they are picked up at the school and he leaves them back at the shelters and they make their way home. There is not a rural area in the United States where that is not being done for the past 50 years. The result is that you have rural schools worth looking at.
This is one of the things which, being everybody's business, is nobody's business. The Minister for Education says: "That's a matter for the Board of Works." The Board of Work says: "That is a matter for the Department of Education." If you get the two of them together they say: "That is not our business at all; it is the parish priest's business." I have been round this circle continually. Some day I want to meet a Parliamentary Secretary or a Minister who will say: "Find me a parish priest who will agree to have his parish served in that way and we will provide the services." If the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary does that I will find the parish priest. Is that not a fair division of labour? If we do not face that prospect, we shall go on building a very large number of schools—and it is right to build them—but I think we are building them in the wrong way and the longer we go on doing that, the more difficult it will be ultimately to get the tangle straightened out.
Finally, I want to refer to the announcement that we are going to erect Government buildings here. That decision has been taken. We are going to extend these buildings, retain this debating chamber, which I think is a very good one, and, inasmuch as we have used it since the establishment of the State, it is acquiring a certain aura of venerableness, which it is appropriate to associate with the growth and history of the State of which we form part. You remember all the abuse we used get because we scrapped the Fianna Fáil Government's plan to move to Phoenix Park?
It might have been a pity not to have gone ahead with it.
It might have been, but you appear to have changed your minds.
The Deputy has been pointing out that reconditioning old buildings is not always the best procedure.
That is just what you are not going to do. I have seen the plans and you are going to pull down the old buildings and rebuild right up from the foundations.
The old building will still be incorporated.
Yes, but it will be a new building from the ground up.
Does the Deputy mean that the main building is going to be demolished as well?
No, but some of the old buildings on the way out to Upper Merrion Street, the old buildings associated, I think, with the Museum, are to be demolished and an annexe is to be erected in exchange, I think, for portion of the Opposition building, which is to be incorporated in the Museum. I think there is some general plan of that kind, some switching of the existing building into the National Museum and a section of the National Museum containing the ornithological section will be levelled and a suitable annexe to this building erected on the site. That is probably a right decision and the Phoenix Park will still be there for the people to enjoy and we shall have all the accommodation we require where we are.
Except that we could probably have built the whole lot in the Phoenix Park for what this extension will cost now.
In 1947, we had £50,000,000 sterling to spend on the poor of Dublin; we had countless millions to spend on sanatoria and we had countless millions to spend on hospitals which we urgently needed and we determined that it was right to house the poor and to heal the sick before we built a new Parliament in Phoenix Park. I wonder were we wrong? I do not think we were. That is the decision I would make again in similar circumstances, if I had to do it. As I walk the streets of Dublin now, and of Limerick and Cork, and see the kind of flats in which the people are living, remembering the kind of houses from which we took them, I am proud we did not build the Parliament House in Phoenix Park until we lifted them out of the slums and provided the hospitals and sanatoria to heal the sick. Now we find that we have been proved right. Are not the follies of which we have cured Fianna Fáil in our time wonderful and how little credit we get for it.
The witch doctor.
Is it not wonderful how little credit we get for it? But, as I said before, every time a fool repents of his folly, I rejoice. Sometimes I think the cost of the operation is perhaps a little high but, on balance, it probably was worth it. I am glad that it is now being found possible to provide on this site adequate services for us all, without withdrawing from the Phoenix Park a large part of the amenities which our people have become accustomed to enjoy. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will bear in mind the matters I have mentioned. I want to thank him again, this time for the last time, for having started the clock. I still find it very serviceable when I am proceeding from Stephen's Green to Leinster House.
I understand Votes Nos. 8 and 9 are being taken together. One deals with drainage and the other with building. Drainage in general is a big problem and one that has been tackled fairly well. My anxiety in regard to drainage at present is that where it was being carried out, and where surveys have been completed in rivers and drains which were to be done, the Department are now moving away and they are not completing the job. If our engineers decided at the start to do pegging and put down marks on drains and rivers, they must have decided that they had a bearing on drainage one way or another. Drains and rivers on both sides of the Corrib have been pegged and the drainage is now nearing completion. The area in particular from Newcastle in Galway, taking in the parishes of Moycullen, Killanin, Oughterard, Glan and part of Cornamona, has been pegged, but, at the moment, I am afraid it is being by-passed. The Parliamentary Secretary, coming from a county such as Donegal, in which arable land is very scarce, must realise that it was necessary to have the pegs put down so as to relieve flooding of arable land. It is very necessary that that should be done in the poorer areas before moving away from them. I hope he will carry out an investigation on that part of the Corrib which was pegged and which has not been done, to see what is wrong.
The building of new schools is a tedious matter. From time to time, one hears people complaining that the water tanks on these new schools are unsightly and should be discontinued. I do not agree with that because in every country district these water tanks are essential. I agree wholeheartedly with Deputy MacCarthy that we should have sewage and water facilities in every national school. These facilities are an essential contribution to the health of our children today. There are several national schools which have piped water supplies near them on the main roads but which have not yet had this facility installed. It is a job which should be done.
That is not a matter for the Parliamentary Secretary; it is for the educational authorities.
The improvement of small harbours, slips and piers comes under this Vote. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department will not lose sight of the smaller piers and slips in the West. Much more essential is that the harbours and piers at present being reconstructed are, in the majority, crying out for the provision of guiding lights so as to enable fishermen to land their catches. They have been installed in the Donegal area but Galway is lagging behind. It is a couple of years since the problem of guiding lights was mooted for the entrance to Killeany Harbour, Aran Islands, but so far nothing has been done. The approach is very rocky and dangerous at night time and even if only one light were provided, it might save the lives of many fishermen.
Deputy Lynch spoke as if to suggest that so long as money was spent in Waterford, it did not matter about anywhere else. I do not agree with that. Finally, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will have an investigation carried out on the Corrib, where as I said, drains and rivers have been pegged and his staff at present seem to be moving away and leaving the position as it was.
I notice an increase under practically all of the headings in these Votes. What I have noticed most is the increase for the reconstruction of Government Departments. I thought we had a policy whereby we were to have a certain degree of decentralisation. Such a policy is not given effect to in this Vote in so far as the amount of money earmarked for the building and the retention of these departments in Dublin is concerned. I know dozens of civil servants, some of them from Galway, who would like to get home in the event of a Department being decentralised. Of course that is higher policy than that for which the Parliamentary Secretary is responsible.
The question of the amount of money for different fishing harbours was raised. Would the Minister indicate what amount is earmarked for Galway and whether that amount is included in the sum for the proposed harbour scheme for Galway in respect of which a certain figure has been mentioned? I should like to know what proportion of that figure is to be used for fishery purposes.
There has been a great deal of talk in the past year or two about the transportation of horses to Belgium. That is not the Parliamentary Secretary's responsibility but I wish to direct his attention to the conditions that prevail in regard to the loading of cattle from the Aran Islands. It is primitive and constitutes a hazard to both man and beast. It is about time the Board of Works remedied this situation. What I have in mind is the extension of the piers at both Inishmaan and Inishere. The present position is unfair both to the islanders and the tourist.
In regard to tourists, I would press for expedition in the extension of the pier at Kilronan, Aran Islands. For some years I have been asking to have this pier extended and any time I inquired I have been told it is under active consideration. I suppose one can write that off as one of the typical phrases of the Board of Works in relation to its activities.
I regret to note the small amount of money being spent on the Aran Islands. This is an up and coming tourist centre and one that is worthy of greater expenditure on repairs to roads. If and when a road is done in these islands there should be a certain amount of tarring. It is not very nice for the islanders or for visitors to have dust blowing up——
The question of roads would arise on Vote No. 10, Employment and Emergency Schemes.
An emergency might arise and I might not be here.
The Deputy is out of order in referring to it on this Vote.
Another matter to which I wish to direct the Parliamentary Secretary's attention is the condition of the mill race embankments in Galway City. This seems to be nobody's baby. I raised this matter here before and I shall keep raising it until something is done by the only people whose responsibility it is, the Board of Works. There was a Mill Race Committee but that Committee has gone by the board. The embankments have deteriorated rapidly. It should also be a matter for the Board of Works to cleanse some of the rivers around the same area. Other Deputies mentioned the question of amenities. The Board of Works should provide ball alleys in urban areas. Where there are, say, housing schemes it is a very worthy expenditure.
That would seem to be a matter for the local authorities, not for the Parliamentary Secretary.
I understand there is a scheme whereby they provide these amenities in country districts. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will bear me out in that.
On the next Vote, Special Employment Schemes Office.
Again, in the case of an emergency I might not be here, and I hope the Minister will do something in that regard.
The difficulty about speaking on the Estimate for the Board of Works is that they are contractors for so many different Departments and have no direct responsibility. We are invariably ruled out of order but I shall do my best to keep within the confines of the debate.
One of the most important activities in this country is drainage. The difficulty in getting a proper drainage scheme is that so much drainage depends on main drainage. The scheme the Parliamentary Secretary has put before us in his opening address covers only about four catchment areas. I hasten to tell the Parliamentary Secretary that Wexford appears to be totally excluded from any form of drainage. My colleague, Deputy Lynch, was kind enough to supply me with a list the other day in which I note the River Slaney is at the heel of the hunt. I also note the Minister hopes to have the main catchment areas dealt with in 15 years' time. I would point out that, as the normal span of the life of Parliament in Ireland is five years, three Dála will have come and gone before Wexford can hope to have any satisfaction with regard to its flooding problems, because it is absolutely true to say that you cannot institute any drainage unless you deal with main drainage first of all.
The difficulty a Deputy must face is that numerous applications are made to him by people and by groups of farmers in different areas to have certain work carried out. There is a river whose name escapes me at the moment but which is in the vicinity of Wexford town and is due for drainage. A great quantity of land is involved and the livelihood of many farmers is at stake. Since all main drainage in County Wexford, as in other counties, is dependent on the main drainage there does not appear to be any prospect of the Slaney being done for 15 years.
It is not sufficient for a Parliamentary Secretary to tell us that four schemes of main drainage are to be initiated within the next 12 months. He may very well say he has not the staff or the material at his disposal. I have a certain amount of sympathy with him in his difficulty because he is only a Parliamentary Secretary at the head of a section of what I consider to be a very important Department and he would not have the say that a Minister in control of a Department would have. At the same time I do not see, and I have never been able to see, why the Board of Works should confine itself to main drainage. One of the functions of the Office of Public Works is to deal with flooding. If they confine themselves to main drainage, I do not see how they can possibly cope with the situation fully. Drainage comes under four or five different Departments. The Department in control of main drainage should be in complete control of drainage. They should have the final say on whether drainage should be done. If a Deputy wants a job attended to, he must go to the Office of Public Works where he may be fobbed off and told it is not a main drainage job and that he should apply to the local authority. The local authority then tell him they have no funds for it and that it is a matter for the Office of Public Works. The Office of Public Works stand fast on the statement that they are obliged to do main drainage and no other form of drainage. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to take another look at the whole question of drainage and consider whether it is not possible to have an over-riding scheme in his Department, even if it be necessary to sub-let some of the work to other people.
If the Office of Public Works are responsible for the construction of schools, of all Government buildings and of every type and condition of building, they can sub-let a contract to other people concerned with that trade. Why can they not do the same with drainage? Why can they not sub-let it, where necessary? In that way, we would have continuity in drainage work. We would not have five or six different Departments trying to cope with drainage, with the net result that the water is drained off one farm and runs back to another farm. Millions of pounds are wasted without achieving a final satisfactory result.
The only person who can do that is the Parliamentary Secretary. He can initiate a national scheme. He must have the sanction of the Minister for Finance. I hope that when he gets such sanction, my county will come in for some consideration and will not continue to be at the end of the list so far as everything of benefit that happens in this country is concerned.
There is always the risk when you talk of Garda barracks that you may be ruled out of order. The Minister for Justice generally answers questions on that matter. The answer is almost always the same—that the barracks are under active consideration and that the question has been referred to the contractors for consideration. I submit that on this occasion the contractors and the people responsible for constructing the Garda barracks are the Office of Public Works. I do not like to blame the Office of Public Works directly for delays that may take place. I very much appreciate that they are the Cinderella of the bureaucracy of this country. They get the dirty end of the stick in most cases. They are asked to do most of the jobs when the people concerned are ready to pass them over.
I understand that a barracks in Enniscorthy has been handed over to the Office of Public Works for reconstruction. It is only a matter of time before the job is started. I hope it will be completed as soon as possible. That barracks has to be seen to be believed. It is situated in a district with a population of 5,000. Talk about Dublin Castle falling down! I hope it will not fall down to-night. That would be disastrous, as many Deputies might come to an untimely end at the reception. The barracks in Enniscorthy is liable to fall down at any moment. It is located in an important tourist centre. It is a living monument to inefficiency. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would give immediate attention to the matter, always provided the Department of Justice have passed it over, as I understand is the case.
The Parliamentary Secretary says we shall have a new Department of Social Welfare. That puzzles me. It is one of these grandiose schemes——
A new building.
The Department will be newly housed. Some years ago, the building in Store Street was erected and shared between C.I.E. and the Department of Social Welfare. The Department of Social Welfare, which was scattered all over Dublin, was gathered into one place. What has happened since? They must all be shifted. What is the cause of that and what will the new building cost? There is no mention of the cost in the Parliamentary Secretary's opening statement. If it is anything on the lines of the cost of the building in Store Street—and judging by the increase in social welfare work, it looks as if it will be a pretty sizable building—the cost will run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. Is it necessary to do this? Have C.I.E. specifically demanded that the Department of Social Welfare should get out of the building in which the Department is now housed? Do they want the premises concerned? It is not as if the Department of Social Welfare were housed in an out-of-date building. It is housed in one of the most modern buildings in the city. The building has air conditioning, lifts and every modern contrivance.
That would seem to be a matter for the appropriate Estimate.
The Parliamentary Secretary spoke about the transfer of the Department to another building. I cannot see why it should be moved.
That would be a matter for the Estimate for the Department of Social Welfare.
I was substantiating my case by saying the building in Store Street is eminently satisfactory. One might argue that the Custom House is not a modern building. One has to climb to the fourth or fifth floor, without a lift and one does not know if one is in the Department of Health or in the Department of Local Government. This new project is a grandiose scheme. The money could be put to more profitable use. I assume the money will come out of the Vote for the Office of Public Works.
Recently a group of Europeans visited this country. They were impressed by our wealth of ancient castles and monuments. They said we were singularly fortunate in that regard because we had not gone through the great upheavals so many other European countries have experienced. In the past 30 years other countries suffered a major conflict and many such monuments were destroyed. We have had practically no upheaval since the days of Cromwell except an odd bit of fighting among ourselves now and again which was trivial. They could not understand why we did not expend more money preserving these historic shrines we have here.
Again, I know I am pushing an open door when I talk to the Parliamentary Secretary on this subject. I know he feels himself rather restricted in that he has not at his disposal the money to do what he wants to do. It is only right that Deputies should make that point. We are, perhaps, far behind anybody else in the preservation of the historic monuments which mean so much to every country. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will have the support of Deputies from all sides if he makes a strong case for a much bigger Vote next year.
The question of harbours is a difficult one. I see the Chair looking anxiously at me again when I mention harbours. The difficulty about harbours is that if a person wants to say anything about them on the Fishery Estimate, he is ruled out of order because the Board of Works propose the construction of harbours but the Fisheries Department decide where the harbours are to be. The Parliamentary Secretary himself mentioned harbours in his opening statement. Although we have quite considerable fishing in Wexford and although Kilmore Harbour has been crying out for some sort of protection for the fishing boats there—in fact, so much so that many of the fishermen have had to give up fishing and emigrate—there is not a word about it in this Estimate.
Deputy Lynch complained about his constituency as well. I agree, but at least he has got some little thing for Passage East, which is in Waterford, but we have got nothing at all. There are more fishing boats in that area than anywhere else. If there is to be cohesion between the different Departments and if there is to be a successful development of harbours for the purpose of expanding the fishing industry, you have got to build harbours where the fish are. The actual harbours mentioned here for development as major fishery harbours are: Castletownbere, Galway, Howth, Killybegs and Passage East.
And Passage East is last.
Somebody had to be last.
The south-east coast is last in everything. We are not considered at all. The only place there where there is a large accumulation of fish and where a harbour is really wanted is Passage East.
Surely the decision would lie with the Minister in charge of fisheries?
How can I talk about harbours, Sir? If I talk on the Fishery Estimate about harbours, I am ruled out of order. With respect, Sir, I was not ruled out of order by you but I was ruled out of order by the Ceann Comhairle when I spoke about harbours on the Fishery Estimate on a previous occasion. Surely I am entitled to make a case that if there are fish in a particular place, it is desirable to build a harbour there?
The case should be made to the Minister for Fisheries.
But who build the harbours?
The sanction would be given by the Minister for Fisheries.
With respect, Sir, the sanction for the construction of the harbour must be given by the Minister for Finance. Deputy Brennan is Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance. No harbour can be built anywhere unless Finance pass the money.
I cannot see how we can discuss fishing interests on this Vote.
You cannot guarantee me that if I speak on the subject of harbours on the Fishery Estimate, you will not rule me out of order, because I have been ruled out of order. That is my difficulty. When I get up to speak, I am invariably ruled out of order. I shall hold my peace and resume my seat.
This Estimate covers a great many fields. Speaking on it last year, I mentioned that I thought a good deal of our failure to do the things we had to do was due to shortage of staff. I said I had in mind the question of trained personnel, both engineering and architectural. I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary in his opening remarks referred to the provision of extra architectural and engineering staff. He said that, as a result, it was hoped there would be a more rapid progress in respect of the programme of work for which the Office was catering.
Later on, in regard to subhead C., reference is made to a shortage of staff to deal with the work in that section. I take it the same supervisory staff operate in this instance as operate in respect of public works and buildings, particularly schools and Garda stations? The Minister for Education mentioned a target of approximately 100 new schools per year. Education is one sphere in which the Office of Public Works plays a large part, because the building of schools is dealt with, in the main, by that Office.
In connection with the school building programme, two figures are given for reference. One is that, since the establishment of the State, over 1,400 new schools have been erected and improvements carried out to 1,500. The second figure relates to an eight-year period ending on the 31st March this year and shows that 536 new schools were built. In one case, you have an average of 56 new schools per year since the establishment of the State and then, in the eight-year period of recent times from 1953 to 1961, the average is something like 61 new schools. That leaves quite a considerable gap between the average attained and the target set of 100 new schools per year.
The Parliamentary Secretary says we will have caught up in ten years' time. In previous debates, we have held on to this business of a ten-year period. It is to be sincerely hoped that the target of the Minister for Education of 100 schools per year will be attained. In the provision of school buildings, we are dealing with the generation of young people who, in ten years, will have passed from the benefits that could be conferred on them by proper building, proper surroundings and proper sanitary conditions.
