Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 30 Apr 1964

Vol. 209 No. 6

Committee on Finance. - Vote 8—Office of Public Works (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That the Vote be referred back for reconsideration. —(Deputy T. Lynch.)

The only other matter to which I want to refer relates to the provision for Employment and Emergency Schemes. The total provision for that Vote today is £920,500 as compared with £731,200 in 1956-57, but, of course, we are without £250,000 which was then available under the Local Authorities (Works) Act which did so much useful minor work in rural Ireland.

It is unfortunately a fact that although we have subheads for urban employment schemes, rural employment schemes, minor employment schemes, bog development schemes, rural improvement schemes and miscellaneous schemes, none of these heads seems to be wide enough to cover the kind of work that was habitually done under the Local Authorities (Works) Act in relation to the removal of obstacles from minor rivers. That is a condition continually obtaining in many parts of Monaghan and other parts of the country where a river may not require drainage but presents an immediate and urgent problem as a result of trees which have fallen into it or blockages which have arisen and which cause very material local inconvenience. Such works do not seem to come under any of the subheads provided in the Employment and Emergency Schemes Vote and yet they urgently require to be done. They cause quite a disproportionate amount of inconvenience if they are left undone. Useful employment is provided for local people if such works can be undertaken. Under the Local Authorities (Works) Act they were habitually done under the supervision of the local authority engineering staff as that was the most convenient and economical way to do it.

I should be glad to know if the Parliamentary Secretary would consider opening a subhead in this group of subheads which would cover those kinds of works for which the Local Authorities (Works) Act used to cater and which cannot be undertaken under the existing subhead of this Employment and Emergency Schemes Vote.

There is one other detail I want to mention, and it is only a detail. Recently, I communicated with the Parliamentary Secretary's Office in relation to a job under the Rural Improvements Scheme. The story was that a laneway supplying two or three houses had been repaired under the scheme and the work of repair did not use up all the money of the original grant. The people who proposed the original scheme and paid their contribution returned to the local engineer and asked if he would consider completing the job by tarring the surface if the local people were prepared to make a further contribution in view of the fact that the total appropriation for the original job had not been used. The local engineer told the local people that if they left in £30 as a local contribution to the engineer's office by a certain day, the job of tarring the road would be done. The man who acted for the people concerned proceeded to collect the £30. It took two or three days to do it, but he got it.

He then went in and proceeded to deposit it but was told it would not be accepted and that the work would not be done. I understand the reason was that it is a general rule that the Employment and Emergency Schemes Office will not tar the surface of a road that serves less than a certain number of houses. I am not prepared to quarrel with that—you must lay down some general rule as to the minimum public service for which you undertake public expenditure—but where people go to a responsible official locally and get an undertaking to get a public service done, it is exceptional hardship to have that decision reversed by headquarters.

While I would not urge that the general regulation is unreasonable, I suggest that a wise discretion might be used in cases where a mistake has occurred or a consent has been available, even though it is not in strict conformity with the accepted regulations. It is a pity that an undertaking from any authorised officer of the Board of Works, or any section of it, should be subsequently repudiated at a higher level.

I do not want to make a mountain out of this because it is really a molehill but the Parliamentary Secretary will understand that what appears to be a molehill to us assumes mountainous proportions in the area concerned. I want to be most express on this: I do not like praising the Parliamentary Secretary, and I have no desire to do so, but he acts for his Office in the House and since he must take the criticisms he is entitled to get the praise. It is not personally directed to him. I have always found his staff to be extremely co-operative, most helpful and understanding in every possible way——

This is not personally directed to him?

No; it is addressed to him in his official capacity.

Thank you.

Usually the officials fully understand the special circumstances that obtain in the country and are anxious to meet the problems of Deputies and individuals on a most satisfactory basis. I have always found the Department for which the Parliamentary Secretary is at present responsible showing zeal and a desire to discharge their duties effectively and I have no hesitation in saying that is the case today.

I trust the suggestion I have made regarding the general aerial survey will receive active consideration as I think it would be a pity that public money should be wasted on a whole series of fragmentary surveys when a general survey would achieve the lesser and the greater purpose also.

This Vote, for which the Parliamentary Secretary is responsible, constitutes a very large sector of State investment in building and is also a valuable aid to employment through the Employment and Emergency schemes which are operated under it. The Office of Public Works is responsible for public buildings which are many and varied, ranging from schools —one of the most important aspects— to the various other buildings Departments of State require, particularly, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Justice.

Not alone is the question of new buildings involved but also the maintenance of buildings and I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary when replying to say if a general survey in regard to additions, adaptations and improvements of these buildings is carried out ahead of expenditure? Is there a final figure determined in regard to the works necessary or do some of these works come up during the year, as it were? I have in mind some of the expenditure in regard to a place like Shelton Abbey which has been under notice for several years. Is there a final figure in regard to expenditure under this head? Equally, in regard to the Department of Agriculture and the various works with which the Office of Public Works has to deal, is there a question of finality in these works or do they continue more or less as they come up during the year, as proposals are made? I should like to think there was some overall scheme to which we were working. The Parliamentary Secretary might be able to indicate the extent of the problem that has to be met by his Office in that connection.

The major portion of expenditure on new works generally goes to schools and it is divided between the work directly undertaken by the Office of Public Works and work undertaken by the managers who submit proposals to the office for approval. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to indicate the total expenditure as between these two headings, the amount for which his office is directly responsible and inspection and supervision carried out by his own Department, and the amount in cases where the work is carried out by the managers with their own architects.

Schools at present being erected are pleasing and the outlook for children and teachers in them is pleasant. There has been a vast improvement in the type of schools provided and any remarks I make in regard to them are intended to be helpful and to further increase the admiration people have for the type of school now being erected. The question of the number of schools requiring replacement is something the Office of Public Works have been wrestling with for a number of years. Under the present Parliamentary Secretary, that work has been speeded up even to the point where he contemplates the new departure of providing the prefabricated building where the need is greatest. I should like to hear him defend the prefabricated building in respect of rural areas. Is it intended to deal with the problems which arise by means of what may be described as prefabricated schools? I should like to know what is the life expectancy of such a type of school?

About 70 years for the new type we are working on. They are not prefabs which are put on a lorry and carted out to the site. A lot of the work would be done in the workshop.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary say how that would compare with the conventional type of school?

In what respect?

With the present type of school which is erected with concrete blocks and so forth.

It is every bit as satisfactory and in certain respects more satisfactory.

Will it last as long?

About 70 years which is long enough for any——

Some gossoons would say less.

It is heartening to hear that from the Parliamentary Secretary because quite a number of people wondered if they would give the same service. I can see the problem being met in urban areas where you have a type of school which can be readily assembled and perhaps as readily taken asunder. I think it was Deputy Tully who referred to the planning of schools particularly in rural areas and the consideration of whether the attendances are going to rise or fall. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is aware of cases where new schools were erected and after a short time additions were needed. I do not say that this is the fault of the Office of Public Works. It is something about which I will have more to say on the Vote for the Department of Education. This is a point about which we should be more generous when we are erecting these buildings and if some extra space were left at that stage, it might obviate more expenditure in perhaps ten years time when an additional classroom has to be provided.

This will probably be more of a problem in the immediate years ahead as the policy of the Minister for Education is to reduce the ratio of pupils per teacher and this will lead to a need for additional classrooms. However, I am sure that is something the Parliamentary Secretary will take steps to deal with in his Office. In regard to the schools which are being erected, they are well-designed and well-built and many of those which I have seen have very pleasant colour schemes. This is new and it is a pleasing feature and shows an advanced outlook. Indeed, this has a marked effect on the children who spend quite a share of their young lives within these buildings.

Many of my points are small points and perhaps technical but I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will not object if I mention them. I have mentioned them to the Department of Education and they seem to think that they should be mentioned to the Office of Public Works. In regard to room size and the standard number of pupils expected to occupy a room, say, 36, or 40 or 48 pupils, it should be possible to allow for extra space——

We have increased the standard recently.

I know that, but I am suggesting that perhaps you could be even more generous to allow for the problem of the extra eight or ten pupils in a school and where the erection of a separate classroom would not be justified. In the normal type of rural school where you have two rooms, then if one were of extra generous proportions, it would cater for that problem.

Then there is the question of windows in schools. They are large and airy and afford plenty of light but one thing I have noticed is the diversion of interest where windows are low down and the lower panes are not opaque. If something more exciting is happening in the immediate vicinity outside, it is very difficult to hold the interest of the class. I know it does not look well to use that type of glass in the lower sections but the necessity is created for making those lower panes opaque if class interest is to be maintained.

This brings up the question of television sets being turned on while children are doing their lessons.

Yes, it is a continuing problem and I suppose various ways will have to be resorted to to cope with the situations which arise. Modern conditions are not similar to conditions when I was growing up. Another point is in regard to the placing of the catches on the windows. There is no ready way to open or close the windows except to climb on to a stool or a chair. I do not know whether it is within the province of the Parliamentary Secretary's Department to devise some way of getting over this but I would suggest if this is not the case in the new buildings, that something in the nature of a stepladder stool should be provided as well as a pole for lifting and lowering the windows.

The use of the perforated board for charts and maps is a very welcome innovation and I want to pay tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department for this advanced idea. One of the things of most benefit in a classroom, to teachers and to pupils, is that these charts and maps should be readily on display and this board should be standard equipment in all classrooms in future. Another minor point is in regard to the placing of a map rail. The Parliamentary Secretary will have noticed that because of the placing of the blackboard—in front of the pupils, naturally—the rail overhead does not extend or come down and consequently maps have to hang on the rail at the end wall. I think it would be practical to have the map enclosed in a map case in front of the class and have a simple type pulley to lower or raise it.

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary in consultation with the Minister for Education, would regard as standard equipment the inclusion of clocks in classrooms. A most important thing in the lives of pupils from the very beginning is the matter of working to a routine and of being punctual. A clock is very important in any classroom.

In regard to the modern sanitary facilities provided in schools, they are of a very high order and first-class material is used. I am not the only teacher who feels that the siting of these within the school building is not very often the most suitable. I know many arguments can be adduced in this respect. Some people say that for the comfort of the children, they ought to be readily accessible within the building itself. That is all right until something goes wrong with the system and then what was an amenity becomes very much a monstrosity. More thought should be given as to where these sanitary blocks are to be located in the building of the future, but certainly they should not be in close proximity to the rooms where teachers and a large number of pupils congregate for several hours a day.

The type of furniture provided for schoolrooms at the present time is very appropriate. However, if furniture has to be moved—and that happens very often because children will move furniture—it tends to damage the walls. If a timber railing were erected at about the height of the furniture in the classrooms, it would protect the walls.

As regards heating, the Department has changed its mind in that it is now more inclined to arrange oil heating within the schools than storage heating. It is very hard for the manager of a school to make up his mind, without proper information, as to which system he ought to use. The Office of Public Works should be in a position, from its experience, to advise which is the better system, not alone from the point of view of heating but from the point of view of maintenance and running costs, because there is also the problem of the local contribution which must be faced in all these cases. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to give the views of the Office of Public Works in regard to this question.

One thing I can never understand is why the architects in the Office of Public Works do not advert to the extra large dash which is used on the outside walls of schools. Children must run about and play and even in the best regulated schools, accidents will happen. If a child falls against one of these walls serious injury could be caused. No matter how much supervision there is these accidents can happen and in the ordinary way the parent, feeling incensed, will hold the teacher responsible while the children are under his care. Several teachers and managers have mentioned this matter. I suggest the walls, particularly the lower portion, should have a plain finish; then there would be less risk of injury to young children than with the large type of dash used on these walls. I am glad to see variety has been introduced into the finish of school buildings. The colour scheme is made to fit in with the surroundings and the result is very pleasant.

No progress which can be made in regard to the school building programme will be too fast for the people whose children attend school and for the teachers. I realise the limitations imposed on the Office of Public Works by the inadequacy of staff to deal with these matters. That has been borne out during the past couple of years by the fact that the Office of Public Works has not been able to deal with all the work that has fallen to it. I noted from the Parliamentary Secretary's report that there is still this problem of trying to fill staff vacancies. That is hard to understand but I suppose the explanation given here on several occasions is the true one, that more attractive terms are available in other employment. As regards the building programme, quite a large amount of building will be undertaken by managers on their own. Even so, the Parliamentary Secretary has quite a large building programme on his hands. I wish him well in proceeding with it and I hope the records he has created in this matter will be equalled or exceeded in the coming year.

That brings me to the National Building Agency which has dealt with some of the work which would fall to the Office of Public Works or the Department of Justice in regard to the provision of housing for Garda personnel and other State personnel in areas where houses are not readily available to them. When the National Building Agency Bill was before the House, some very interesting figures emerged. I forget the exact figures but the position was that the cost of building houses through the National Building Agency compared very favourably with that of houses built under local auspices. I hope, for the improvement of housing, that that scheme will expand. As a matter of fact, if the Parliamentary Secretary could take some of this information to the Department of Local Government, it might help in regard to some of the backlog in housing generally which falls to be dealt with by that Department.

I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to say, in regard to the Garda Barracks at Templemore, whether we have a final figure. That matter came up for discussion last year at the Committee of Public Accounts. I know the Office of Public Works have a certain amount of responsibility for it. It is taken in their Vote but the actual supervision work was really under the Department of Justice. The original figure, I think, was £435,000. I think I interpreted the Parliamentary Secretary correctly as saying, that at the moment, that has gone to over £700,000. This has been done on the ordinary contract basis rather than on a definite system which was introduced for this particular type of work and a definite type of cost. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to say if he is satisfied that this type of procedure, although it may on this occasion have had to be indulged in, is the type which will give the best value for the money which has to be expended, and whether the cost, both from the point of view of supervision and architects' fees, is in keeping with what is normally within the practice of the planned campaign, as adopted by the Office of Public Works?

I am glad to see that the arterial drainage scheme and the embankment scheme are making good progress. I want to pay tribute to the work being done under both headings. I have seen the work at close quarters in my own constituency, both from the point of view of drainage and from the point of view of embankments. I want, personally, to pay tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary for his work in that connection and for his readiness to assist people in emergency conditions arising from flooding in their areas.

There is one point to which I should like to draw his attention, that is, in relation to large machines being used on those drainage schemes today. When these large machines travel over land, they create quite an amount of damage at certain times of the year. The removal of the spoil from the stream and its placing at what I consider to be an inordinate distance from the stream itself is something which is hardly justified. I think more regard should be had to the size of the little stream which is being dealt with, and the spoil should not be placed so far from the bank. In that way a smallholder can lose a considerable portion of his land if the stream runs quite a distance through it.

I also want to speak about boundaries between farms. We use a word for those in County Limerick, which I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will recognise, and that is "súls". They are erected where the stream passes from one farm into the next and where something has to be done to stop cattle going through. This word comes from the Irish word for "eye". I have seen some of these opened up and the timber hanging loose. This is caused by cattle in the stream raising their heads and lifting the timber away. Consequently, you have quite an amount of trouble created between neighbouring farms because the cattle get on to tillage or meadow land. This is a small thing but is something which should be looked into.

The amount of very good work, which is being done under those schemes, is very commendable. I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary whether the maintenance charges which are recovered from county councils are sufficient or fall short of those which are necessary to keep those boundaries properly maintained?

They would be sufficient.

Are they really sufficient?

There is a statutory obligation on local authorities and county councils to pay them.

I know that; but is the amount recovered for the work done sufficient or is it more than sufficient?

It is sufficient.

I noticed at one stage it was less than what was needed but at another it was over it.

It is hard to say.

In regard to Vote No. 10, Employment and Emergency Schemes, I presume the number of counties where the county engineer's services are still used has not changed a great deal.

It has not.

I expect it is still about the same. I recollect, on a previous occasion, that the work done could, in fact, be done as well, and perhaps more cheaply, if the personnel to deal with it were available in the Department. There is also the problem of recruiting the necessary officers to do the job. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to electoral divisions in regard to employment and emergency schemes. Is the electoral division referred to here the county council division, the local government division or is it purely a local division? Is it the county health district?

It is the local government electoral division.

It just struck me there must be quite a job in employment exchanges keeping track of the number employed in any particular electoral division.

You take the same time every year, the third week in January.

We used to have an old division in County Limerick, the Glin division. It is not there now. Rath-keale, Abbeyfeale, Newcastle West and Glin are all registered now under Newcastle West. I wonder how they are able to keep them segregated. The same applies to bog development. The schemes are allocated in a certain fashion and I wonder how the situation arises that some bogs come under that division and others do not.

With regard to the question of development work, would the Parliamentary Secretary consider, at this time of the year, whether it should not be allowable that work on the preparation of sites for the development of housing schemes ought not to rank for the type of work which could be engaged in by local authorities within that sphere? We use it for roads at the present time. I think if we used it for access roads to sites and site development work, it would materially help the problem in regard to housing.

I am glad to see that there is an increase in the amount being made available for these schemes because at the time of year when they come into operation, there is usually a problem in regard to employment in the urban areas which of course, peculiarly, does not exist in rural areas. If the Parliamentary Secretary can do anything to provide employment at the end of the year, it will certainly be very commendable. I should like him to consider whether or not he could assist local authorities in the country by allowing that type of work to qualify for some of these grants.

The Office of Public Works, over which the Parliamentary Secretary presides, is a very important office. Personally, I have found the Parliamentary Secretary most helpful in any matter in respect of which I have approached him. He has brought to that Office a very forward look. He has received great co-operation in general and within his Department. The Office of Public Works has a vast amount of work to do and does that vast amount of work very well.

I should like to think that the technical staff in the Office would bear in mind the points that have been made of minor detail in regard to schools, arterial drainage schemes, spawning, and so on. Such consideration on their part would be deeply appreciated. There should be deep appreciation of the amount of work which falls to be done, and is being done very well, by the Office of Public Works.

At the outset, let me congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the splendid work he has done since taking over this very important office, the Office of Public Works. In any dealings that I have had with the Parliamentary Secretary personally he has been most co-operative. He has given great attention to detail. I have much evidence of that and wish to thank him sincerely for it because, as I have said, he presides over a very important office, which covers a very wide field of activity. Personally, I think it is a Minister who should be presiding over the office. Consideration should be given to the feasibility of having the office raised to a Ministry.

I intervene in this debate because I am mainly interested in the very important problem of drainage, particularly in regard to four rivers. My main interest is, of course, in the Shannon, which has a catchment area of some 4,554 square miles; in the Suck, which has a catchment area of 618 square miles; in the Killimor, which has a catchment area of 150 square miles and the Dunkellin-Killimor, which has a slightly smaller catchment area of 149 square miles.

The importance of drainage has been recognised in this country for many years. In 1955 or 1956, the Government invited Mr. Rydell to report on the question of drainage, special emphasis being laid on drainage of the river Shannon. Mr. Rydell made certain recommendations at that time. He recommended that certain investigations be carried out. On 6th June, 1961, a joint report on the first stage of those investigations was submitted by the Office of Public Works and the Electricity Supply Board.

I do not wish to quote at great length from this report, which makes many recommendations. One could speak all day on these recommendations. I should, however, like to refer to the speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary when introducing the Estimate for the Office of Public Works on 17th May, 1962, where he stated:

Perhaps it would be well to recount briefly the various stages in the development of a drainage scheme. The catchment has to be surveyed, the data obtained, plotted and studied, and a design of works evolved. This work must be carefully done by skilled men and the time consumed on it is unavoidable to get good results without wasteful expenditure. A formal scheme is then prepared. This is a comprehensive document embodying detailed maps and showing the works proposed to be carried out and proposed interference with properties. The scheme has to go on exhibition locally and notices must be served on the persons whose property will be interfered with. Persons affected may lodge observations within a month. The local authority has three months in which to lodge observations. All observations have to be considered by the Commissioners who then have to consult with certain other Government Departments. Finally the scheme is submitted to the Minister for Finance for confirmation. All these steps can take several years for a large scheme and even for the small intermediate schemes, up to two years are needed. The reason I go into detail in this connection is that, first, I had to obtain this information for my own benefit and, secondly, I appreciate the fact that there are many new Deputies here to whom this explanatory statement may be of assistance.

That statement was made on 17th May, 1962. I do not for one moment suggest that no progress has been made with regard to this very serious problem of flooding on the Shannon since 17th May, 1962, but I sometimes feel that we are not putting enough effort into all this. In my opinion, there is nothing so important as drainage. If we are to have increased productivity, better grass lands, a prerequisite is a very ambitious drainage programme.

Several damaging ill-effects result from excess water. First of all, excess water results in the exclusion of air, which considerably reduces microbe activity, nitrate and root activity. It results in a decreased feeding area. This is a point that it is well to note: it takes five times as much heat to raise the temperature of water one degree as it takes to raise the temperature of an equal amount of soil. Excess water in soil reduces soil temperature. Dry soils have a good crumb structure. Wet soils never have. This is a very important point. One can go as far as to say that there cannot be early growth without good crumb structure in the soil.

I appreciate that the problem of flooding on the Shannon cannot be successfully dealt with overnight. It will be many years before the problem is solved. Indeed, it is quite possible that it will never be solved to the full satisfaction of everybody concerned. I think Mr. Rydell said that in his report. I cannot get the reference just now but I think he did point out that it would not be an economic proposition to carry out all the recommendations he made. However, in some way, at least, I disagree with Mr. Rydell because I believe that no matter how much money is spent on drainage, it is money very well spent, indeed.

I am also interested in the river Suck but I fully appreciate that you cannot tackle the Suck flood problem until you have first tackled successfully the Shannon problem. Mr. Rydell recommends in his report that the Suck be diverted and he even recommends that a canal be cut at the lower part of the Suck reducing the amount of water flowing into the Shannon. Some people may think I am emphasising this matter too much but a large part of my constituency is affected by this flooding. When I came in here in 1958, I was invited to Clonfert, which is part of my constituency and also to Meelick and I saw the most terrible sights imaginable. I saw thousands of acres of potentially good land under water. All one could see was miles and miles of water dotted with cocks of hay.

That land was useless after the floods subsided and was useless the following year. Lands that are subject to much flooding are likely to be breeding grounds for fluke and worms which kill many of our cattle and sheep. I come from a county that at one time produced one-third of the total sheep population of the country. That proportion has now dropped to about one-fifth and in that area people have great difficulty in keeping the number of sheep they would like to because of the flood problem. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to do his utmost to ensure that there will be no undue delay in putting into effect many of the recommendations contained in this report.

Another river in which I am interested is the Killimor, with a catchment area of 150 square miles. Work on it was started a few years ago and I must compliment the Parliamentary Secretary and his engineering staff on the wonderful work they are doing down there. It is very much appreciated by the people whose land was previously affected by flooding from this river. While the machinery is down there the Parliamentary Secretary should issue a directive requesting the drainage of more small rivers that are related to the Killimor catchment area. There may be a very good argument against this but there is also a very good case to be made for it. It can be appreciated that when you bring large machinery into an area and it is working there it is easy to extend the activity of the machines to smaller drains not included in the catchment area but not too far away.

Day after day I get letters from people asking me to have their particular drains included in the Killimor catchment area. I can do nothing but pass the letters on to the Parliamentary Secretary who gives them every consideration but sometimes he finds it impossible to accede to my request. He has satisfied a great number of people in this locality and they certainly appreciate it.

The problem of spoil is one which we cannot avoid when tackling a big job. So far I have not had many complaints but there have been a few, usually from people with very small holdings. I should like that in these cases spoil should be kept to the lowest possible minimum. In some of these areas the farms are very small; they cannot be ranched and the farmers go in for a very intensive type of farming. Some of the lands are used for the production of celery and other crops of that type which can be sold to a processing factory which has been set up near Banagher. When the Corrib-Clare was being drained there was a very big problem with spoil and people wrote to me regarding compensation. So far I have had only one or two complaints from people affected by the Killimor river drainage.

People listening to me may think that flooding is the only problem in Galway but we have another river there with a catchment area of 149 square miles which requires to be attended to. This is the Dunkellin river and I am glad to see, from page 15 of the Parliamentary Secretary's brief, that it is hoped to begin the survey and design work on this scheme this year. It causes a lot of flooding and as this is a sheep area it reduces the number of sheep farmers are able to hold. The flooding is at its worst at New Inn and the contiguous area. It is, however, encouraging to note that a beginning is to be made this year on that river. It is very welcome news.

On page 17 of his brief, the Parliamentary Secretary points out that, excluding civil servants, the Office of Public Works gives direct employment to about 2,800 men whose wages bill amounts to about £1,200,000. That number should be greatly increased and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to do all in his power to initiate further drainage activities so as to employ more in this very important national work.

I feel the extra £50,000 allocated this year to the Special Employment Schemes Office is far too small. For a long time last year people came to me to say they had made applications to this office to have certain roadworks carried out but that nothing had happened. It was brought to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary and this year £50,000 extra is being given. It is a step in the right direction but I hope it is only a start. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to have the amount allocated under this head considerably increased when he introduces his Estimates next year. It is the experience of Deputies that every day people come complaining that their applications in respect of roadworks and drainage schemes have not been attended to. Finally, I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the personal attention he has given to all matters I have brought to his notice at all times.

A couple of years ago, I referred to the safety of children in Stephen's Green. I mentioned the need for some sort of guard around the pond there, pointing out that there is an incline towards the water and no protection to stop one falling in. It is most dangerous for children and two months ago a child fell in early in the morning. Luckily, there was an adult nearby to rescue the child. There is no rail or bar there which one could grab if slipping. Children tend to throw food into the pond and that, of course, causes them to slip.

I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for providing a site for a Fenian memorial in Stephen's Green. We like the Green as a site because we know proper care will be taken by the State to preserve the memorials. Some of the memorials in our public streets are most unsightly. I do not know who has charge of the monument near Hawkins Street but the inscription is defaced and illegible. That is why we were anxious to get a site in the Green, on the derelict plot of the old plant house. We are informed it is only at the sketch plan stage and that we must wait until next year for its erection. I trust the Parliamentary Secretary will ensure that the site is ready by August, 1965 at the latest.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell me when the Garden of Remembrance will be completed? Can he also say what form the memorial will take? I am very interested in monuments and historical sites. Those for which this Department are responsible should be inspected at least once a year and kept in good order. They are visiting places for tourists and many of them are in a disgraceful condition. The Parliamentary Secretary should see to it that they are properly looked after.

In Dublin we are confronted with a very serious problem in which the Parliamentary Secretary might be able to help. We are in a sweat as to what to do with old people—we have nowhere to accommodate them. The problem of accommodating families is not so severe but we have great difficulty in finding places for single old people or old couples. We have scraped the bottom of the barrel and have found only one vacancy in the whole of Dublin, though there are 12 old people awaiting eviction before the end of the week. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could clear out some building or part of a building. What about making the Green Street garda station available?

This is not the usual sort of appeal made to the Parliamentary Secretary; it has been made to all Departments of State and the possibility is that the Parliamentary Secretary may have at his disposal a structure, or even part of a structure, which he might temporarily hand over, because, during the next 12 months, two-thirds of the old people who come out will have to stay out. We simply have nowhere for them. In desperation, we had to get caravans. Between site preparation, and everything else, they are costing anything from £500 to £1,000. If the Parliamentary Secretary can help, I appeal to him to get in touch with the principal officer for housing.

While appreciating that the Parliamentary Secretary has dealt fairly extensively with ancient monuments, it seems to me that the approach made by him and those who advise him does not exactly meet the situation. It is an accepted fact that we here escaped the destruction of monuments that took place in other civilised countries over the centuries and we have, therefore, an opportunity of offering to those who visit us an unrivalled number of monuments scattered throughout the length and breadth of the country.

I gather from the Parliamentary Secretary's statement that a survey of these monuments is at present taking place. I understand that the idea is to write a detailed statement on the archaeological history of the monuments. I believe a somewhat different approach would be better. Nearly all Americans who come here look for something that is old. Now what we regard as old is something that has come down through several centuries. What the Americans regard as old is anything up to 100 years. We can provide in practically every parish an ancient castle in some shape or form. The Parliamentary Secretary, his officials, and others concerned do not know the extent of these monuments.

Some time ago I asked the Minister responsible for tourism if there was any particular approach from the point of view of tourism and I suggested that archaeology might prove a very attractive amenity in the off-tourist season. Subsequently. I received a letter from the Tourist Board in which they informed me that the Board of Works had been asked to produce, on their behalf, a brochure giving a list of monuments in each county. I have seen the brochure and, as far as my recollection goes, it consists of a couple of pages giving the more important monuments, the ones with which everybody is familiar. What I have in mind is an up-to-date inventory of every old castle that exists in the country. The people who visit monuments—even the Americans have their archaeological and historical societies —for the purpose of studying them are fully conversant with the archaeological study and what they really want to do is to visit the monument themselves, with the idea of studying it for themselves, instead of reading a long essay written by someone else on it. What they really want to know is where the monument is. There is no reference in the Minister's statement as to whether or not he has been asked to produce this brochure. He has probably been asked to look into the matter all right and apparently he has done so to a certain extent. If he has been asked, would he indicate whether or not he intends to do this and, if not, is there any particular reason why he should not do it?

In one Department we have a section in which the officials are experts on this particular subject and have a pretty shrewd idea of where these places are. They would, however, need to be sent out through the country with a mandate to travel and mark these particular monuments on maps or charts. That would, of course, take a considerable time and it would probably mean a full-time official doing the work, but I think it would pay a richer dividend than some of the other items in this Estimate to which I shall refer later. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will consider what I have suggested. I have met a number of Europeans who are anxious to visit this country and see these monuments. I have been asked if I could indicate where they are. The answer I have given is that they are literally everywhere. I think we do not appreciate how many there are. I invite the Minister and his officials, next time they are out through the country, to see how many monuments they can pick up between here and the extreme south. They will be absolutely amazed for they literally abound everywhere. Perhaps the Minister will give this matter his consideration.

Reference was made to the Dún Laoghaire ferry terminal. It is stated that British Railways have asked that a ferry service be provided and a sum of £650,000 has been allocated for that purpose. It is common knowledge that the chief port of entrance from the point of view of a ferry service into this country at the moment is Rosslare. The Board of Works have received from the Department of Transport and Power a demand on behalf of those interested in Rosslare, and probably also from British Railways, for a considerable extension of the existing facilities at Rosslare. There is nothing in the Minister's statement to indicate that any improvements will be made at Rosslare. The existing facilities are not sufficient to deal with the modern demand.

The difficulty in trying to discuss anything on the Board of Works Estimate is that the Board of Works are not directly responsible for anything. I say that in the kindliest spirit. I have the greatest admiration for the Board of Works and great sympathy for them because of the difficulties under which they operate. They are entirely dependent on whatever is transmitted to them in relation to Rosslare harbour. If it has not, it is very difficult to understand why not. This has been a live issue for quite a number of years, long before there was any idea of a car ferry terminal at Dún Laoghaire.

The Parliamentary Secretary is a realist. He is also a representative of the southern half of the country. He will appreciate that it is undesirable that all the motor cars should come in through Dún Laoghaire. Dublin has already got more than a fair share of the benefits of tourism, without making it any easier for Dublin to enjoy still greater benefits. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will indicate whether there are any plans with regard to Rosslare, whether or not these plans have been shelved, and, if not, whether we may expect some expenditure in that area in the future. There will be the greatest disappointment because of the fact that there is nothing in the Estimate to suggest that the southern part of the country will get benefits equivalent to those which Dublin is getting.

I come now to the question of drainage. Year after year I have suggested that the system in regard to drainage is most unsatisfactory, in that it should be within the compass of one Department to deal with drainage rather than having half a dozen Departments concerned with it. My experience as a rural Deputy is probably parallel with that of other Deputies. I am constantly approached by constituents who can prove to me that there is considerable submarining of lands in certain areas. It is most difficult to find out who is responsible for that drainage.

As I understand the position, the Office of Public Works are responsible for main drainage alone, but you cannot possibly say they have no other function in the matter because, if you do, you make nonsense of the whole drainage system. We have the Office of Public Works; the land reclamation scheme; local government have a certain responsibility; and there is the Special Employment Schemes Office.

I know the Parliamentary Secretary has great difficulty because of shortage of staff. I know he has the greatest difficulty in getting expert engineering staff, due to the fact that there is a great deal of sameness in the work. Young professional men like variation, and they do not like to work on the same job all the time. For that reason it is difficult to get a sufficient number of people to deal with the problems of catchment areas that arise. If the Office of Public Works had overriding authority over all drainage work, it would simplify the work of the officials, the work of the Office, and the work of the Government. It would also simplify the work of the technical experts.

In discussions in the Office of Public Works, the question usually is: "Who is responsible for the work?" I was glad to note the other day that there now appears to be some form of liaison between the Office of Public Works and the Special Employment Schemes Office. If the Office of Public Works feel they are not responsible for some drainage work, they pass it back to the Special Employment Schemes Office for consideration. I do not know when that happy state of affairs came about. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary is responsible for it, but if he is, he has certainly achieved something towards simplifying the matter. If the Office of Public Works are not responsible for some drainage work and transfer it to the Special Employment Schemes Office, at least there is a cut and dried scheme which you can take to the people concerned and tell them what to do. I do not know what influence the Parliamentary Secretary has within the confines of the Government.

I am disappointed to hear that. I thought the Parliamentary Secretary showed great promise. However, perhaps he has some influence with his Minister, the Minister for Finance, who controls the money and could arrange for him to have overriding authority to deal with drainage. If he had, many of our problems would be solved, and we could really get somewhere.

There are certain drainage schemes to which I should like to refer briefly. I understand that the River Owen-varragh in Wexford is to be drained. I should be obliged if the Parliamentary Secretary would tell me when work will start, how long it will take, and to what extent the catchment area will be drained. The drainage of the River Assaly has been investigated and reinvestigated by experts. I understand there is some hope that some limited work may be done in that direction. I should like to know if such is the case.

I am informed that under the direction of the Office of Public Works, schools will move over as quickly as possible to what is known as prototype schools or pre-fab schools. I further understand that there is a new type of prototype school in which the corridors which existed so abundantly in our old schools will be abolished. That will bring about a great economy of space. We will have a more economic type of school, and it will cost less to build. It will also provide more accommodation and will be a better and more up-to-date building, generally speaking. I do not know if such is the case. I have heard rumours to that effect.

I know that in Europe there have been considerable advances in pre-fab structures. Although all these schemes which are on foot have not been finalised, a great deal of pre-fab construction is going on in Europe and in America also. It is a cheaper type of building, and it is simpler for the purpose of accessories such as heating, and so on. It is more economic, and its durability is good. The Parliamentary Secretary said that pre-fab schools were estimated to last for 70 years. I do not know if that is right. My information is that they will last for 50 years, but even 50 years would be something in the life of the education of a country.

We have many obsolete schools, badly lighted, badly sited and with a tremendous amount of waste space. The Parliamentary Secretary might tell us if it is intended to push ahead in that direction. I understand these prototype schools are put together but not manufactured here. If the Parliamentary Secretary could give the House some information in relation to this matter it would be helpful to Deputies and to people such as school managers who will, no doubt, look to the Estimate hoping for more up-to-date development in the construction of schools.

The Parliamentary Secretary referred to what he called a "preventive centre" which, I suppose, is a school for, shall we say, juvenile delinquents. I was unaware of the fact that there was a school of that type in the city. I am aware that certain interested parties have been trying to get a school built in Finglas, and I am aware that that scheme has been mooted for something in the period of two or three years, but there has been considerable delay.

The Parliamentary Secretary said:

The preparation of plans for the erection of a Preventive Centre at Finglas, County Dublin, is well advanced and construction work will, it is hoped, commence this year.

If that is the centre I have in mind, it has been in the offing for a considerable time. Many people had hoped that by now it would have been commenced. From a telephone call which I made today, I am aware that it has not been commenced yet. The House is entitled to some definite information in relation to the school for the rehabilitation of juvenile delinquents. There is nothing derogatory in the fact that the city of Dublin or Ireland requires such a school because, proportionately speaking, other cities have probably far more juvenile delinquents. I trust that everybody concerned will act as fast as possible to bring this necessary work to a successful conclusion.

There are several things which puzzle me in relation to the expenditure of money under this Vote. There is talk about the capital programme of the Government. We on this side of the House are really not allowed to question anything about finance. We are supposed to be retarding the wonderful progress of the Fianna Fáil Party who are spending £200 million a year in this country. It is the plan for economic progress and we are supposed to bow down and be silent. The duty of an Opposition is to see to it that money is equitably and well spent.

I note that a sum of £1,788,000 is provided for a new Department of Social Welfare and that for Dublin Castle, with the total sums added up, the amount is practically £1 million. I am not very clear whether they are all in respect of Dublin Castle and it may well be more than £1 million. Some years ago, the question of Dublin Castle was debated in this House. Quite a long discussion arose on a Supplementary Estimate. The foundations of Dublin Castle were supposed to be insecure. There was a lengthy discussion as to whether or not it was worth while reconstructing Dublin Castle because of the danger of insecure foundations.

There has not been any clear indication since the time I heard it debated here as to whether or not the foundations of Dublin Castle are secure. I wonder if those who advise the Parliamentary Secretary have any information on the matter, whether they have satisfied themselves that it is an economic undertaking and that the money will not, in the long run be thrown away.

We are expending £1,788,000 on the erection of a new Department of Social Welfare. Is there any real justification for that? I suppose it is being built probably out of voted capital funds. Are we such a wealthy country that we can afford to chuck away all this money when we already have a Department of Social Welfare which is contained in a modern air-conditioned building, practically the only such building in the country? The Parliamentary Secretary should indicate whether or not the present building which houses the Department of Social Welfare is being scrapped and, if so, why. If it is not being scrapped, what use will be made of it? We should at all times ensure that money is spent only when it is absolutely necessary.

This Estimate is the show-window of the prosperity of the nation under a Fianna Fáil Government. It is a good criterion of the times. It shows that the nation is prospering. The Parliamentary Secretary has proved an excellent man in the job and his approach is original. Both he and the Commissioners and the staff generally are doing a jolly good job.

They have done wonderful work for schools in recent years. It is regrettable that there are still nearly 700 bad school buildings throughout the country but the Parliamentary Secretary hopes that within the next seven years they will all be demolished. In my constituency, we experienced great co-operation from the school managers and a lot of schools were built in recent years in Dublin city and county which have cost millions. Prefabricated schools, and so on, are welcome because in certain areas we are in a very bad way for extra accommodation.

Since the passing of the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, the State has spent £16 million on arterial drainage and we are still going ahead with the work. I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary because we in County Dublin succeeded in getting our share of it. Almost £500,000 will have been spent by the next few months on drainage in the north County Dublin area and we have a number of other intermediate rivers which will be brought up later. I was sorry the Parliamentary Secretary did not mention Skerries harbour because we have been discussing it and making representations about its reconstruction and extension. Of course, he will do the job but there is still a feud going on between Dublin County Council and the Fisheries Section of the Department of Lands. When that is settled, I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will look after the matter.

Another burning question in County Dublin is coast erosion. I should like to see the nation prosperous enough to be able to afford to do more about coast erosion. While the Parliamentary Secretary introduced a Bill dealing with this subject, it is one of the problems we still have in my constituency. There is very severe erosion in various areas, at Skerries, Rush, Donabate, Portrane, Malahide and Portmarnock. I should like to see the Parliamentary Secretary able to give a certain amount for coast erosion protection work each year. That is the only way we can deal with it. I know that some surveys have been carried out in my area and more are under way. This is a national problem and even if we can do it only on a piecemeal basis, by spending £5,000 or £6,000 in an area, we might save acres of land, and perhaps houses, from being washed away. Until the Bill was introduced, we could do nothing because, unless council roads were affected, the councils did not move.

Other speakers have dealt with ancient monuments. It is nice to see them preserved. They are part of our tourist attraction and show that we have some traditions.

The rural improvement schemes are very much appreciated. We have availed of them in County Dublin and I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for assisting me in relation to quite a few of them. We have a few more outstanding, but, as he said today, we must take our place in the queue because there are a number of families and groups of people trying to get roads and other things done under these schemes.

There has been a very fine improvement in regard to Garda barracks and I am delighted to hear the Parliamentary Secretary is in a position to do something worthwhile for them. Some barracks in County Dublin were really depressing, especially for young recruits. They were overcrowded and insanitary. I welcome the new approach by the Government and the energetic Parliamentary Secretary in regard to the provision of barracks and Garda houses.

A matter that does not come under the Parliamentary Secretary and about which we have a number of complaints is the condition of courthouses. Some of these are a disgrace to our country and I very often get complaints about them. These come under the jurisdiction of the local authorities and for that reason I refer to it only in passing. I am sorry they are not under the Parliamentary Secretary's control as they are anything but what they should be.

I am sorry I delayed the Parliamentary Secretary but I had been waiting all morning to say a few words. I am deeply concerned about coast erosion and I hope the problem will be tackled by the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government. If Fianna Fáil are left in office, with the help of my old friend, Deputy T. Lynch, we shall get a lot of work done.

It is Dublin County Council's job and the Deputy is a member. Do not try to throw it on to the Parliamentary Secretary.

I heard the Deputy speaking of Dún Laoghaire and I thought he was going to retreat from County Waterford and come up there but he made his exit quickly. I want to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary on doing a good job.

The Deputy forgot to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary.

No; I never fail in that or in any of these gracious little courtesies.

You slipped up.

I imagine it would be quite impossible to reply to all the points raised and do justice to them in the short time available. It is unusual for a Vote to finish so quickly. Usually the person dealing with it has an opportunity to study in more detail the queries raised by Deputies. At the outset, I want to thank the House, on behalf of the officials and staff of the Office of Public Works and on my own behalf, for the constructive criticisms they made and the complimentary things they said about us. Where they were not so complimentary, I assure them that all matters, big and small, will be carefully examined. Where necessary, having got the requisite information —if I do not deal with it today—I shall write to the Deputy concerned in detail on the matter mentioned by him.

Deputy T. Lynch made his usual constructive contribution. He referred to the barracks at Templemore. Subject to confirmation of this, from my notes, the position is that the original estimate was purely provisional. I think it was £435,000. The actual estimate was £560,000 and the eventual cost £620,000. There was an increase in wages and the cost of materials and my Office was quite satisfied with the standard of workmanship and the progress generally.

I am glad the Deputy mentioned the acoustics in this House. As I said, the amplification system in operation had its growing pains but Deputies would contribute greatly to its effectiveness if they would not throw files down on top of the microphones. I should like to make it clear that at any one time there are only two microphones switched on. As I speak, the other microphones are dead. If I sit down and Deputy Lynch rises to speak, the microphones on each side of him are switched on and those over here go off. It is an exaggeration to suggest that private conversations of Deputies who are not addressing the House could come over the loudspeakers.

I had a very nice letter from the Press Gallery. As we all know, they had difficulties in the past. They could not hear, and reports at times led to unpleasantness and misunderstanding. There is no excuse now for anyone to suggest that he is misquoted because the sound is very satisfactory in the area of the Press Gallery and in all areas of the House including the Distinguished Strangers' and Public Galleries.

Deputy Lynch asked about the memorial to the Garda. I think it will take the form of a slender column with a plaque with the names of the members of the Force who died in the execution of their duty inscribed on it. He also mentioned Tramore Garda station. The position is that there has been local objection to building the station there. Is the Deputy aware of that?

That is terrible; the Deputy is not in touch with the times at all.

My information is that we have a site in view but local representations have been made against building a Garda station on it. That site is near the old railway station and we have difficulty in getting an alternative site.

It would be a good idea to consult the local Town Commissioners.

It would be better if the local people were consulted at first hand rather than by letter. I would ask the Minister to send down one of his officials and this could be settled on the spot.

We have made several efforts to get a suitable site and the local Commissioners are aware of the position. If Deputy Lynch can use his good offices, we would greatly appreciate it. The sooner we get a site the sooner we can go on with the work.

We are studying the opinions expressed by Deputy Lynch with regard to glass in oil portraits generally. There are two schools of thought about this point. One eminent painter tells us that oil paintings should always have glass in them and an equally eminent Irish artist tells us that it is entirely wrong to have glass in oil paintings and that the reflection of light, the reflection of the person looking at the picture and so forth, detract from the merits of the painting. The point Deputy Lynch made was that a picture could be damaged in the atmosphere here. We will look into it.

In regard to the Thomas Davis memorial, the plaster cast of the statue of Davis will probably be ready by the end of this year. We will consider the suggestion about the flag of the Fighting 69th Regiment. With regard to the suggestion that a history should be prepared, this initially would be a matter for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges but we can arrange, I am sure, to have the matter raised there. I am sure the Deputy's representations will be borne in mind.

Deputy Lynch also mentioned the question of coast erosion in Tramore. As the Deputy is aware, a proposal in this regard has to be initiated by the local authority, in this instance the Waterford County Council. We do not appear to have received any application from them as yet and we cannot make the first move. The work at Rosslare of course was started before the Coast Protection Act became law.

Deputy Tully mentioned drainage. I should like to point out that the minimum rate of wages for drainage workers is now £8 for a 48-hour week. It was, I am glad to say, recently increased by £1.

There was also the question raised of having a painting or a piece of sculpture in new schools. This is a matter for the Minister for Education. We just do what we are told. It would be a matter for his Estimate but I will bring the point to his attention.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary consider it a good idea?

Yes, but a better idea would be to have the 1916 Proclamation in every school.

I thought it was in every school.

It is not in every school and it would be a good idea if it were.

Deputy Lynch also said that more money should be voted for schools. As I said, we are spending a record amount this year. It will take seven years at least to clear the arrears of 650 to 700 schools that need replacement. The new prototype which we are testing at Ballyboughal, County Dublin, if it is successful, should reduce the time further. I can assure the House that the Government will not be deterred from solving this problem by a shortage of money. We will have to be realistic. The figure included is the most we can spend, and it is a very big sum. We are acutely aware of the problem in my office. Certainly some of the schools would be classified by any medical officer of health as unfit for human habitation. We realise how paradoxical it is to have health schemes and school meals' services and so on while certain schools could be classed as unhealthy. We all know how bad some of them are, but the Schools Section of our Department is very farseeing and have a very enlightened outlook. They are most co-operative and I hope that this time next year, if we are all here, please God, we will have further progress to report.

The question of Tara was also raised. We are well aware of the position at Tara and of its historical associations. The owner received a very good offer from Bord Fáilte. For reasons best known to himself, he has indulged in quite a lot of publicity. That is his own business. He can sell it to whoever he wishes, if he does not wish to accept the very generous offer from Bord Fáilte. However, whether he sells it, or keeps it for himself, the position would be that any attempt to develop Tara which did not have our approval, or which was not carried out under our supervision would lead to immediate and overnight action by us.

: I understood that. I knew that Tara was safe with you.

: The owner knows his business, but it is not uranium he has on the land! Deputy Lynch is aware that we could use our compulsory powers and arbitration and so on but up to now we have tried to be as generous as we could and to settle this matter by mutual agreement. We have not been successful. I think it is about time we moved.

You never know. He may come back and you or Bord Fáilte may meet him halfway.

Government Departments do not have the power to meet anyone halfway. You are given the figure. Anyway, I am quite satisfied. The offer was raised already and it was quite the maximum that could be given for some 58 acres of land.

Deputy Esmonde asked if we had any information in regard to a ferry service at Rosslare. Proposals for three different groups were sent to the Office of Public Works by the Department of Transport and Power and we gave the Department very broad reports on technical aspects of the proposals. Very much more detailed investigations would be required before any proposals could go ahead. A decision in that matter rests with the Department of Transport and Power. As far as we are concerned, a project there is quite feasible. Anything can be done. If the money is made available and instructions are given, we will proceed. We have first-class engineers in the Harbour Section. However, as I say, that decision is not one for us.

Deputy Tully suggested that bigger schools should be built. When the schools are being designed, the Department of Education in consultation with the local manager make the best assessment they can of the likely trend of population in each case. Of course, they are not infallible or endowed with the gift of prophecy, and it may well be that instead of being too small, some of the schools may prove to be too large, if there is a change in population, for instance, a swing to another area.

Deputy Tully also criticised the grille around the Public Gallery. I suppose the matter can be considered further but there are two schools of thought about that, too. In the first place an alternative, if decided upon, would be quite expensive, and then, who is certain it would be a good thing to remove it? There is always the danger that a mentally unbalanced visitor might feel an urge to jump down on top of someone. The question of persons throwing things need not worry us. That could be got over, but there are people who get such an urge, as I have mentioned. I think it is as well to leave it the way it is.

Deputy Esmonde referred to Dublin Castle. He need have no fear about its not being possible to get a secure foundation for the new buildings there. The foundations are quite sound. Our officials are quite satisfied on that score.

Referring to drainage, various rivers were mentioned by Deputy Millar. As he said, the great problem is the drainage of the river Shannon. It is true that in June, 1961, a joint report was published as agreed between the Office of Public Works and the Electricity Supply Board. Even the summer relief scheme mentioned therein would take a minimum of 15 years to carry out and, at present day costs, would run to £20-25 million. A fantastic number of engineers would be required. As Deputy Lynch is well aware, the output from our universities is limited. To carry out this scheme we would have to divert all our engineers to the Shannon. Even with a small number of engineers on the job, unless the survey were tackled properly and finished within a reasonable period, at least within seven or eight years, there would be the difficulty of having new men, strangers to the work, coming along and taking over. This is a problem which is constantly agitating our minds. I do not know what the eventual solution of the Shannon problem will be. It is not a problem which has been filed away, but it is no use misleading the people in the area around Meelick and the other areas of the Shannon. We have no quick solution.

Deputy Tully referred to the system of bulk tendering. We are satisfied that a small contractor will not be injured in any way by this. In fact, we will ensure that he is not, because the small contractor in rural Ireland has been the backbone of the building industry. There is work he has done in the past and will continue to do which none of the larger contractors could ever accomplish.

Deputy Esmonde mentioned the overlapping of drainage authorities and suggested that the Land Project and the Special Employment Schemes Office rural improvement schemes were clashing. I do not think they are and I do not think a liaison of any type is necessary. Our terms of reference, so to speak, are clearly set out so far as major catchments and minor catchments are concerned under the governing Act, the Arterial Drainage Act of 1945.

In conclusion, I should like to inform the House that I shall write to each individual Deputy on points raised during the debate, points which I have not succeeded in answering in the short time at my disposal.

Motion: "That the Vote be referred back for reconsideration," by leave, withdrawn.
Vote put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn