Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have been ruled out of order as imposing additional charges on the rates. Amendment No. 4, in the names of Deputy Corry and others, has been ruled out of order as it creates a charge on State funds.
Coast Protection Bill, 1962: Report and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."
The Parliamentary Secretary will recall having received a deputation from Cork County Council and it was at the Parliamentary Secretary's invitation that Deputy Corry and other Deputies from Cork tabled the amendment. No doubt when the Parliamentary Secretary invited that amendment, he saw the justice enshrined in the proposals contained in it. We know that the rules of the House have now prevented the Parliamentary Secretary from doing what he desired to do but it is possible for the Parliamentary Secretary to retrieve the situation in the Seanad.
What do you mean?
You can retrieve the situation when the Bill goes to the Seanad by voting the money necessary to make the amendment legal. It will be realised that when the ministerial amendment relating to Wexford was accepted by the House, it was largely under protest by Deputies and on the understanding that they would be given the opportunity of submitting this amendment. I should like to know now, before the Bill passes, whether the Parliamentary Secretary will avail of the opportunity still available to him to bring in an amendment in the Seanad that will be within the rules of procedure.
If I can bring in an amendment which is within the rules of procedure, why could the Deputy and his colleagues not do the same?
Any Deputy knows that he cannot insert a provision in a Bill that will involve additional expenditure. The Parliamentary Secretary is the only person who has the authority to provide that additional expenditure and to make it legal. Any other Deputy who attempts to table such an amendment would be ruled out of order by the Ceann Comhairle, and rightly so. When we put down the amendment, we were meeting a situation which was approved of by the Parliamentary Secretary and, in fact, the amendment should have been moved by him. We had a measure of agreement. We took advice and we sought to implement the advice given to us. It is now possible for the Parliamentary Secretary to implement his own advice by responding to the beliefs he has expressed to me and to my colleagues from Cork. He can do that in the Seanad.
When we saw the Parliamentary Secretary on this matter, we were told that what we wanted would have to be done by way of amendment in the House. We framed the amendment and put it in here and then we were informed that the amendment was out of order. I had hoped that the Parliamentary Secretary would accept the amendment. We are looking for nothing more in Cork than has been given in Wexford. The amendment seeks to have provided only money which would be passed by his Commissioners, not by the county council, in an effort to prevent coast erosion. That is the actual meaning of the amendment and it is not any more than is given to Wexford in the Bill.
I support Deputy O'Sullivan in what he has said. The Parliamentary Secretary should try to remedy the matter in the Seanad. If he does not do that, I seriously suggest to him to have that particular section of the Bill examined again by the Attorney General with a view to ascertaining whether this Bill is repugnant to the Constitution of this State.
The Deputy may not discuss that particular point at this stage.
This is the Final Stage of a Bill which, in my opinion, is repugnant to the Constitution—and we cannot discuss it.
We are not on the Final Stage.
I was trying to save the time of the House. If the Chair rules I must give up on it, very well.
They may be using fluoride.
It is not because we in Cork are endeavouring to save money but, not knowing that this Bill was on the stocks and would be going through, some £57,000 of ratepayers' money was spent in endeavouring to prevent coast erosion and to protect portions of our coast during the past 12 months—just the very same as was done in Rosslare, nothing more and nothing less. We are not looking for all that money.
In this amendment, we will get only the particular proportion of that sum which relates to such works on land or buildings as were necessitated by the action or encroachment of the sea and as shall, after examination, be certified by the Commissioners as having been necessarily incurred by the Council.
The Deputy is proceeding to discuss the amendment.
I am not.
The Deputy would be in order in appealing to the Parliamentary Secretary to take suitable action but he may not discuss the amendment, since it has been ruled out of order.
I am trying to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary how little is involved in it when we boil it down. We are not looking for money for all the £57,000 that was spent. We are looking only for the portion of that money that would be certified by his Commissioners and no more. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to remedy this in the Seanad when it comes up there. I think it is unfair to discriminate against one county. I say that here frankly. Above all, that kind of legislation is not good for anybody. I appeal to him on those grounds to have another look at it and to bring in the amendment in the Seanad.
Who initiated the works at Rosslare—the Office of Public Works or the county council?
The Office of Public Works.
I think the Parliamentary Secretary has been requested by the Wicklow Urban District Council to look again at a couple of matters in connection with the Bill.
Perhaps that would arise on the Final Stage of the Bill.
I do not think it matters a whole lot. What I want to say really arises on Section 1, the definition section.
I have only arrived. Are the other amendments out of order as well?
Yes— Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
I can say it on the next Stage just as easily. To be quite brief, the Parliamentary Secretary I think has been approached by the Wicklow Urban District Council who put two specific problems to him in connection with this Bill. The first arises on Section 1, which is the definition section, under which——
I think the Deputy should allow me to put the question. He can then speak on the Final Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I take it I need not repeat what I have said. The Parliamentary Secretary has heard it. The first question arises in connection with the fact that under this legislation the county council are the promoting authority. That seems a reasonable proposition. As I understand the position, the Wicklow Urban district council feel they are in the position—as indeed would other urban district councils throughout the country—where they have harbours within their functional area. They feel that they, so to speak, are the people in close contact with questions which are likely to arise to be dealt with under this Bill. They have suggested to the Parliamentary Secretary that there might be some machinery whereby they would be entitled to initiate inspection and investigation. It seems to me that is a reasonable request to make.
I think it unlikely that a conflict as between the members of the urban district council and the members of the county council will arise on a matter such as this which, while it affects in particular one part of the county, does, in fact, affect the county as a whole and in that sense is under the jurisdiction of the county council. But, in so far as the particular interests of the urban district council are concerned, it does seem reasonable that some kind of machinery should be set up whereby they would be entitled to request the county council to initiate inspection for the purpose of getting a scheme going and that if that were not done or if it were refused, there might possibly be a right of appeal to the Commissioners of Public Works or to the Minister concerned. It is a point that has been put and I, and I know my colleagues in the constituency, have been asked to put it here. I feel it is worthy of consideration and for that reason I mention it to the Parliamentary Secretary.
What is the main point the Deputy is making, again?
That, under the Bill, the urban district council are, so to speak, cut out from any right to promote or initiate inspections, schemes, and so on, and that the Parliamentary Secretary might consider some machinery whereby they would, under the legislation, have a right to call on the county council to inspect for the purpose of initiating the scheme or the steps they consider necessary.
The other point is in connection with what might be regarded as purely emergency conditions — conditions which can come into being overnight and where it will obviously not be possible to go through all the machinery of inspection and declarations, preliminary examinations and reports, and all the rest, as laid down by the Bill. This may not be necessary. Possibly other legislation covers the point. The suggestion made to me, and which, as I say, I know was made to the Department, is that county councils should in such circumstances, where emergency conditions arise, have the right of direct request to the Commissioners of Public Works for a grant to remedy damage done in such emergency conditions. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider both points to see if they can possibly be met.
I support Deputy M.J. O'Higgins. In the urban district council, we, and my predecessors for the past 60 years, have been engaged in protection against coast erosion. We often experience very serious damage overnight. We have to make some arrangement then with the Department of Local Government and if we are left, as outlined in the Bill, it means we have to get in touch with the county council. The county council would have to call a meeting and a couple of months might then elapse and more serious damage would take place during that time. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to devise some scheme whereby the urban council can get in touch with the Department immediately the damage takes place so as to avoid any unnecessary expense afterwards.
I am sorry our amendments have been ruled out because on 6th September, 1957, the Government gave us a grant of £5,000 in respect of coast erosion. I have no objection to Wexford or any other county getting assistance but Wicklow should get special consideration in view of the amount this problem has cost both the State and the ratepayers over a long number of years.
I wish to support Deputy O'Higgins and Deputy Everett in asking the Parliamentary Secretary to give some power to the urban council in regard to this problem in Wicklow. I take it the urban council want to be in a position to promote a scheme themselves, if the county council refuse to do it. The people in the industrial end of the town are afraid it will be converted into an island overnight and that the county council might say: "It is not our problem and we are not prepared to do anything about it." Four or five times within the past six years we have had to come to Government Departments seeking advances for coast protection work in Wicklow. There is a problem there which is likely to recur. If the county council fall down on the job, the urban council, the harbour board or some other body should have an opportunity of putting the position right temporarily until a major scheme is carried out.
On the question of financing these schemes, what I said here on Committee Stage was that Wicklow would be treated as I understood Rosslare was being treated, that Rosslare was now getting retrospective payment for 80 per cent of the total amount of money spent there since 1957. A number of schemes have been carried out in Wicklow on the basis of 75 per cent grant, with the exception of the last one which was on an 80 per cent grant basis. That means that today the Wicklow ratepayers in the urban district are paying a shilling in the £ for coast erosion works and from 1st April, they will be paying 1/6d. That is a lot of money and the burden is heavier on the ratepayers in Wicklow than it is on the Wexford ratepayers. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the matter favourably when it comes before the Seanad. Perhaps this can be dealt with by regulation and, if so, provision should be made to treat Wicklow in the same way as it is intended to treat Rosslare.
We have no fairy godmother in Cork. There were no grants available for us. We had to do the work ourselves while grants were being given to Wicklow and Wexford. Had we not spent the £57,000 at issue here during the past 12 months in endeavouring to stop the erosion that was taking place, we should be looking to the Minister now for 80 per cent of about £600,000. Immediate action saved that expenditure. However, I do not think we are asking too much in asking for the same treatment as is being given to Wicklow and Rosslare. The estimate I got from the county engineer covering works that would be considered was for about £30,000. That again would have to be examined by the Commissioners and by the Minister and perhaps much of what we think we are entitled to would be cut down as it generally is when Government Departments get hold of these matters.
The sum involved is not much but it means a lot to the Cork ratepayers who are already overburdened. I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to put this through in the Seanad. I am certain that if the rules of the House had not prevented this amendment being taken, the Parliamentary Secretary would be convinced of the justice of our case and would have accepted the amendment. I would ask him now not to let the rules of the House knock out a just case.
As I said here previously, I doubt very seriously whether this Bill would stand up to examination by the Attorney General in respect of those sections. The Constitution that guarantees the rights of citizens does not imply that the Cork ratepayers should have to pay for something the State was paying for on behalf of the Wexford ratepayers.
Did we not pass £2 million half an hour ago for Irish Steel Holdings?
We passed £2 million to repair some of the harm done by your Government. I do not want to be drawn into any argument on that now.
Deputy Corry is now challenging the Attorney General.
(Interruptions.)
I am looking at this in the light of justice and in the light of the Constitution of this State. I shall have the matter examined in that light. I believe subsection (4) of Section 26 is repugnant to the Constitution if the same rights are not given to Wicklow and Cork. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to give us that break. I do not think I am looking for too much, and I hope our appeal will be heard.
There seems to be quite a deal of confusion with regard to these amendments and with regard to the position generally. I should like to make one thing abundantly clear. Were I of the opinion that these amendments had merit and were backed up by equity and justice, I would have no hesitation in taking the necessary steps to implement them. But that is not the position.
I shall deal first with the points raised by Deputy O'Sullivan. He stated it was at my invitation that this amendment was moved. He should recall the circumstances. I was receiving a deputation from the Cork County Council when we were interrupted by an intimation that this Bill was being taken. I did state I would be prepared to consider any proposals or amendments. I would not use my position or the cloak of the Chair to evade these amendments, if there was justice in them.
There is no comparison, good, bad or indifferent, between the position in either Cork or Wicklow and the position which obtained in Wexford, and it is completely unrealistic to suggest that there is. Deputy Corry knows that on 14th March, I wrote to him as follows:
I have carefully considered your suggestion that I should move an amendment to the Coast Protection Bill on the lines of the amendments proposed by you and the other Cork Deputies. I think there is some misunderstanding in relation to the provisions of the Bill and I hope this note of mine will help you to understand it and clear it up.
There is no provision anywhere in the Bill for the payment of retrospective grants. In the case of Rosslare, money has been provided by the Oireachtas in each year since 1957 for the execution of protection works. The county council have, in addition, made contributions totalling £30,000 or approximately 25 per cent. of the cost of the work which is now estimated at £120,000. At the earlier stages of the Bill I explained that the grant for the Rosslare works would be adjusted up to the rate provided for in the Bill but that this would be done as an administrative matter and would be something entirely apart from the Bill.
It is expected that the Rosslare scheme will be completed in 1964. The Engineers of the Commissioners of Public Works advised that the works would require very careful maintenance if their value was not to be completely lost. No arrangements had been made for maintenance and we were further advised that the county council could not meet maintenance costs without statutory authority. The amendments passed at the Committee Stage, and which may have given rise to the misunderstanding, were designed to overcome this difficulty. The amendments simply provide that the Commissioners may maintain the works and recover the maintenance costs from the county council. They have absolutely no effect on the amount of the grant.
The Bill provides for grants for protection against progressive damage being caused by the continuing encroachment of the sea as distinct from occasional or abnormal storms. Even if the damage on the Cork coast were being caused by a continuing encroachment—and from what I learned from the deputation on the 27th February last storm damage appears to be involved— the amendment suggested would introduce a new element of retrospection. It could possibly lead to demands for similar treatment for other maritime counties and I regret that I could not see my way to accept it.
The Cork Deputies have given their side of the story, but I should like to complete the picture. Deputy Corry and Deputy O'Sullivan cannot deny that since April, 1962, in their representations to the Department of Local Government for grants in the Cork area the words used were "storm damage." When they saw this Bill on the Order Paper, they switched names. I do not blame them. They thought they could utilise the benefits of this Bill. In April, 1962, Cork County Council requested the Minister for Local Government to receive a deputation to discuss the possibility of obtaining grants towards the repair of damage caused by storms in the previous months. In a letter of 15th May, 1962, from the Department of Local Government to the council, the position in regard to the availability of grants for private houses damaged was explained. That might not have been much help to the Cork Deputies. It was open to private persons whose dwellings had been damaged to apply to the Department for a grant under the Housing Acts towards the cost of repairs. It was also stated that, while special grants could not be made available for the repair of damaged roads, the council could consider using their ordinary grants for the purpose as appropriate. The Deputies could reasonably say: "We have other work scheduled and this will cut down our ordinary programme."
In regard to damaged sanitary works, it was stated that grants could not be made available but that applications for the raising of the money by loan would be favourably considered. Did the Cork County Council ever make an application to avail of the offer of the Department of Local Government under that heading? It was stated by the county manager on 7th November, 1962, that the county council had spent £57,000 on the repair of storm damage. At the county manager's request, the position was discussed with him and officials of the council in the Department on 22nd November last. They explained that it was with damaged roads only the council were concerned. It was made abundantly clear to the manager that there was no possibility of a special Road Fund grant being made available for the purpose of remedying storm damage to roads. On 17th December, 1962, before the council meeting at which the matter was to be discussed, the county manager by telephone discussed the matter again with officials of the Department of Local Government to confirm there was no prospect of a special Road Fund grant. I was later requested to receive a deputation from the county council, and I duly received the deputation on 27th February last. That is the position with regard to Cork.
Before the Parliamentary Secretary leaves the Cork situation, when was this letter sent to Deputy Corry?
On 14th March.
Until this debate to-day, I was unaware that there was any prohibition on getting this through, other than the ruling of the Chair.
I can assure the Deputy that I got an intimation from the Ceann Comhairle's Office that this amendment No. 4 was not permissible under the rules of the House.
Yes.
It was only to-day I discovered that even though the Ceann Comhairle has ruled that an amendment is not permissible, nevertheless, it can appear on the Order Paper.
At any rate, it is quite clear it does not matter which— whether it was in order or not.
Exactly.
It does not matter. That is a new one as far as I am concerned.
The position is that if there were justice and equity in this case, it would not matter to me; I can take the necessary steps.
You could.
Yes; but I have to the best of my ability explained the position as we see it. Deputy Corry and Deputy O'Sullivan on their part have made their case in a very able way for Cork. This matter now applies to all the counties—Wicklow, Cork and any other county. It is a question of what is to happen if some thousands of pounds worth of damage occurs overnight. It is reasonable to bring that to the attention of the House on this Bill. Deputies could say that by the time the necessary procedures were adopted and representations made to the Commissioners to initiate a scheme, a whole town or village, as the case may be, could be wiped out and thousands of pounds worth of damage done. That is quite reasonable. There is no provision in this Bill, I repeat, whereby storm damage per se can be catered for but I do say, as elected members of local authorities who have spoken will agree, there is no county engineer or assistant county engineer who could not say that such and such an area, be it Wicklow, Rosslare, Youghal or any other part of the country, is not being gradually undermined and the necessary steps would have to be taken of examination by the local authority engineer. The engineer could say that work costing £20 or £30 at this stage, if not attended to at that small cost, could run into hundreds and thousands of pounds. We could not possibly cater under this Bill for an act of God. To bring that to its logical conclusion, not only the maritime counties, but every other local authority area would be causing us trouble.
Whom do you blame for the coast erosion?
We are not blaming Fianna Fáil for it or the Parliamentary Secretary.
It is about the only thing that they can claim they have no responsibility for.
There have been precedents of special grants even for flood damage.
There is a hidden suggestion here which I might as well bring out into the open. There seems to be a suggestion that because Deputy Dr. Ryan is Minister for Finance, Wexford County Council and Rosslare get preferential treatment.
I never made that suggestion.
That suggestion has been made to me, jocosely, perhaps.
After all, does he not live in Wicklow?
The sting is in the tail. If I were Minister, my own constituency would come first, human nature being what it is.
You are not doing too badly as Parliamentary Secretary.
Like Donegal and the closing of the railways.
That does not arise, as Deputy Corish can bear out and as any Deputy who examines the history of Rosslare can see.
If the majority of the county council refuse to assist the urban council, what is the remedy?
I will come to that point in a moment. As the Deputy will appreciate, this work in Rosslare commenced in 1957. The Deputy's Government, in 1956, went out of office on the Committee Stage of the Coast Protection Bill for reasons which we will not go into; they do not arise now. It was quite obvious to us and to everyone else that a Coast Protection Bill would have to be brought in. It was quite obvious also that our professional staffs had quite a deal to learn, and still have. It was obvious to everyone on every side of the House that Rosslare needed urgent and immediate attention. It was unique in the problems which were presented. The experience which has been gained from this work has been invaluable to our experts.
The point raised by Deputy Everett and Deputy P. Brennan and on Committee Stage, by Deputy Faulkner, is that an urban council should have the power of initiating, setting the ball rolling, so that the Commissioners of Public Works would come in and do a coast protection scheme. That was mistaken. I said at that time:
Perhaps at this stage I might refer to the suggestion that urban district councils should be permitted to function as promoting authorities. We have looked into this and we have come to the conclusion that specific statutory provision for urban district councils to act as promoting authorities should not be made. Although some Deputies consider that county councils might not promote schemes requested by urban district councils there are reasonable men on these bodies and it is felt that any difficulty should be easily overcome. We feel strongly that there should be co-operation between the local authorities. We have not heard anything to the contrary.
A point made by Deputy Paudge Brennan was that in Wicklow now they will be paying almost 1/6d. in the £ as a result of the successive schemes done down the years going back to 1907. I do not know what the amount in the £ is.
A shilling. A penny produces £40 and we are paying 1/in the £.
The suggestion underlying Deputy Brennan's proposal was that because Wicklow is a maritime county or seaport, it was a hardship on the community to have to find this money. There are many towns in central Ireland which are not on the sea and which have to find money for other things. Do not forget that in Wicklow there are certain benefits to be derived from the fact that it is a seaside resort and is a fishing place and has other advantages that bring a certain amount of business to the community and the hotels. That cannot be denied.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary not consider a kind of compromise course? While leaving the county council the sole right to act as promoting authority, would he agree to have some provision whereby the urban district council might request the county council and only on meeting a refusal from the county council the urban district council could have some right of appeal to the Minister to try to get something going, if there was that conflict?
It has been suggested that in certain circumstances a conflict does exist. I shall be quite prepared when I take this to the Seanad to look into the suggestion made by Deputy O'Higgins, Deputy Everett and Deputy P. Brennan. I do not think there would be much difficulty in doing what they suggest. It could well be that friction might exist between an urban authority and a county council for some reason or other. The Deputy must appreciate also what he might be drawing on the Wicklow County Council, for example. Suppose I agreed to let the Wicklow urban council initiate and promote a scheme and the Minister for Finance put up 80 per cent. of the cost and the other 20 per cent. and the maintenance charges fell on the promoting authority, that might be all right if we were talking about a figure of £150 or £400. What would happen suppose an entire sea wall collapsed? I am pointing out the dangers into which we might run. Instead of a county-at-large charge, one could then find oneself in a very difficult position.
That is why I suggest the other machinery might meet the situation.
I shall look into the point. I appreciate what Deputies have in mind. Deputy Faulkner raised a matter with regard to Dundalk. We will see what we can do.
It has been suggested that the situation might be met by an amending Bill in the unlikely event of a dispute arising between a county council and an urban district council. The obvious answer is: why not cater for such an unlikely eventuality now?
It might not be so unlikely as the Parliamentary Secretary thinks.
It would generate a very controversial atmosphere if it were done by an amending Bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary——
The Deputy may put a question. He may not make a speech on the Fifth Stage. The Parliamentary Secretary is concluding.
I am aware of that and, if I am not entitled to ordinary civility in this House, I am quite sure you can do your own job.
The Chair is carrying out the rules of the House. It is not making them.
The point Deputy Corry has in mind is, I think, the position of the Youghal urban council and the Cork County Council. Difficulty arises there because there are people on the council from areas such as Rathluirc who have very little interest in the effect of the sea on towns such as Youghal and a majority of the county council might vote against such a benefit and such a vote might be unjust. There is that aspect. However, I shall see if the machinery suggested by Deputy O'Higgins can be incorporated. It could be very important and it is perhaps as well to cater for it now.
I mentioned earlier that coast protection works have been going on in Wicklow since 1907. On 31st July last, the Minister received a deputation from the council. They wanted a grant of 100 per cent towards the cost of the work; the Minister informed them he would give them a grant of 80 per cent. On 12th October, the Commissioners were formally notified of the sanction of a grant of 80 per cent of the cost. The expenditure was to be met under a certain subhead in our Vote. Work commenced on 15th October. Sanction was given on the 12th and work started on the 15th; I think the Office of Public Works should be commended on that.
These works are being carried out not by the Commissioners of Public Works, as in the case of Rosslare, but by the Wicklow urban council under the supervision of the town surveyor. As the council are quite capable of carrying out the works, it is obvious that they are also capable of maintaining them.
We raise a rate each year for maintenance.
That is so. The Deputy will appreciate that in Rosslare, and other places, we carry out the maintenance and bill the local authority.
The work in Rosslare is experimental work.
With regard to maintenance, it is six of one and half a dozen of the other. The county will have to pay for it anyway. These amendments, even if I were allowed to accept them, would have not the slightest effect on the amount of the grant.
None.
They would simply enable the Commissioners to maintain and subsequently recover the cost of maintenance from the Wicklow County Council. I presume that is not the Deputy's intention. I should like to make it clear that the provisions in the Bill with regard to Rosslare do no more than enable the Commissioners to maintain and recover the cost from the Wexford County Council. It is as simple as that. The works there are very different in character from those in Wicklow. They require special techniques and equipment and it is considered more appropriate that they should be maintained by the executing authority.
Are they not to a large degree experimental works?
Yes.
If the works are successful, will not the nation benefit?
I have made that point. The question of storm damage, act of God, and progressive coast erosion took up a great part of this debate. Now is the time for the potentially benefiting to take the necessary steps at local authority level to have a thorough examination made in places like Lahinch, Kilkee, Youghal, Wicklow, Rosslare, Bundoran and all around the coast. They can ask the county engineer or one of his assistants to examine these different areas to see if there is any danger or any possibility of progressive encroachment. A stitch in time may save a lot of money but it is not possible under this Bill to provide against the sudden storm or act of God. It would be impossible to do that in any Bill because storms affect more than seaside and coastal resorts.
I think I have covered, to the best of my ability, most of the points raised. I regret I could not be more cooperative, particularly with the Cork Deputies, but I think they appreciate the position now that it has been fully explained to them. I trust Deputy Everett and Deputy O'Higgins and Deputy P. Brennan understand the position in Wicklow and, as I promised Deputy O'Higgins, I shall certainly look into the interesting point raised by him. I should like to thank Deputies on all sides of the House for their co-operation and good wishes.
Question put and agreed to.