I beg to move: "In Section 2, sub-section (2), lines 36 and 37, to delete the words, ‘in such form as shall be prescribed by the Commissioners.'" My reason for moving this amendment is that I cannot see the necessity for the Commissioners getting out special forms on which petitions may be sent up to the county council by six rated-occupiers. If six rated-occupiers desire to lodge a petition with the county council to have a drainage scheme carried out, they can do that on a sheet of ordinary notepaper. My opinion is that this sub-section will cause delay. The getting out of these forms by the Commissioners, sending them down to the secretaries of the county councils, and then having petitioners writing in sometimes thirty or forty miles from the extreme end of the county, in order to get these forms, will mean long delays. An ordinary sheet of notepaper would do as well. The names of the six rated-occupiers who want the scheme brought into operation could be written on a sheet of ordinary notepaper. It is merely to notify the council that they want to have a drainage scheme originated in their district, and they request the council to take action. I presume that is all it will contain. I cannot see any necessity for getting out standard forms, for sending them out to councils, and for causing the unnecessary delay that would be occasioned by such a procedure. I suggest all that is not required.
DÁIL IN COMMITTEE. - ARTERIAL DRAINAGE BILL, 1925—THIRD STAGE.
Deputy Baxter's purpose in moving the amendment is to gain time. That is one of the principal purposes he has in mind. Our principal intention in having this precise form is to save time. We think that if you have a prescribed form ready, with only the blanks to be filled in, and if it can be got from the Board of Works by merely writing for it, it will save a lot of time. The people who intend to put forward a scheme will know immediately on receiving those forms what kind of information will be required if they read the particulars relating to the blanks that will have to be filled in. Though the scheme is only described in general terms, still there is a certain amount of information that will have to be given to the county council. If the people rely on their own initiative, it is quite possible and likely that they may omit information that might be necessary, through pure chance, and they will have to be asked again to give that information, thereby causing delay. There is another advantage and that is that by sending for forms of this kind, when they want them for the purpose of promoting a scheme in a certain district, it will be an early intimation to the Commissioners that such a scheme is in contemplation, and that is no drawback. The expense, of course, is practically nil. They will be printed forms, with blanks, and all that is required is that the people interested in the scheme should fill the blanks. If the Deputy considers it, taking ordinary human nature as it is, I think he will agree that the plan of having printed forms will probably in the long run save more time than if you had not them. That is why we did suggest definite forms of this kind.
Will the Minister say, if these forms are to be issued, that they will be available in the office of the county council and not in the Board of Works?
Certainly; that can be done.
That will be a difference.
took the Chair.
I will ask the permission of the Dáil to insert in Section 2, line 26, the words "or owners of bogland," so that the section would read, "Any six or more persons being rated occupiers of lands or owners of bogland."
ACTING-CHAIRMAN
That is not on the Order Paper.
I am asking for permission to move it now. The matter came up during the discussion on the Financial Resolution.
ACTING-CHAIRMAN
You are asking the leave of the House to move this amendment, having brought the matter up on the Financial Motion. Is it agreed that leave be given?
I do not think it was put that way. A motion or an amendment of that character should, I think, in justice to the Minister dealing with the Bill, be on notice, unless there was an arrangement beforehand and an understanding that there would be no objection to it. I think it would be an undesirable precedent to adopt that, without notice and without personal consultation with the Minister, so as to enable him to get advice from those qualified to give it, an amendment should be accepted in this manner. I do not think it is fair to ask for the introduction of an amendment of this kind.
I quite agree with the President; but in this case there was an amendment sent in which was ruled out of order because it contained something in the nature of an endeavour to place a tax on the ratepayers and would involve a Financial Resolution. Having regard to the explanation we have given now, perhaps the Minister, knowing what we have in our minds, would endeavour to meet us on the next occasion?
Standing Order 81 gives the Ceann Comhairle power, at his discretion, to permit any amendment to be moved in Committee without notice.
I would like to point out to the President that if the Minister has not had notice of this, it is not the fault of the Deputy, because the Deputy went in with his amendment, but it was turned down. It was pointed out that certain complications might arise under the Financial Resolution.
That is true, but it was not the fault of the Minister.
It appears the ruling out of order was itself out of order.
No, I do not think so.
ACTING-CHAIRMAN
Does the Deputy make it clear it is not intended to get over the ruling out of order of the amendment?
I quite understand from the Minister for Finance that the Bill is comprehensive enough; but, having regard to the point we want inserted, and in view of the fact that an effort was made to get it in, but that effort was ruled out of order, perhaps the Dáil might give us permission on this occasion. The words we suggest would have the effect, we believe, of safeguarding the position already explained by Deputy Conlan.
The motion we have passed still leaves the discretion with the Minister, because it says: "So much as the Minister for Finance shall think proper of the expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Public Works...."
I suggest that this is a matter that could be properly brought up on Report. There will then be an opportunity of looking into it. We do not know whether all Deputy Conlan states in regard to ownership of bogs and nobody being a rated occupier, is quite correct.
I would ask the Minister if an amendment, couched in similar terms to the one that I have already put in, would still be in order on the Report Stage?
ACTING-CHAIRMAN
I was about to ask the Deputy if he could put forward any reason why this amendment could not more properly be taken on Report Stage. If it is sought to bring in an amendment on this stage without notice, which could be brought equally well on Report Stage, I would say that that amendment would more properly be taken on Report Stage.
Might I suggest that this is the kind of amendment that will almost inevitably require Committee discussion. Unless we go into Committee on Report—which is always doubtful—this might be the more appropriate occasion for it, even though it is defeated or withdrawn after discussion.
ACTING-CHAIRMAN
I do not think that Deputy Johnson can cite any case in which it was necessary to go into Committee on an amendment on Report Stage and in which leave was sought to do so and was refused. My general decision is that any amendment that can be brought up on Report Stage should not be brought forward on Committee Stage without notice.
Motion made—"That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
I would like, if the Minister would give us some explanation as to what sort of map will be required under sub-section 2 of this section. Will the people who initiate the scheme have to get an engineer to draw up a special map? That might be a costly matter, and they would have to raise the money by way of subscription. It would be hardly fair to the five or six men, who would take the initiative in a matter of this kind, that they should be compelled to pay the cost of a special map.
There will be no necessity to get an engineer to prepare a special map. If they get an ordinary Ordnance Survey map, it will be quite sufficient. If they send the fee for the Survey map to the Board of Works, they will have the proper map for that particular district sent down to them.
Mr. O'CONNELL
I suggest that it be made clear in the prescribed form that an Ordnance Survey map will be sufficient.
I will note that.
I want to be perfectly clear about this question of the forms. Where will these forms be available? Will they be available from the county councils? Will one be able to get them on application to the county council, or what will be the method of distribution?
That would be one of the methods. They will be available either through the county councils or the Board of Works. If there are applications to the Board of Works for these forms, the forms will naturally be supplied. If it is desired that they be available at the offices of the county councils, we can send them down to the county council offices. I confess I do not quite appreciate the Deputy's difficulty.
If you had said they would be available at the county council offices and also at the office of the Board of Works, it would remove the difficulty.
That is what I said—at least, I said we would send them to the county council offices. That is all we can do.
Will the Minister say that those forms will be made available as soon as possible after the Bill is passed into law.
Certainly.
Circumstances may arise whereby you may not have six rated occupiers to present a petition in an area where draining is necessary and desirable. I know considerable areas of land—a few hundred acres in some places—and six rated occupiers have not interest in it. In one case I know there are four rated occupiers and in another case five. If the Minister is tied to this number—six—and that they must be people who are genuinely interested in the particular area to be drained, it will exclude a great many cases. I would like to know what is the opinion of Deputies and what is their experience in regard to this matter.
I move amendment 2:—
In sub-section (1), line 49, page 2, after the word "surveyor" to insert the words "or other qualified engineer."
My experience of conditions in the counties leads me to believe that it is not possible to take a county surveyor or assistant surveyor off his present work and send him to make inspection of areas where drainage schemes are contemplated. I see the Minister for Local Government and Public Health beside the Parliamentary Secretary, and I would like to hear his views as to the condition of our roads. How much of the responsibility for that can be laid on the shoulders of our county surveyors and assistant surveyors, I am not going to say. I think it will be generally agreed that there is more than enough work for county surveyors and assistant surveyors at present. We hope that there will be even more work for them to do on our roads in future. If there is much additional constructional work or much more money spent on the roads, I do not think we could afford to take these officials away for one day from road work. If they are away for a day or a week, there are bound to be complications. Somebody will have to be put in charge of their work. If it is a case that the county surveyor will have to bring in a man to do his work, or get one of his assistants to do it, it will not be done well, and the county councils will be in difficulties. We will have strikes here and there, and there will be a lot of complications that will not make for the efficiency of our road administration. As I know the conditions of my own county, the section will be absolutely unworkable. We will have so many areas calling for visits by the county surveyor or his assistant, that the work in this connection will occupy weeks, when the preparation of reports is taken into consideration. Then we do not know how many further visits, after the preliminary visit, will have to be undertaken. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to give power in the Bill to a county council, where necessary, to appoint a qualified engineer to do this work. As the section stands, the county council are, as far as I can see, tied to their county surveyor or his assistant. If, on the other hand, the county surveyor has to call in an assistant to do this work he must, in some form or other, supervise the work of this assistant. Reports must be made to him, and the assistant must be given directions as to where he is to go. That is going to put additional work on the county surveyor, and that additional work will handicap him in carrying out the work which is his present responsibility. I suggest that the county surveyor should not be handicapped in his effort to improve the standard of our roads. That will be done if the county councils are not given power to appoint a qualified engineer, leaving the county surveyor to continue his own work. Let this drainage work be done outside the county council and by another man, where the conditions in a county demand that it should so be done. I move the amendment.
We were rather desirous that the county surveyor should have the responsibility for any drainage schemes under this Bill in the county. We were of opinion —I am not saying that the opinion is absolutely wrong—that even in the Bill as it stands the county council has the power that Deputy Baxter now suggests. However, it is a matter that is open to doubt. Reading the section in the ordinary way, it might seem as if they were excluded from exercising such a power as Deputy Baxter suggests. On the whole, I am inclined to accept the idea in the amendment, but it involves, of course, the appointment of an official of the county council for this particular purpose, and possibly some slight changes might be necessary in the wording of the amendment, so as to provide for the sanction of the Minister for Local Government being necessary. I would agree to bring forward an amendment containing the idea in this amendment, but modified, more or less, along the lines I now suggest.
I am quite satisfied.
I move amendment 5:
In sub-section 3, line 10, after the word "Council" to insert the words "at a meeting of which not less than seven days' notice has been given to each member."
I understand that the usual notice given in respect of a county council meeting is in or about three days. In view of the obligations to which a county council might be committed under the Bill, it is felt that at least seven days' notice should be given of a meeting at which a petition would be considered.
I beg to move:—
In sub-section (3) (c), line 25, to delete the word "maintenance" and substitute the word "drainage."
This is little more than a verbal alteration. "Drainage rate" is the more correct way of describing what is intended to be dealt with under the section.
ACTING-CHAIRMAN
Amendments 7 and 8 are consequential on amendment 2, which has been withdrawn.
I beg to move:
At the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:—
"If, on examination of a petition presented to a county council, the council decide against the petition, the petitioners shall have the right to appeal to the Commissioners for an examination of such petition."
Obviously an injustice might be done in originating a drainage scheme in some counties, for a particular district that might not be particularly well represented on the council. A decision has to be come to as to whether that ought to be accepted or not, and there is a decision at the same time as to whether certain money might be made available out of the county funds for the carrying through of that scheme. Such a proposition would not, perhaps, be sympathetically received by the council if the district concerned was not very well represented on the council. Prejudices that we cannot very well foresee might be responsible for turning down a scheme that would have reason and justice behind it. I am asking that where a petition is presented to the council and a decision taken against that petition by the county council, the petitioners should have the right of appeal to the Commissioners. We know that, unfortunately, it is true that when some parties are seeking something that is to benefit them, seeking it at what perhaps may seem a temporary cost to certain other bodies of ratepayers, those who have nothing to gain from the benefits accruing from that scheme, will not receive a petition of that kind very sympathetically. A remote district in a county may suffer in such circumstances, and I think that they have a right to be heard where such a situation would arise.
I am rather sorry to see this distrust of local bodies coming at this particular stage after such lengthy discussions on the Local Government Bill. If the amendment is inserted, you might as well eliminate the county council as the preliminary body under the scheme. If you give a right to every petitioner or to every set of petitioners to appeal to the Commissioners from the decision of the county councils, that practically means an appeal in every case. Therefore, the advantage gained by having the county council acting as a body that could give an opinion on the general merits or the general outlines of the scheme, and deciding that it was not absolutely absurd, would be immediately gone. Every scheme would have to be practically investigated by the Central Department at a rather serious cost. Then, of course, there is a further grave disadvantage from another point of view, from the point in view, if I may say so, of fairness to the county council.
They are being asked to undertake rather serious responsibility under this Bill in connection with schemes. It would be hardly fair that after a scheme of this kind had been put before them and had been turned down by them it should be forced upon them whether they liked it or not and that they should be asked to administer it against their will and possibly with a certain amount of bad will. Furthermore, I cannot quite follow the contention of the Deputy when he speaks about contributions from the county funds. The contribution from the county funds will be altogether independent of this first step that the council takes. The mere fact that it lets the scheme through does not mean that it will have to subscribe a penny. There might be some preliminary expenses, but they would be very slight. Beyond that they are not committed to subscribing a penny. They may contribute if they wish, but they need not, if they do not like. The very most we could do in all fairness from the point of view of the proper working of the Bill and also from the point of view of the councils, would be to insert some proviso that if the county council rejects this scheme, it should send on an account of the scheme to the Department with the reasons for the rejection. Beyond that I do not think we are prepared to go.
I would suggest that this amendment should be withdrawn and a new amendment should be substituted, to provide that in a case where the county surveyor reports favourably on a scheme the petitioners will have the right to send it to the Commissioners if the county council should turn it down. I make that suggestion without asking Deputy Baxter's leave with regard to the original amendment. It is only a suggestion on my part.
I would like to see Deputy Baxter's amendment accepted because I have personal experience that the things which he has suggested do happen. It may be only once in a while, but they do happen nevertheless. I really think the amendment should get some consideration.
I think such a thing as Deputy Baxter fears is not likely to arise, because, as the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out, the county council lets itself in for no expenditure by passing a resolution, except the scheme should be such as will be ultimately turned down by the Public Works Office. In that case the county council will have to pay one-third of the costs incurred. But if the scheme is reported on favourably by the county surveyor, I do not think it is likely that there would be rejection by the county council. If the county surveyor reports favourably in any sort of definite terms, it may be assumed that the scheme is not one that is going to be rejected, and in that case the council has undertaken no liability. On the other hand, if you oblige the Public Works Office to examine every scheme that six people can be found to father you will delay the carrying out of the work, because there is no doubt that some limits will be placed on the amount of staff that the Public Works Office will be given for carrying on this work. They will not be given an unlimited number of engineers or other staff. Some attempt will be made to restrict the staff. If you put unnecessary work on them by allowing every "dud" scheme that anybody wants to promote to come up to the Board and force the Board to send a staff down to examine it, you are going to delay the real work. In any case, if you have this provision, the county councils and the county surveyor will know at once whether a scheme is any good or has any possibilities, and you will strain out the bad schemes, and the good schemes will be sent to the Public Works Office. The whole business of drainage will be carried on more rapidly. But if there is an appeal all these schemes will come along and the work will be thrown on the Public Works Office.
I believe this amendment should be accepted. As one who has experience extending over a long period of the working of county councils, I know that there is a necessity for it. We should have an appeal board in connection with such an important drainage scheme as this. In order to avoid bogus appeals, I suggest that a fee should be paid by the parties wishing to appeal to the higher tribunal. That would prevent the "dud" schemes that the Minister speaks about. If you have a fairly high fee, those contemplating appealing will not pay such a fee if the scheme is not a sound one. Local jealousies may arise in connection with such schemes, and for that reason there should be an appeal to a higher tribunal than the county council.
With reference to what the Minister for Finance has said about the report by the county surveyor, this amendment only deals with the petition. If the county council turns down the petition without the county surveyor having reported on the scheme——
No, that is not it.
In any case, I want to support the amendment because it is quite possible that county councillors may be very careless if the matter does not affect their particular districts. They might come to the conclusion that it might mean some expense to them and object even to the county surveyor spending time in making a report. The Minister ought to accept the amendment in order to remove any obstacles that might be put in the way by county councils rejecting a scheme without good reason and give people an opportunity of appealing to the Public Works Office.
I am opposed to the amendment. I am rather sorry that there appears to be little confidence placed in county councils. One has to consider the position of a county council. Supposing, having considered all the details, they find that their decision is turned down on appeal, it appears to me that if county councils had a few experiences of that sort, in a very short time they would cease to function at all—that they would not send on any more schemes or recommend them. Members of county councils who live in the districts and have a thorough knowledge of the districts ought to be perfectly competent to decide whether or not a drainage scheme is a fit and proper one to be carried out.
The way this proposal appeals to me is not as the Parliamentary Secretary and Deputy Egan would suggest—that it is a refusal to recognise the competence and good sense of the local authority. It is fear that the interests of a locality will be overridden by a body which has no special regard for local interests.
Mr. EGAN
Do the county councils not represent local feeling?
resumed the Chair.
The Parliamentary Secretary will realise, perhaps, that some of us thought there was too great a centralising tendency in the Local Government Act. This is rather another illustration of that. There are certain charges which will be levied upon the counties as county-at-large charges. If a drainage scheme only affects a little corner of a county it is not at all outside the bounds of possibility—rather the other way round, it is quite probable—that the majority of the county council, if they are full of the idea of false economy that both Farmer Deputies and Ministers preach sometimes, may say: "We are not going to put ourselves to the burden of this possible charge upon the county at large for the sake of this little corner." Thereby a very good scheme and a very necessary improvement to a locality may be lost, because the county council has not sufficient interest in the locality, but is going to be economical in the way that word is used, going to be mean in regard to expenditure over the whole county, because the scheme is not going to benefit the greater portion of the county but only a small portion.
It seems to me that a case has been made for the consideration of the claim of small drainage schemes by an authority which can bring some kind of pressure to bear upon the county councils. If the county council is not really considering the interests of the locality primarily affected, then somebody has to be in a position to look after those interests, and as there is no provision for that, then the Minister or some other authority must be appealed to. I think that a case has been made for the amendment. It is not correct to suggest that it shows lack of confidence in the local authority. It is because there is no local authority in respect to the particular interests concerned that somebody must be made to take charge of these interests as against the county council. If the county council area is too large and the county council is not interested in local drainage schemes, then these drainage schemes may be unjustly dealt with.
I would like the Minister to deal with this amendment to Section 3 in relation to Section 2. I mentioned, when dealing with Section 2, that necessity could be shown for drainage where 500 or 600 acres are involved in the possession of five people, while a very small area of 30 or 40 acres in the possession of six people might receive attention. Some of these applications might be turned down for technical reasons owing to the peculiar construction that the county council might put upon them. Six or more persons may make an application, and some of these may only benefit to a small extent or may not benefit at all, but are simply put in to make up the number. The necessity for an appeal board will be apparent to anybody. It will certainly be apparent when the Act is working. Do the six persons mentioned in Section 2 mean six persons living at a certain point near a river?
Not necessarily a certain point.
There are a lot of matters for which an appeal board will be necessary. Does the section mean that four people may live near one another, and two others, perhaps, a mile away?
It can mean that.
Who is to decide that?
Mr. EGAN
The Bill says any six being rated occupiers of land.
If, say, a distance of a mile separates two localities liable to be flooded.
The test is, they want a separate drainage district constituted.
They may be within a few miles of each other.
Certainly.
These are matters that might be turned down by the county council and for that reason I think it is absolutely necessary that an appeal board should be set up. I know cases where three hundred and fifty acres are involved. The land is the property of four people and they could get several others to sign an application. It could be proved that some of these would derive no benefit from improvements there.
How will your appeal board get you out of that?
That case shows on what technical grounds an appeal could be turned down.
It would also be turned down by the Appeal Board.
Let us have a distinct understanding. If 400 or 500 acres are involved and it cannot be shown that six people are directly benefited, will the scheme be turned down?
If it is turned down by the county council for that reason and if it is a good reason surely it must be turned down by the appeal board.
Is the county council bound to turn it down? County councils are not versed in legal matters. I do not know what the objection of the Parliamentary Secretary is to the amendment. If he can give any reason for his objection we will accept it. There is no use talking about prejudice because certain Deputies put up amendments. We will not have that. We had it in the previous Dáil and in this Dáil.
That is absurd.
I am open to conviction if the Parliamentary Secretary can give reasons why there should not be an appeal board. I do not like the continuous interruptions and the sneers at everything that is put up by the Farmers' Party.
Mr. EGAN
Would Deputy Gorey like the county councils eliminated altogether and have the whole thing done by the Commissioners?
I made no suggestion of the kind. Technical matters will come up and decisions may be arrived at into which the county councils may be forced. Still there is no appeal to any other body. If there is injustice there should be an appeal board to go to. I am not making any reflection on county councils.
I am assuming that in practically every scheme that comes before a county council, and that ought to go through the necessary resolution, will be passed. I do not believe that the county councils are going to look on every scheme with prejudiced eyes. This Bill is going to be passed, and will be the law for all county councils that will come into existence in future. If six rated occupiers can lodge a petition with a county council they may not count for very much, and they may be living ten miles from a county councillor. What would these six men count for with the county council? Not even one of them might be known to a county councillor. There is also the possibility that one or two of these rated occupiers—big men we might say—might not be persona grata with certain members of the county council, and the county council might simply turn down the scheme. That would be manifestly unfair where there is a necessity for drainage. Before this Bill goes through, the Dáil should make provision for dealing with an injustice of that kind, and should see that there was a right of appeal. I want to be clear with Deputy Egan and to say that I believe the county councils will pass resolutions in favour of schemes that come up, but there is a possibility, which is known to Deputy Egan and to the Parliamentary Secretary, that the personnel of the councils may change. We are not able to manage that. I do not think that any extra work, or at least very little, will be imposed on the Board of Works. I think that most of the schemes that will be put up will be passed, and that there will be very few appeals to the Commissioners. I think, however, where there are good reasons for appealing, the work ought to be left over, say, for five years, as otherwise you are making it impossible for certain rated occupiers to be catered for under the Bill.
Without being prejudiced against the point which Deputy Baxter raises, and without denying that there may be necessity for an appeal against both the county council and the Board of Works, it seems to me that Deputy Baxter's amendment will hardly provide sufficient machinery to deal with the point which he raises. Take paragraph (c) of sub-section 3, and consider it from the point of view of the amendment. Suppose an appeal is made to the Board of Works and that the Board of Works accepts the appeal, is the Board of Works to compel the county council to undertake the expense in connection with the upkeep of the drainage scheme? I suggest that this amendment will knock a fairly large hole in the Bill. You are giving power to the Board of Works to override the county council. It may be right to do that, but, if you do it, you should do it in set terms. I notice that everybody who has spoken has almost invariably spoken about the county council rejecting schemes. If Deputy Baxter was writing his amendment in somewhat cooler circumstances——
I am quite cool now.
He would see that his own words do not refer to schemes at all but to a petition to the effect that a certain district should be recommended to the Board of Works for certain purposes.
The petition is the basis of the scheme
Yes, but a county council may turn down a scheme for all sorts of technical reasons, whereas a petition that such and such a river should be dealt with is a much simpler matter. The likelihood of a county council turning down a petition is less than it would be in the case of a scheme. I submit that you are introducing a good deal of confusion into the question if you talk about a scheme when you mean a petition. I suggest also, if you pass this amendment, and, unless you are very careful, you will be introducing a new element in the Bill, and you will not be doing it in the proper way.
I do not know whether Deputy Professor Tierney has read Section 13, for, if he did, I do not think that he would make the point which he tried to make. In the case where a county council accept a petition there is no financial obligation on them. They may contribute money for the construction of the scheme. The point he makes with regard to the appeal does not hold, or, at least, his argument is not consistent under that head. I think that the Minister must recognise that some form of appeal ought to be given. I think he has partly assented to that, but, if he has not, I cannot see any reason why he rules it out and makes an appeal impossible. He can imagine cases in which petitions come before the county council but if they are in the position to say that owing to the law these petitions have to be ruled out, and if these people cannot make a further move and are deprived of the benefits of drainage, I say that the law is not fair.
It seems to me that in sub-section 1 of Section 3, the county councils have no option, and they cannot rule out petitions. It says that the county council shall refer the petition to the county surveyor.
They can rule it out under that.
It seems to me that this suggestion of Deputy Baxter is ridiculous. The county council must refer it to the county surveyor, and if he reports in favour of the scheme, I can hardly imagine circumstances in which the county council will refuse to pass the necessary resolution. Deputy Baxter says that there will be hardly any appeals, because he realises that in 999 cases out of 1,000 the county councils will pass the resolution. That, however, does not mean that there will be no appeals, because people who want drainage schemes think that their area affords a splendid opportunity to carry out works that will be remunerative. If you ever come across people whose suggested schemes have been turned down, they generally tell you that the engineer was bribed or that something else happened, and so they will send forward their scheme. You would have scores, perhaps hundreds, of absolutely "dud" schemes coming forward, and you would have the engineers of the Board of Works going down and examining such schemes and spending their time, which could be better spent in carrying out practical schemes. You would add expense to the State and a good deal of other work would be delayed.
There is no use in saying that the county councils and the Board of Works might turn down good schemes. It is not proposed to appoint an appeal tribunal from the Board of Works. The Board of Works would probably have far greater reason for turning down schemes. A great number of schemes are bound to involve some expense to the State. On the other hand, schemes recommended by competent county surveyors are unlikely to involve any expense on the county councils unless they voluntarily desired to contribute something. It is unlikely that a local body, which sees the possibility of work being carried out in the district and an Exchequer contribution being paid, will turn down such proposals. It is more likely that the central authority which would be involved in the expenditure would be inclined to view the thing in a strict way and turn it down if there were sufficient reasons for turning it down. You may argue about every possible form of appeal board, but we are not going to set up a multiplicity of appeal boards, as we assume that people are going to act in a reasonable way. I think there is no ground for thinking that the county councils will act unreasonably. There may be one case in a thousand in which the county councils turned down a scheme which ought to have gone through, but there will be new county councils, and the matter could be rectified. Such work has remained for hundreds of years without being done, and surely, it can wait a little longer. It is better that you should have one such case in a thousand than that you should have unnecessary expense thrown on the Exchequer and other work held up.
The points which I desire to make have really been made by the Minister and by Professor Tierney. It is not really the case, as Deputy Gorey thinks, that this amendment is rejected because it comes from the Farmers' Benches. Such remarks are in full keeping with the amount of reasoning bestowed on this amendment, reasoning which I was unable to follow. That, however, is a limitation for which I am sorry. As Deputy Cole and Deputy Baxter stated, we are dealing with practically one case in a blue moon, and, in return for an opportunity of dealing out justice in that case, you cut across the whole idea of the Bill, which is, co-operation between the county councils and the Central Board here.
If the appeal is successful, certain heavy duties are imposed on the county council, and to impose these duties on them against their will would be, I think, cutting across the whole idea in this Bill. If the appeal is allowed in this case you might as well, in my opinion, cut out the preliminary stage so far as the county councils are concerned, for it is inevitable that you will have an appeal in all these cases if you allow an appeal where there is a rejection by the county council, and an investigation will have to be made if the appeal is to be a reality. It will mean whether they are "dud" schemes or not they will have to be examined by an engineer sent down by the Board of Works. That, as I say, would cut across other schemes, and it would not be for the benefit of the county. If there is a grievance or hardship in one particular case that, as the Minister has pointed out, could be remedied in the course of time. The real thing is that you do impose obligations on the county council. They should, in the first instance, be given the opportunity of rejecting or approving, but if this amendment is accepted it will impose on them a responsibility against their will, and they will have no option but to undertake it, not because they think it ought to be undertaken, but that we who are further away from the circumstances in the locality think it ought to be undertaken. That is why I am opposed to the amendment.
The Parliamentary Secretary did not deal with the suggestion made by me. I desire to repeat it again, because if this amendment is put I think it will be defeated. I dealt with the possibility of an isolated case, where the county council may possibly turn down a genuine petition which lays the basis for a good scheme. I agree with Deputy Baxter that such a thing is unlikely to happen, but there is a slight possibility that it may. There may be some bodies with a bad reputation in some district, and there may be people on the council with a political bias. That happened in the past, and it may occur again in the future. It is possible that a scheme which is sound may be turned down by a biassed county council. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that if he does not accept this amendment he should accept another amendment to the effect that where a county surveyor reports favourably on a petition that the petitioner shall have the right, in the event of the county council turning that petition down, to appeal to the Commissioners of Public Works. I think that is not an unreasonable thing to ask. It is simply a safeguard in regard to a state of affairs which may possibly occur here and there.
My objection is that in trying to legislate for a particular case that may occur, or that may not occur, we would be doing a lot of damage to the proper working of the Act as a whole. My objection to the amendment and to the suggested amendment is that for the one case in which you may do good you will damage the Act as a whole.
I think Deputy Heffernan puts the matter on a different plane. Where a county surveyor makes a report favourable to the scheme, and it is turned down for some reason by the county council, that, I think, is good ground for appeal.
I do not deny that an injustice may be done in a particular case, but in remedying that you do damage to the administration of the Act as a whole.
It may turn out that way, but in a county where we had elections recently, unpleasant incidents arose, and they may occur again. Before the Estimates are finished more may be heard about these incidents, but as I do not want to introduce heat into the discussion I will pass from that matter now. I have no personal interest in this matter, but I think the suggestion Deputy Heffernan has made is better than the proposal put forward by Deputy Baxter, and I would ask the Minister to consider that suggestion.
I maintain my suggestion will not cut across the ideas involved in the Bill, and that it will not create any great trouble. Possibly Deputy Baxter's proposal might involve a certain amount of extra trouble, but my suggestion only applies where a county surveyor has approved of the scheme, and where the county council for some reason refuses to accept his reports. I do not see how that could very much affect the principles involved in the Bill.
We would accept that. Where the county surveyor reports against a scheme, and the county council turns it down, there is no case for an appeal, but where there is a conflict of opinion, and for some reason it is turned down by the county council after the engineer has approved of it, there would seem to be something wrong, and some machinery should be provided to put it right.
I am prepared to withdraw my amendment if the Minister would consider Deputy Heffernan's suggestion, but if the Minister says there is to be no appeal I have no alternative but to ask the House to divide.
Tá
- Pádraig Baxter.
- Seán Buitléir.
- John J. Cole.
- John Conlan.
- Connor Hogan.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Donnchadh O Guaire.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
Níl
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Máighréad Ní Choileain Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Máirtín O Conalláin.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.