Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 22 May 1925

Vol. 11 No. 19

DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - ARTERIAL DRAINAGE BILL, 1925. COMMITTEE STAGE (RESUMED).

SECTION 4.
Question—"That Section 4 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
If the Commissioners, having considered the resolution or resolutions and petition of which copies are sent to them by the secretary of a county council or secretaries of county councils pursuant to this Act and the reports of such persons as they shall have appointed to report on the proposals contained in such petition, are of opinion that the circumstances are not such as to justify the preparation of a drainage scheme or the constitution of a separate drainage district they shall so inform such county council or county councils.

I beg to move:—

In page 4, line 5, after the word "councils" to add the words "giving at the same time the reason or reasons upon which their rejection of the scheme has been based."

The argument which I have to advance in favour of this amendment is that, in the case of the rejection of schemes, it would be of considerable value if county councils were fully informed of the reasons for the rejection. It would be a guide to them in considering future schemes if there was some indication made to them of the imperfections or of certain technicalities that might have led to the rejection of the scheme. It would enable them to arrive at a proper decision in connection with any future schemes they might have before them.

I have no objection to this particular amendment. I will accept the principle of it, but I would ask the Deputy to allow me to submit the amendment to the Parliamentary draughtsman for consideration.

I am quite agreeable. In the circumstances I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—"That Section 5 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
(2) Every drainage scheme prepared by the Commissioners under this Act shall show either in the body of the scheme or by means of appropriate maps, drawings, plans, sections, and schedules annexed thereto the following matters, that is to say:—
(a) the rivers, streams or waters proposed to be dealt with and the lands proposed to be drained or improved, and
(b) the works proposed to be executed, and
(c) the lands and premises proposed to be compulsorily acquired, the easements, water-rights, and other rights proposed to be compulsorily acquired, restricted, terminated, or otherwise interfered with, and the roads and bridges (whether public or private) proposed to be diverted, removed, or otherwise interfered with, and
(d) the rated occupiers of the several lands proposed to be drained or improved, the respective values of such several lands at the time of the preparation of the scheme, and the probable amount by which such values would respectively be increased by the execution of the proposed works, and
(e) the reputed proprietors, owners, and rated or other occupiers of the several lands and premises, easements, water-rights and other rights, private roads and bridges proposed to be compulsorily acquired, restricted, terminated or otherwise interfered with or affected, and an estimate of the compensation which would be payable to such proprietors, owners and occupiers respectively on account of such compulsory acquisition, restriction, termination, interference or affection, and
(f) the area to be constituted a separate drainage district on the completion of the proposed works, and
(g) an estimate of the cost of the execution of the proposed works and of the expenses generally of carrying out the scheme.
(3) Where a drainage scheme is carried out and a separate drainage district constituted pursuant thereto, the expenses incurred by the Commissioners in considering and examining the resolution or resolutions and the petition and the proposals contained therein and in preparing the drainage scheme shall be part of the general expenses of carrying the scheme into execution and shall be paid accordingly....

I beg to move:—

To add to sub-section (2) a new paragraph as follows:—

(h) the amount to be paid out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas.

Perhaps the Minister would be prepared to accept this amendment. I think that on the Second Reading he indicated that when a scheme is being prepared, if the people concerned are to know exactly how they stand, they should be made aware of what moneys are to be contributed by the Oireachtas towards the scheme. Without knowing what is going to be contributed by the Oireachtas many people would be placed in a doubtful position as to what money it would be necessary to contribute on their part. There might, for instance, be a scheme that would cost a couple of thousand pounds. The area to be drained might be very small, and the cost of that scheme would probably have to be borne by the land drained. If there is not some indication as to what money is to come out of the Central Fund towards the construction of such a scheme, it will be impossible for people to contemplate their contribution. I think it is necessary that the words I suggest should be included in the section.

As I indicated in the short space of time at my disposal on Second Reading—I think it was mainly in reply to an objection put forward by Deputy Johnson—I fully realised the fairness of people having before them, when they were asked to vote for or against a scheme, some indication as to what the Government is prepared to contribute. Consequently, I am in full agreement with the idea that is at the back of Deputy Baxter's amendment. There is, however, some slight difficulty about the drafting. Really, it is a matter of the Commissioners putting up the scheme before it goes to the Minister for Finance. What I would suggest is that the Commissioners of Public Works would make up their minds as to the recommendations they will make to the Minister, and then, before the publication takes place, the Minister's consent and the amount that he will consent to will be determined. That is, the contribution by the Government will be determined, and will be published. That is what the people will have before them. Do I make my meaning quite clear to the Deputy? There is nothing really between us. It is only a question as between a subordinate Department of the Government and the Minister. If the Deputy's amendment were inserted where he suggests, it would mean that what we have to do with here is not the Minister's decision, but the Commissioners' recommendation, whereas the Minister and I are both anxious that the people should know, not what the Commissioners recommend, but what the Minister is prepared to sanction for the scheme. I will accept the principle of the Deputy's amendment, and I will see how the idea can more appropriately be embodied in the section. I will put the matter before the Parliamentary draughtsman.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move:—

In sub-section (3), line 55, after the word "scheme" to insert the words "and all expenses incurred by the petitioners in preparing the petition."

The intention of the amendment is that the preliminary expenses incurred by the petitioners should be included in the general expenses of the scheme and that they will be eventually defrayed in the same manner as that in which the general expenses are defrayed. It was my intention originally to put down an amendment governing the payment of preliminary expenses in cases where schemes were not accepted; but as this would involve a charge on State funds, I would not be entitled to put it down. I would suggest, if the Parliamentary Secretary sees fit to accept my amendment, that I would be permitted to incorporate a similar idea in regard to sub-section (4). It is only reasonable, I think, that the preliminary expenses, such as preparing the petition, the cost of convening meetings, the preparation of any maps that may be required, and, possibly, the expense of employing an engineer to make a report to the petitioners, should be included in the general expenses of the scheme.

I see rather grave objections to the acceptance of this amendment, because it proceeds on an assumption that I am anxious to avoid and that I should not like to give any countenance to, that is, that the preliminary stages will cost a considerable amount of money. As I explained in reply to Deputy Morrissey, my view of the situation is that the maps to be used will simply be ordinary Ordnance Survey Maps—one inch maps. The price of them would be something in the nature of a half-a-crown each. The other expenses will be very slight, and I wish to keep them very slight so that they will not be a burden on the scheme. Any encouragement you give to extra expense— and you may give encouragement if this amendment is accepted—will affect the scheme. I do not wish that people would be under the impression that it would be necessary to employ an engineer to draw up a sketch map for the preliminary stage of the scheme. That is one of the reasons I am against the acceptance of the amendment. It implies considerable trouble and expense in the preliminary stages and in the presentation of the scheme to the county council. That is an impression that should be discouraged in every possible way. No substantial expenses are involved in the preparation and presentation of a petition as we understand it under this Bill, and people should not be encouraged to employ, in the preliminary stage, engineers to draw up an elaborate map and an elaborate scheme and submit it to the county council. If this amendment is accepted that will, in many cases, be the inevitable result. I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment.

I do not wish to press the amendment, as I also saw the difficulties involved in it when I was putting it forward, but possibly some kind of compromise might be made, as I think there may be cases where the employment of engineers in the preliminary stages may be necessary. Farmers and others interested in the scheme may not be in a position to know the engineering problems, and to know whom they should, and should not, include in the petition. I suggest that something in the nature of a minimum, which might be placed very low, could be arranged, but, of course, it might also happen that the minimum might be a maximum. There will, however, be preliminary expenses incurred, and, possibly, some man, who is keener on drainage and more alive to its necessity than others, will have to defray these expenses out of his own pocket, and he may never be refunded for the money so expended. While I am not anxious to press the amendment, I think that something might be done so as to allow the payment of such expenses, and at the same time keeping them down to an absolute minimum. I agree that large expenses ought not to be allowed and that expenses should be kept to the lowest possible amount. The problem is there, however, and it ought to be met in some way.

The engineering problems will be dealt with by the engineers who prepare the schemes. These problems will not be dealt with in the preliminary petitions.

I quite understand that.

Even if there were one or two cases, and I am not admitting that there will be, it would be a mistake to introduce into the Bill what might be a real danger and a real source of expense so far as the scheme and the people interested are concerned.

I should say that I myself have actually advised people to employ engineers in anticipation of this measure in certain places. I may, perhaps, have unwisely done so, and they may be involved in certain expense. I realise the difficulties in regard to the amendment, and I will not press it, but I will ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give it consideration with the intention of trying to find out some possible way of easing the loss which might be incurred by people in preparing petitions.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—"That Section 6 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
(2) Every notice and other document to be served under this section may be served by sending the same by prepaid post in an envelope addressed to the person to be served therewith at his usual or last-known address, or (where no such address is known) at the lands or the place of situation of the right or property to which the notice relates, and every notice or other document so served shall be deemed to be served at the time at which the envelope containing the same would be delivered at the address named thereon in the ordinary course of post.

I beg to propose:—

In sub-section (2), line 49, after the word "prepaid" to add the word "registered."

This amendment is in line with similar amendments which I proposed recently in regard to other Bills. It means that there will be a certificate of posting and a certificate of the receipt of the letter. I think it is right, where certain obligations are imposed on people, that there should be an absolute proof of posting and receipt of letters. There is always a possibility that something may go wrong. The office boy may, for instance, lose the letters or fail to deliver them. Similar amendments were accepted in regard to other Bills. In the Enforcement of Law Bill, I think, the Minister for Justice accepted a similar suggestion.

I suggest that there is no necessity for the word "prepaid" as every letter must, of necessity, be prepaid.

This amendment would really mean expense again. The farmers would have to pay.

You would not like to see them do that.

No, it would hurt me considerably. I do not think that there is anything practical to be gained by the amendment, and it would add additional and unnecessary complications. In most contracts, when things are going through the post, the Post Office is, or at least it used to be long ago, recognised as an agent, and the posting of a letter was more or less regarded as acceptance of a contract. I do not see why a practice which holds in ordinary contracts should not hold here, especially as regards the preliminary stages of a scheme. It is unlikely that a letter will go astray, and, if it does, it is unlikely that a man would not hear about it from his neighbours. He could then send in and ask why he did not get notice. There is really no occasion for registered letters, and I do not think that any good purpose would be served by registering.

I urge that a good purpose will be served. If a man were living in parts of Kerry, where the people see the post only once a week or once a month, and where, without any reflection on the Minister for Posts, a postman may keep a letter in his pocket on the chance of meeting the man at Mass next Sunday, there would be a necessity for registration. In a matter of this kind, which involves individuals in obligations to do certain things, it should be made certain that information is conveyed to such people through channels which cannot be questioned. Where there is a registered letter there can be no doubt about delivery, and where a man may have a complaint to make, proof that he received the letter can be easily given.

I should say that there is no such thing as retained correspondence, as is suggested by the Deputy. Men who would retain correspondence would soon find themselves elsewhere, and there is no such thing as one weekly delivery.

I do not wish to force this amendment to a division, but I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary has taken the view he has, despite the fact that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs says that there is no such thing as delays through the post. I say that there are, although he does not hear about them.

It is not his fault.

No. My contention is that where a man should receive notice from the Government imposing certain obligations on him he has an absolute right to insist that there will be no possible chance of that notice not reaching him. There is such a possibility, as things stand at present, and a man can say that he did not receive notice. The idea of a man getting notice, which he is entitled by law to get, through the medium of general rumour in the district is not a proper way for a Government to act. I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary has taken this view, because I think it is a very small thing. The question of expense is absolutely ridiculous; it would probably not involve an expenditure of more than £20 for the whole State in a year.

The expense would go on to the scheme.

We do not mind that.

I will consider it.

Before the Minister considers it, I would ask the House to consider whether this is a vote of censure on the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, because if it is I think it should be moved on the adjournment. Deputy Baxter's statement that people in Kerry only get their letters when the postman meets them on Sunday, or accidentally on some other day, seems to me an extraordinary one.

Let Deputy D'Alton not exaggerate what I said.

You have made an exaggerated statement. You said distinctly that these men only get their letters when the postman meets them. I do not think that there is anything like that in Kerry.

I think all letters that come from Kerry are delivered.

I know in other parts of the country we have no knowledge of such a lack of delivery of letters. If you have to send registered letters in connection with this matter you would have to do so in connection with other matters, and I know that it occasionally occurs in the country that though the registered letter is the letter you should be sure of receiving an answer to you may be almost equally sure that the person to whom it is sent does not always receive it, because when it comes to his house he is down the fields and his wife may not take it. So that in order to make sure that these notices would arrive I would suggest that they would not be registered.

Deputy D'Alton has made a very grave reflection on the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. The Deputy must be aware that a registered letter must be signed for, that the postman who delivers it has to see it signed, and the office that sends it out has to be sure that the signature is a genuine one.

Deputy Gorey evidently misunderstands the position. I had better make it clear to him. A registered letter will only be sent to a certain individual——

This question would more properly arise on the Post Office Vote.

I do not want to consider it, because I think it is hopelessly valueless.

Perhaps if Deputies D'Alton, Gorey and Baxter would urge the Minister for Posts to pay his auxiliary postmen more than 10s. 9d. a week it would ensure beyond doubt that letters would be delivered at the proper time.

On the assurance of the Parliamentary Secretary that the matter will receive consideration I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—"That Section 7 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 8, SUB-SECTION (1).
(1) The Commissioners shall in due course examine the communications received by them from rated occupiers of lands proposed in the drainage scheme to be drained or improved and shall ascertain the number of such occupiers who in the manner and within the time specified in the notices served on them by the Commissioners have dissented from the scheme (which occupiers are hereinafter referred to as "dissenting occupiers"), and shall further ascertain the aggregate value of the lands occupied by dissenting occupiers which are proposed in the scheme to be drained or improved, and, if such aggregate value is more than half the total value of all the lands proposed in the scheme to be drained or improved, the Commissioners shall take no further steps in regard to the drainage scheme.

I move:—

In sub-section (1), page 6, line 1, after the word "take" to insert the words "either of the following courses—

(a) delete from the scheme the holdings of any dissenting occupiers which they may think fit, and if the deletion results in showing that the aggregate value of the land of dissenting occupiers remaining within the scheme is less than the aggregate value of the land of occupiers in favour of the scheme they shall refer the amended scheme to the occupiers of the land to be drained under the amended scheme and if the aggregate value of the land of ‘dissenting occupies' under the amended scheme is less than the aggregate value of the land of occupiers in favour of the scheme the amended scheme shall be accepted as a new scheme and shall be proceeded with;

(b) shall decline to proceed further in regard to the scheme;" and to delete line 2, page 6.

In my opinion this amendment is of considerable importance. Where a petition has been lodged, a scheme made out by the Commissioners, and notice of that scheme sent to the different rated occupiers who are concerned, and it is found that a majority of the rated occupiers object to the scheme, it will be turned down, under the provision at present in the Bill. The intention of the amendment is in such a case to give the Commissioners power to amend the scheme—that is, to take out of the scheme certain persons who are objecting, such people as outlying farmers, who would only be very slightly affected by the scheme. There would then be a very good chance of having the amended scheme accepted by those proposed to be retained within it. The amendment provides that notice again should be given to those concerned in the new scheme, and if the majority are in favour of the scheme, that it should be accepted. The amendment gives a good deal of power to the Commissioners, but the idea is to prevent people who would be on outlying portions of an area proposed to be affected by a drainage scheme, who might be very slightly affected by it, and who would not be anxious to take advantage of it, from making the whole scheme abortive. In such a case the only alternative would be to form a new scheme, leaving out those who objected. The amendment is to get over this difficulty.

There should be a provision in this section to deal with obstreperous people or obstructionists. You do get that type of individual, people who oppose everything, even if it will benefit themselves. By being excluded from a scheme they might wish to escape paying for the work, and be free of any responsibility afterwards. You meet that class of individual, and you may meet them in some numbers. No matter what the position is, when the Commissioners are satisfied that drainage is necessary and feasible in a district, they should have power to put a proportionate charge on everybody who will benefit, because there are people—and anybody who knows anything about Irish life knows this— who are obstructionists, either from private motives or to escape paying for benefits they will derive, or they oppose schemes out of spite for their neighbours. I have known the purchase of estates to be held up because certain tenants would not agree with the other tenants to accept any terms on account of spite or through a peculiarity of temperament.

I quite agree that there is much force in what Deputy Gorey has said, that there are people who will naturally object to everything, even big schemes, and even schemes to the general advantage. I might almost say that they do so because they are to the general advantage. I have not the slightest doubt about that. On the other hand, in reference to the last portion of the Deputy's speech, namely, with regard to the motives that operate in causing them to object, I am quite ready to believe that in a number of cases it is a desire to save their own pockets, not to contribute anything to the general good which the scheme will help to promote; and, secondly, spite against their neighbours. These things will operate. If for one reason or another, the bulk of the people whose land is to be improved vote against the scheme, it is dead, but of course that does not militate against Deputy Heffernan's amendment. He does not propose that a majority of the people whose land is proposed to be improved should be compelled to enter into a scheme. What he does propose is that if, from the engineering point of view, it is possible for the scheme to be remodelled, that the remodelled scheme should be put before those concerned. Of course that might make a difference in the incidence of charge. It is a rather important point, and on the whole I think it is a matter that could be provided for. If the Deputy would withdraw the amendment I will agree to have one drafted for the Report Stage to give expression to his idea.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—"That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."—put and agreed to.
Sections 9, 10, 11 and 12 put and agreed to.

the word "incidental," which created such a row in the discussion on the Shannon scheme happens to be in Section 11.

SECTION 13.

The money necessary to defray the cost and expenses incurred by the Commissioners in carrying out the drainage scheme and executing the works therein specified (including all compensation and other moneys payable and all incidental expenses) shall be provided as follows:—

(a) The Minister for Finance may pay out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas so much as he shall think proper of such costs and expenses;

(b) the council of any county in which the area proposed in the drainage scheme to be constituted a separate drainage district or any part of such area is situate may out of the county fund or out of moneys raised for the purpose by borrowing under this Act pay to the Commissioners so much of such costs and expenses as such council shall with the approval of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health think proper;

(c) the balance of such costs and expenses over and above the amounts (if any) provided under the foregoing paragraphs shall be advanced by the Commissioners out of moneys under their control and applicable to loans and shall be repaid to the Commissioners in the manner hereinafter provided.

I beg to move:

In paragraph (a), line 29, after the word "Finance" to insert the words "acting on the advice of the Commissioners."

My reason for putting down this amendment is that I realise the Commissioners would be fully informed as to local conditions, and that they would be in a position to advise the Minister as to the proper proportions of the moneys necessary for the carrying out of the scheme, to be advanced by the Minister for Finance. I suppose I might take it for granted that he would act on their advice. No hard and fast rules can be laid down as to the proportion which should be advanced, because local conditions vary. With regard to one scheme, the owners of the land benefited might be in a position to contribute a fair proportion of the costs, and in others they might not be in that position—the reverse might obtain. For that reason I move this amendment.

It is quite clear from the general purport of the Bill that, of course, one of the things on which the Commissioners will advise the Minister will be the amount of money that the Minister will be asked to sanction. That, I have indicated already in dealing with Deputy Baxter's amendment, is one of the things actually put forward. They will have that before them, and that, of course, would be acting on the advice of the Commissioners. If the amendment simply means that these words are to be taken at their ordinary, everyday face value, that the Commissioners will advise the Minister in any decision he will come to, the Minister will have that advice before him. That is provided in the Bill. But I am very doubtful whether the legal effect of the words, "acting on the advice of the Commismissioners," will be limited to that.

I should not care to bind the Minister who is responsible to this Dáil for the finances of the Government to sanction anything that a subordinate department puts before him for sanction. Either that is the aim of the amendment or it is to achieve that the Minister shall act on the advice of the Commissioners. That is provided here in the Bill already. That is the practice and the intention, and in that case there is no necessity for the amendment. If the force of the amendment —I do not say that is the intention—is that the Minister is bound to accept that advice, then, I think, it would be highly objectionable. In either case I feel constrained to object to the amendment.

The word "may" is used in the section, and it is not sought to replace it.

Then it is a question of the amount.

In view of what the Minister has stated, I cannot see that there is any objection to including these words. He says they are already provided for in the Bill, but they are not specifically stated. I think we all realise that our present Minister for Finance is a very reasonable gentleman in some directions, but we may have a rather intractable Minister in the future, and I think it would be very well to have this provision in the Bill, even if it leaves a legal obligation on the Minister.

I am afraid the Deputy has ignored the second portion of the dilemma, if I might so call it. The first is that if the amendment means one thing it is not necessary, and the amendment I have accepted from Deputy Baxter shows that it is not necessary, because a paragraph will be introduced into Section 6, as a result of which the Commissioners will make that recommendation to the Minister. The Deputy will remember that I accepted an amendment from Deputy Baxter. As a result of that the Commissioners will make a recommendation to the Minister and they will give advice to the Minister. There is no necessity for the amendment in that case, but if the amendment is capable of being construed, as I believe it is, that the Minister is bound to follow the advice of the Commissioners, I think that would be an impossible position to take up.

I may tell the Parliamentary Secretary that is the very thing I did mean.

That is that the Minister must be bound to take the advice of his subordinates as to the amount of money he will recommend. That is not an amendment I could accept.

It does not say "he must;" it says "he may." There is a very wide difference between these words, and I do not know why he cannot accept the amendment.

It is either not necessary or it is objectionable.

I can see the objection of the Parliamentary Secretary. His reading of the amendment is that the Minister would have to act on the advice of the Commissioners of Public Works, and as he is not prepared to accept that I would suggest a new amendment might be formulated to the effect that before deciding on the amount that he would give, that he would get advice of the Commissioners. I presume he will get advice.

This amendment would make it compulsory on him to act on the advice of the Commissioners, but as the Parliamentary Secretary is not willing to accept that, and as he objects to the principle, perhaps we could get over the difficulty if he will see that some new amendment is inserted whereby before the Minister did make his grant on the matter, he would first seek the advice of the Commissioners. The possibility exists that the Minister might—I would not say that the present Minister would, but a high-handed Minister may—act on his own initiative and might not seek the advice of the Commissioners, and the result would be disastrous.

Under Section 6, when the Commissioners are putting forward a scheme before the Minister, one of the matters that they will put forward to the Minister, as I have already indicated in accepting Deputy Baxter's amendment, is the amount to be contributed out of the Exchequer. I cannot say what precise form the draft of Deputy Baxter's amendment, the principle of which I have accepted, will take, but it will probably mean that in sub-section (2) we will have a new paragraph (h) regarding the amount, if any, which the Commissioners will recommend to the Minister. That comes before the Minister, who accepts, cuts down, or increases that amount, and then the amount that he approves of will be indicated to people when the scheme is put before them and when they are asked to vote on it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—"That Section 13 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 14, SUB-SECTION (4).
In fixing for the purposes of the draft award or a final award the proportions in which any sum or rate is to be borne by the several quantities of the lands so drained or improved the Commissioners shall have regard to the extent to which such lands are respectively benefited or improved by the carrying out of the drainage scheme.

This section deals with the points that are to be taken into consideration when the award is being made out. I move:—

To add at the end of sub-section (4) the words "and to the rent and local rate which has to be met out of the entire holding of which the lands so improved form part."

When the award is being made out I want consideration to be given to the rent and the local rate that is to be met out of the entire holding. I think it is essential that that should be taken into account in the making out of the award. I have experience of a holding bought out under the 1903 Act. The landlord was paying the drainage rate until then. The tenant's rent was about £28. When he had purchased his holding his rent was about £23, and he then took over the landlord's responsibility for paying the drainage rate, which amounts to over £7. I see demand notes for amounts like that, leaving the tenant with an annual rental charge of £30. I think there are many cases like that. The Parliamentary Secretary knows cases like that in my county. It is essential that when the draft award is being made out you will take into account what the charges on the entire holding are. Obviously you might have a farm in a low-lying part of the country where the greater part of a man's holding would be along the river and subject to flooding. The rent and the valuation might have been fixed at a time when flooding was not nearly so considerable as at present and when the damage done was not nearly as considerable as it is now. The cost of construction and of maintenance of drainage works in that district to that man would be considerable indeed. A farmer like that might be called upon to pay, to maintain such works, a sum out of proportion to what his holding would be able to carry, taking into account his rent and rates. I think that the award cannot fairly be made out if the rents and the rates of the holding are not taken into account. If the greater part of a man's land is subject to flooding and if it is, at the same time, valued and rented highly, there is no doubt whatever that if that man has to pay what might be considered a fair proportion of the award for construction and maintenance of drainage works it would saddle him with a sum he could not pay.

I wish to impress on the Minister the importance of this amendment. I know many cases the same as this one to which Deputy Baxter referred, where the award should be in proportion to the other payment that a tenant has to make in respect of the holding. Some are excessive for the reason he has given. If this is not taken into consideration when making an award, it will cause undue hardship on the tenant. Therefore, I press on the Parliamentary Secretary to accept the amendment of Deputy Baxter if possible.

It is undoubtedly a very complicated matter, but I hope it is quite clear to Deputies that when we come to this final award anything that comes off one man must go on to his neighbour. The State contribution is already determined and also the county council contribution. What remains to be determined is what portion of the amount that has to be paid back, by way of terminable annuity in the shape of drainage rate, must fall on each of the individuals. Supposing the cost is £1,000. The question is what part of the £1,000 should fall on A, and what part on B. It must be quite clear that, so far as the State is concerned, taking it off A does not put it on the State. We are beyond that particular stage, when the settlement of the final award comes. Taking it off A puts it on to B, C, D and all the others. You would, under this amendment, have to take into account not merely what the charge on A is, and what the other charges on A, besides the drainage rate, are, but also what the other charges are on B, C, D, and down to Z. You would have to do that in respect of all the others whose lands are benefited and who have to pay their fraction of the terminable annuity that goes to pay back that portion of the expenses of creating a drainage district which is not provided by the State or by means of a grant from the county council. It is necessary to make that clear. The Deputies will see how very complicated the procedure becomes on final investigation. Not only that, but probably it is admitted that the person whom you want to benefit by this amendment has lands which are benefited up to a certain extent. You are not charging him up to that extent. You propose to charge his neighbours for that extra benefit he has got. The proposal in the Bill is that each man is to be charged in proportion to the benefit, in comparison with others, which he is adjudged to have received from the scheme. That being so, you can easily understand the ill-feeling there would be if it got abroad that one man was not paying a fair proportion of the benefit he received and that his neighbours were paying it. I am not denying that there is something to be said in favour of Deputy Baxter's amendment. I am not denying that, but I do say it would complicate the scheme at this particular stage of the final award tremendously. It would hit other people who would be benefited—they would probably not admit that they were benefited once the scheme is through—but who have to pay in proportion to the amount they have been held to have been benefited. There are these two objections—the tremendous complications you would introduce into what on the whole ought to be a fairly simple matter, and then undoubtedly the feeling of injustice that neighbours have to pay for the benefit this man has got.

While I recognise the difficulties my amendment would cause, I think, on the other hand, there is no doubt whatever that there is a problem. I have personal experience where men's drainage charges are out of all comparison with the rent they have to pay. Drainage Acts in the past imposed on men an obligation that was too heavy to carry. That would not have been imposed on them if the other charges on the land had been taken into account. We may now again put other tenants in exactly the same position. I cannot see in the Bill safeguards that would prevent a recurrence of this. While I agree that it would be unjust to put on to one man what another man should pay the truth is that you might carry through a drainage scheme which would put some men out of existence altogether. The Minister for Finance shakes his head. Many tenants have property in my county who, when they bought out their land, took over drainage charges paid by the landlord. These leave them paying a rent much higher than they paid before they bought their land out at all. You can put a charge on a tenant under this Bill, not, perhaps, as serious as that, but serious, nevertheless. While I see the difficulties of pressing the amendment, I see, on the other hand, that there are no safeguards in the Bill that would prevent our doing the same thing and putting a charge on a tenant which his land will not carry. I would like if the Minister would consider the provision of some safeguard against what I have referred to, in some other part of the Bill, because I fear a recurrence of what I have alluded to. I ask the Minister's consideration for this amendment, because there is reason for it.

As regards what has happened in the past and what may happen under this Bill, the situation is somewhat different. Originally, the men affected in this way were never asked to consent. There was no opportunity given them to accept or reject the drainage scheme. Under this Bill they have, at least, an opportunity given them to accept or reject the scheme. I appreciate the point raised by Deputy Baxter, but I cannot see any means of meeting it. I do not see how you are going to saddle other members of the community with what really is this particular man's fair share of responsibility. I cannot see how that can be done without injustice and also without causing a great deal of ill-will.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary see the possibility of such a charge being put on that, when added to the other charges on the holding, will prevent the Administration getting anything out of it—getting even their demand met? If you do not know what the rent on a holding is, and what contribution is made to the local rates, you may put on an award on that holding which neither that farmer nor any other farmer in the same circumstances would be able to meet. And if you do not get your demand met, who is to pay it? The county-at-large?

Would the tenants be in a position to withdraw after the final award?

After the work is done?

Mr. HOGAN

Yes. That is what they will do. That is what will happen.

Am I to understand that if a scheme is put up to and is carried through by the Government, the tenants do not intend to carry through their responsibility in regard to their share of the drainage rate?

I do not think the Deputy knows what he is talking about.

I support Deputy Baxter's point, because I know cases where the drainage rate would be over the rent. The danger he mentioned is present.

There are only two ways of meeting this point. If you are going to make discrimination between people benefited under these schemes, and if each person is not going to bear his fair share of the cost of the scheme according to the benefit derived, then the other occupiers will have to bear, in addition to their own share, the share of the privileged person, or the State or county funds will have to bear it. We had better make up our minds whether the individual benefited, the rest of the body of occupiers, the State or the local authority will bear the share of the cost in regard to which discrimination is made. The county rates could not bear this cost, and it would fall on the State. I would certainly object to the rates being made responsible, and I should more particularly object to having the occupiers of drained land paying for the benefit derived by somebody else. If that idea is going to get about, it is going to knock the bottom out of the whole scheme. If everything is not going to be done above board, and if everybody is not going to pay their proportion of the benefit derived, the whole scheme is at an end. If the idea is advanced that tenants will not meet the charges, then the thing for occupiers to do is not to enter into the scheme at all but to ascertain beforehand what the charges are. If the game is not worth the candle, do not have the game.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Motion made and question put—"That Section 14 stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.
SECTION 15—SUB-SECTION (1).
When a draft has been prepared by the Commissioners under this Act, the Commissioners shall publish by advertisement in theIris Oifigiúil and one or more newspapers circulating in the district to which the final award when made would relate a notice stating that the draft award has been prepared and the townlands to which it relates and naming a convenient, place where the draft award (with all maps and other documents annexed thereto) or a copy thereof can be inspected, and further stating that a public inquiry will be held in relation to the draft award at the time (not being less than three weeks after the first publication of such notice) and place specified in the notice.

I move amendment 17:

In sub-section (1), line 46, after the word "that" to insert the words "if objection is made by any person or persons affected by the award."

In putting down this amendment I had in view the urgency that is demanded for setting the work of drainage on foot. We have had two years of abnormal rainfall and, as far as this so-called summer season has gone, it bids fair to surpass previous seasons in respect of rainfall. That being so, anybody with any knowledge of the country must know that drainage was never so much required as it is at present. There is also a great deal of unemployment throughout the country, and if these works could be undertaken in this season it would relieve unemployment and, at the same time, relieve the ratepayers of the burdens which they have to shoulder on account of unemployment. It seems strange that any local inquiry should be required when there is no objection to, or dissent from the scheme. One would think that the draft award having got due publication, as provided, in the local newspapers, everybody would be aware of the nature of the scheme and how it would affect them. Holding a local inquiry will involve expense, and it will also delay the scheme considerably. I cannot see any reason why this scheme should not be gone on with, without further inquiry, if there is no objection to it.

I am afraid the Deputy's time-table is a little wrong. This draft award only enters into the question after the scheme has been completed and after the engineering work has been done. Therefore, it cannot hold up any scheme, nor can it delay the relief it might prove to the unemployed. It is after the scheme has been carried through—after the work has been done, and the lands have been drained—that the question of the draft award comes in. There is no loss of time, so far as drainage is concerned. Any little loss of time after that does not count one way or another. There might be some very slight expense saved, but Deputy Conlan is a very optimistic man if he thinks that a draft award will be accepted by all the people whose lands are being improved, or are alleged to have been improved. Experience teaches that the complaint will be made by most of the people— and, in some cases, by all the people— that no benefit has come to their lands from the drainage scheme, that the drainage scheme has done them more harm than good, and that, therefore, they ought to pay nothing. That is the experience, and it is, of course, in accord with human nature. It is useful, too, that opportunity should be given to the people who fixed the final award of having a last examination of the lands to see how far the benefit has been carried through. Nothing would be saved in the way of expense by this amendment, and it is altogether too optimistic to assume that any scheme or any draft award will get through without objection.

Being optimistic is a distinct virtue in this country. Having the assurance that the holding of the inquiry will not delay the actual work, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—"That Section 15 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Question proposed—"That Section 16 stand part of the Bill."

Could the Parliamentary Secretary give any indication as to the length of time the terminable annuity will run? Will it be on the same terms as Office of Works' loans or Land Commission annuities?

What I can do is indicate what was the procedure in the past, and what I hope, therefore, will be the procedure in the future. These are big works, and it would not be fair to have the loan repayable in a short period. Ten or fifteen years would be too short. Probably the period will be thirty-five years.

Why not 60 years, the same as the Land Commission annuities?

I am afraid, judging by the experience of drainage schemes in the past, it would be a little optimistic to think that drainage works will last as long as the farmers. I think that thirty-five years is not an unreasonable length of time.

The Parliamentary Secretary assumes that the works will be so bad that there will have to be new schemes in about 50 years' time.

Not the schemes, but the maintenance.

That the maintenance will be so bad then. That is not saying much for the maintenance.

In many cases the landlords have been liable for drainage charges where schemes have been already carried out. I know of one case where the landlord is contributing £30 per annum and that estate is now being sold to the tenants. Will the tenants be liable for the payment of that sum, or will it be taken into account in fixing the price of the estate?

That depends on the terms of the Land Act, not on the Drainage Bill. It has nothing to do with this Bill. It should be taken into account. I do not pose as an expert on the Land Act, put it is a question of interpretation of that Act.

Under the Bill the county councils are liable for the maintenance of the works, and I see no reason why the works should not be as perfect in 60 years time. That is the ideal that we ought to aim at anyway. If the county councils are made to do their duty the works should be as perfect in 60 years time. In fact, I would be inclined to regard them as permanent. We should aim at seeing that the schemes are maintained in perfect condition. In view of that I do not see why the repayment should not be spread over as long a period as possible—at least 68½ years, which is the usual term for Land Commission annuities.

Much will depend on the terms arranged for the sinking fund. Section 19 is the key of the whole situation, as it deals with maintenance of the works and how the supervision is going to be carried out. If that is not properly carried out the works will be of no use in a short time. If proper supervision is carried out, there is no reason why the works should not last for 200 years. It is the sinking fund is going to determine what the period allowed for repayment will be. If we knew what the sinking fund is going to be we would know what the period would be.

Five shillings per cent.

Is this period fixed definitely?

No. I was asked for an indication and I gave an indication.

We may take that as the lowest possible term.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 17 put and agreed to.
SECTION 18.
Question proposed—"That Section 18 stand part of the Bill."

Under this section a new drainage district may include portion of an old drainage district. It may include two old drainage districts and a new district. If portion of an old district is included in a new scheme of drainage, and if new construction work is done in the old district, how will that be apportioned?

Does the Deputy mean how the charge will be met?

Yes. I also want to know if it is possible under this section to do anything by way of reviewing the charges under previous drainage schemes? The Parliamentary Secretary is aware of the conditions that exist in part of County Cavan, where the charges are far beyond what farmers can pay, while at the same time they are getting no value for their money, as practically no maintenance work is being done. Farmers are paying £6, £7, £10, and even £15 yearly for drainage maintenance, while no work is being done, and hundreds of acres of land are being flooded. Portion of that drainage district may come in to a new scheme. There may be some constructional work necessary on the old scheme in order to make it capable of carrying a larger volume of water coming from the new scheme. I want to know the possibility there is for reconsideration of the old charges under this section. If farmers are at present paying a drainage rate that is manifestly too much, is the State going to do anything under this Bill to relieve them? If men are paying a drainage rate and practically no maintenance work is being done, what will be the attitude of the State in regard to them? I do not know if the conditions I speak of exist in other counties, but I should like to know if it is the intention to reconsider the charges already in existence in the rearrangement of the drainage districts.

I am not quite clear as to what the Deputy has in mind, because it is a question of dates to a large extent. Is the Deputy referring to the terminable annuity or the maintenance rate?

I presume what is collected includes the terminable annuity and the maintenance rate.

They are two different things.

They are collected in one, as far as I know.

In a good many cases, in fact in the great bulk of them, the only thing collected at present is simply the maintenance rate. What I mean is, the only thing that an attempt is made to collect is in most cases the maintenance rate. I will not say it is collected. To do so would be a mis-statement. In a good many cases it is not collected. It is the maintenance rate that is assessed that an attempt is made to collect. Of the 160 schemes in the Saorstát there may be a certain number in which the original amount has not yet been paid by means of the terminable annuities. I am not quite clear which of the two charges the Deputy has in mind. The provision in the Bill is that where there is an existing drainage district we can take that, or portion of it, into a new drainage district. In the bulk of the cases there would probably be no annuities to be paid, as the original sum advanced has already been paid back. In that case, the district comes in, of course, on a perfectly new footing. The Bill enables us to do that. The whole district, including the old and the new district, will be examined as to the amount of benefit to be charged to that extent, and that alone. As I indicated before, £3,300,000 has been spent on arterial drainage. That has been paid back with the exception of £70,000 or £80,000. Where that money has not been paid back—and I think that refers to the whole of Ireland—there is a provision here that either the old drainage district or portion of it still remains liable for that particular charge. It is not being relieved of the charge already there.

With regard to my first question, there is a river in the constituency of the Minister for Finance, and there is a feeling that it ought to be opened up so that the water would be carried down through part of my constituency and on to Lough Erne. If the river is at present capable of carrying away the volume of water in Cavan, and if in order to carry off the bigger volume that may come down, further constructional works are carried out and the river widened and deepened, who will be responsible for payment for the constructional work? Assuming that the present drainage district is sufficient to carry off the water from a certain area, if further water comes down by the widening and deepening of a river, what body will be responsible for paying for the new constructional works? Will those who live alongside the river and who are satisfied have to pay, if those who live on the higher reaches want to have the water from their part of the country taken off by this river?

I am assuming that the Deputy is referring to the Dromore River.

And half a dozen others.

On the Deputy's hypothesis the people lower down derive no benefit.

Can the Deputy show any mention in the Bill where they can be charged if they derive no benefit?

That is all right. I take it the men above pay, whether there is any work done further down or not.

But if they derive no benefit?

It is a question of interpretation. I presume it is a question of being able to put the charge on someone else. If the people on the upper reaches can make sufficient objection by complaining that the charge is too heavy and that it should be put all over the district, is it a question of who can make the best case or the most noise? I take it there is no possibility under this section of altering the old charges. I am referring to the charges that have to be paid back for the construction of existing works. That payment is to go on.

Until the amount is paid back. As I explained, that is necessary only in a very few cases. I do not know how many.

Would I be in order under this section, inasmuch as it takes in the older schemes, in asking if it is the intention to get something done within the next couple of months on existing schemes in the way of constructional work? Complaint has been made that some of the older works are in a very bad condition, particularly in Cavan, and men are getting no value for what they are paying.

Before this Bill becomes law?

I have no objection to answer the question, but I do not know whether I would be grossly disorderly in doing so. It has obviously nothing to do with the Bill. That is clear from the Deputy's question. Am I in order?

I submit old drainage districts are included.

It might lead to a general discussion afterwards.

My point is that the older drainage districts are included in so far as they are being made new drainage districts, or portion of them. It is quite clear that they cannot be dealt with until the Bill is law. If the Deputy refers to the older drainage districts, that could be dealt with apart from the Bill. They do not come under the Bill.

I submit that the older drainage districts come under either the last Act or under this Bill. We are dealing here with constructional works in old or new drainage districts. I submit this Bill includes both, and I would like an answer from the Parliamentary Secretary on that point.

So far as that drainage district is taken in in the new drainage district, it comes under this Bill. Otherwise it does not. I think that is quite clear. I think the Deputy will fully agree with me in that. In that case we cannot do anything under this Bill before the Bill becomes law. Then, so far as the precise rivers that he has in mind are concerned, the attempt to treat them as portions of the existing old districts would in some cases be a very unwise thing to do, and I think he would be the first to acknowledge that. It is only under this Bill that they can be dealt with at all satisfactorily. One of the rivers he has in mind is certainly one that cannot be dealt with satisfactorily under the existing law—that is the Ragg River.

I put a question with reference to the existing drainage districts. Is it not mentioned here?

The case has been put up to me in reference to an existing drainage district which would require to be extended some distance in order to relieve two farms. One of the men on these farms has lost nearly all his stock on account of the flooding of his lands. I asked him would it be possible to get six rated occupiers to join in promoting a scheme, and he said "No." There are only two, another and himself, who would be benefited by the scheme. I would like to know how a case like that could be dealt with.

What is the position? There is an existing drainage district, and you want to extend it above that point in order to take in two farms above?

Well, remember if you did get this scheme it would have to be by the vote of the whole lot of them first. That is, not merely of the six or the two that you want to benefit, but of the other farmers lower down who are already in an existing drainage district. Is it likely they will consent to that? If you think it likely that they will, then these two farmers can easily get the six petitioners. If they do not consent, I do not see how, under any scheme, you can take in those on the upper farms.

There would be no fear but the men lower down would consent.

Question—"That Section 18 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 19.
(1) The final award shall operate and be expressed to charge, impose, and confer on the council of the county in which the drainage district thereby constituted is situate, or, where such district is situate in two or more counties, on the several councils of those counties jointly, the duty and power of maintaining the drainage works the subject of the final award in good repair and condition and proper and efficient working order, and of doing all matters and things reasonably necessary for or incidental to such maintenance.
(2) All costs and expenses incurred by a county council or county councils in the performance of their duty of maintaining drainage works pursuant to a final award shall be raised by such county council or county councils off the drainage district by means of the drainage rate and where the district is situate in two or more counties, in the proportions in which the councils are stated in the final award to be liable thereto.

I look upon this section as one of the most important of the whole Bill. On this section depends the success or failure of the whole Bill and the life of the schemes put through under it. If the machinery set up under this section will work efficiently there is no reason why this drainage scheme which the Parliamentary Secretary has launched will not be a success for all time, and I am just wondering if the machinery set up here under the county councils will work well. What is it suggested that the county council now should do to maintain the drainage? Does that mean that it will set up whole-time or part-time officers, or does it mean that it is going to set up special officers? Because I think it would be very expensive for a county with very few drainage schemes, perhaps, to set up whole-time officers. I dare say in some counties the whole main outlets of a drainage scheme could be examined perhaps in a fortnight or in a month. A part-time officer does not give very much satisfaction if he is engaged in other duties. To hand over the supervision of these drainage schemes to a part-time officer is generally not found to be satisfactory. These do not always give proper attention to the work. I can understand a county area being too small for a whole-time officer and a part-time officer not being satisfactory. Would it not be better to have a State officer or several State officers sufficient to supervise all the schemes in the Saorstát? I am prepared to admit, no matter what the cost would be to the occupiers, that the most efficient machinery that the State can provide is necessary in order to have these drainage schemes maintained in a satisfactory condition. We had lessons in this matter in the operations of the Land Act. In these cases before the sales to the tenants the drainage had been given a good deal of attention from the principal landlords, but, when the lands had passed into the hands of the tenants, proper provision was not made by the Land Commission itself to see that the security they had taken over was properly safeguarded, and that the drains had got proper attention. The result in nearly all the districts that I knew of, where the drainage was an absolute necessity to maintain the full value of the security, was that this drainage was neglected.

In the 1923 Act I got a clause inserted that proper provision was going to be exercised, and that all drains, canal-ways, and water-ways would be maintained. I think that would work out as one of the most important and valuable provisions, from the security for the State point of view, that you could possibly have in the Bill. The position that we are in is this, that one individual, if he lives on the lower reaches of the river, could do a great deal of harm. He could block the whole scheme right away. The Bill, as it stands, says that the final award shall operate and be expressed to charge, impose and confer on the council of the county in which the drainage district is situated, or where such districts are situate in two or more counties, that they shall bear the cost and expenses of maintaining the drainage works pursuant to a final award, and so on. Does the Minister think now that that would be the best machinery? This section might, perhaps, deserve more attention. It probably already has received a good deal of attention, but still the matter is of such importance that more attention should be given to this section between this and the Report Stage to see if it can be made more effective. We are perfectly satisfied as regards the cost. The cost cannot matter in comparison with the proper maintenance of the drainage schemes.

I quite agree with the Deputy that this section and the sections connected with it are some of the most important in the Bill, but, so far as the principal section is concerned, the Dáil has already passed an Act, the one of last year. For very good and obvious reasons the responsibility of collecting annuities for the maintenance of the drainage schemes and other things is put on the county council.

I quite agree with that.

I follow. The Deputy, therefore, fully agrees that any other method of collecting annuities or drainage rates would be impracticable. Then his suggestion is that there should be a State official for the purpose. Does he mean for inspection, or actually supervising the carrying out of the maintenance works?

The carrying out of the maintenance works. I do not think when the drainage scheme is completed that there would be any necessity for maintenance works, and seeing that they are properly maintained. I am merely putting the suggestion as to a State official to see if there is anything in it.

It is always open to us under the Drainage Maintenance Act, if there is a complaint that a district is not properly maintained, to get an inspection by one of our engineers. I am not yet quite clear, however, as to whether the Deputy means that the official he has in mind should not merely inspect the districts in the sense of seeing they are being maintained, or whether he should supervise the actual work of maintenance. When the drainage scheme is completed there would be no work in connection with it, except the removing of weeds or other obstacles that may be thrown up by the river. To that extent a certain amount of work is necessary every year. Does he mean that the official he has in mind should supervise that particular work, or would he be satisfied if there was an inspection generally to see that work of that kind was properly done?

I would be satisfied with the general inspection.

People can always complain to the central department, and if there is a necessity, we can have an inspection.

The committee that takes charge of this work will be partly from the county council and partly outsiders. They will be responsible for the maintenance of this work. The conditions under the old Drainage Act as regards the way the works are maintained were anything but satisfactory, and that really explains to a great extent the breakdown of the scheme. In many cases I know local engineers were appointed who had no engineering qualifications. The contractors were local men, as were also the workers. Very often the work was not half done, and it was passed by the engineers of the local drainage board. In my opinion the appointment of part-time local men without engineering knowledge or experience will mean that the works will not be attended to properly, and the scheme will not be by any means satisfactory.

My experience of the drainage schemes is different from that of Deputy Baxter. In my county the maintenance was looked after by the county surveyor and one of his assistants most efficiently. I think the Parliamentary Secretary is aware that the work has been very well attended to in that county by these officials. The drainage schemes are under the control of the county council, and committees having local knowledge are appointed to look into the work and see that it is properly carried out.

Sections 19, 20, 21 and 22, put and agreed to.
SECTION 23.
(1) Where the duty and power of maintaining drainage works is charged, imposed, and conferred by a final award on one county council, such duty shall be performed and such power shall be exercised by a committee appointed by such county council and consisting of such number of members of the county council and such number of persons who are not members of the county council as the Minister for Local Government and Public Health shall direct.
(2) Where the duty and power of maintaining drainage works is charged, imposed, and conferred by a final award on two or more county councils jointly, such duty shall be performed and such power shall be exercised by a joint committee of such county councils appointed by them in such proportions and consisting of such number of members of each of such county councils and such number of persons who are not members of any such county council as the Minister for Local Government and Public Health shall direct.
(3) Subject to the provisions of this section, every committee or joint committee appointed under this section shall conduct their business in accordance with regulations to be made in that behalf by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health.
(4) The accounts of every committee or joint committee appointed under this section shall be separately kept and shall be audited by an auditor appointed by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health and the following enactments, that is to say, Sections 11 to 15 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1871, sub-section (2) of Section 63 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, Sections 20 and 21 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1902, and Section 61 of the Local Government Act, 1925 (No. 5 of 1925) as amended or adapted by or under any subsequent enactment shall apply to the audit and auditor of the accounts of such committees and joint committees in the same manner as such enactments as so amended or adapted apply to the audit and auditor of the accounts of the public bodies specified therein.
(5) Nothing in this section shall authorise any committee or joint committee appointed under this section to raise any moneys which are by this Act required to be raised by a county council.

I move:—

In sub-section (1), page 12, to delete the word "shall" in lines 43 and 44, and in each case to substitute the word "may."

This leaves it optional with the county council either to appoint a committee or to carry out the work with their own officials.

I am rather inclined to contest this amendment. I think it should be obligatory on the county council to appoint a committee. In my opinion the supervision of drainage maintenance work cannot be efficiently done by a whole county council.

This certainly does not deprive the county council of the liberty of appointing committees for the purpose of looking after drainage in the districts. If the county council think they are capable of doing the work efficiently we do not want to put upon them the duty of appointing such a committee. This, of course, refers to the case in which a drainage district is entirely within one county council. If the county council act wrongly in the matter it is then a matter for their constituents.

Suppose the county council imposed that duty on the committee, and that the committee failed in its duty, who then is responsible? I think if the Minister reads the section there is a loophole in it. If you say that the duties shall be performed by the committee, the county council then relieves itself of responsibility by putting the duty upon the committee. That is one of the possibilities of the section as it stands. "Where the duty and power of maintaining drainage works is charged, imposed and conferred by a final award on one county council, such duty shall be performed, and such power shall be exercised by a committee appointed by such county council." So that as it stands, the county council has a vague authority to transfer its responsibilities to a committee. I, therefore, think that the amendment is better, inasmuch as it would mean that the county council is merely devolving its authority for the actual work on the committee, which is responsible to the county council for fulfilling the work.

I disagree both with the section and with the amendment. I think the section is wrong, because it does not make it obligatory on the committee to report back to the county council, or be responsible to the county council. As far as I can see, the responsibility is thrown on the committee, and, as Deputy Johnson suggests, the committee might refuse to do this work. I still think it should be obligatory on the county council to appoint a committee, because work in the way of supervising drainage cannot be done by a whole county council, and if the supervision was badly attended to a great deal of harm might be done. I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that the amendment be withdrawn, and that, on the Report Stage, an amendment be substituted providing that the county council shall appoint a committee, and that the committee shall be responsible and report to the county council from time to time.

The county council cannot devolve its responsibility, because other sections in the Bill keep the responsibility, in very important matters at all events, with the county council. This simply deals with the power, as you can see by the marginal note, of the county council to appoint committees, and that, I think, is the meaning of the words "shall perform." As proposed by the amendment, the section would read "may perform and such power may be exercised."

Is not the marginal note more correct?

It is more correct than the section, according to my view.

I was anxious to secure, not in connection with this section, but in regard to Section 19, that steps be taken to see that these committees do their duty.

Amendment put and declared carried.

On behalf of Deputy Duggan, I beg to move the following amendment:—

To delete sub-section (3) and substitute the following sub-section:—

(3) The Minister for Local Government and Public Health may by Order make regulations prescribing the time of election (including the first election) of members of committees and joint committees appointed under this section, the period for which such members shall hold office, the method of filling casual vacancies in their number, the disqualification of members who cease to be or become disqualified to be members of the council by which they were appointed, and the conduct of the business of such committees and joint committees.

The object of the amendment is to enable the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to secure by regulations to be made by him uniformity of practice in the appointment of committees, to provide for their proper constitution, and the tenure of office of their members.

There is one point I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister. As far as I can discover from reading the section, there is no provision made for representation on these committees from the rated occupiers of the improved lands. At present there appears to be no provision for the election of anyone on these committees except members of the county council. I think that some of these rated occupiers should be given a position on these committees. If they are not given that representation the position will be considered unfair, as far as they are concerned, and there will be cause for complaint.

I admit there is something in the argument that the Deputy has put forward. There are two possibilities before the county council, so far as the number of committees is concerned. I take it that in the Bill as it stands it is optional with the county council to appoint a committee for each particular drainage district, or, on the other hand, to appoint one committee to manage the whole district. Supposing the county council adopt the latter alternative for several drainage districts, then you would have to get an outside member, that is to say, a non-county council member, for each of the drainage districts if there were a number of them. Such a thing as that might happen in a county like Cavan, and, therefore, I am afraid it would be found impossible to do what the Deputy suggests. In this particular case, the member of the committee that is to be a rated occupier according to Deputy Baxter's suggestion is not to be elected by the rated occupiers themselves. He is to be appointed by the county council, and he might be quite as objectionable to the bulk of the rated occupiers as an outside person would be.

Under the powers conferred on the drainage boards that we have at present, the rated occupiers have the right to hold a meeting and elect trustees for the purpose of having drainage work carried out. Here, being members of the county council themselves, they might select men who are not concerned with drainage work at all. The question of a man having an interest in the drainage works ought to be a consideration with the county council when they come to make a selection, but it is quite possible that it may not, and therefore the position created would be that you would have men paying rates for the carrying out of these works who would have no voice in the selection of the men who would constitute the committee controlling the execution of the works. There is every reason why these men would complain if they were not given representation, and I think some machinery ought to be provided as to the manner in which they should get that representation. I have not given sufficient consideration to the matter to suggest how that machinery should be provided, but I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should bring in something himself which would meet the point that I have been urging.

There is the case that we have just discussed, where the county council might not appoint a committee.

But in the event of the committee being appointed, you will have your constitution to see that the county council appoint these men on the committee.

The committee not being the creation of the county council, the latter body cannot have full responsibility for its actions in the way it otherwise might have if it appointed every member itself. I do not see how I am to satisfy the Deputy's point, but I will undertake to consider it.

I would like to have this matter made clear. I gather that the committee is to consist of a number of persons, some of whom will be members of the county council and some of whom will not. The numbers, respectively, are to be decided by the Minister for Local Government. The Parliamentary Secretary has just said that as the committee will not be appointed by the county council as a whole, it will not be responsible to the county council. To whom, then, will it be responsible for carrying out this work?

It was proposed that members would be appointed, not by the county councils, but by an outside body altogether, and I was objecting to that.

You were objecting to that. The body to be appointed was to consist of a certain number, some of whom will be appointed by the county council, some of whom will be appointed by the Minister for Local Government——

The section says where the duty and power of maintaining drainage works are charged upon the county councils such duty will be performed by a committee consisting of such members of the county council, and such number of persons not members of the county council as the Minister shall direct.

That is as to number.

Then the Minister is to make regulations and prescribe the time of election, the period for which they shall hold office, and the method for filling casual vacancies. And then there seems to be a lapse—"The disqualification of members:" that is to say, the Minister may make regulations prescribing the disqualification of members who cease to be or become disqualified to be members of the county council. I do not understand that. Does it mean the Minister shall make regulations prescribing how the disqualification shall be notified?

If a member of a county council is appointed a member of the committee, and through corrupt practices, or otherwise, ceases to be a member of the county council, the Minister may make regulations as to how far this disqualification of his membership of the county council will affect his membership of this particular body. He is no longer a member of the county council; he is disqualified and the Minister will see how that disqualification from the county council affects his position on the committee. If you admit that the Minister shall prescribe that there shall be a committee of, say, nine, five from the county council and four non-members or any other number you like——

Say one and eight.

If one of the eight becomes disqualified and is elected a member of the county council, then the Minister prescribes his method, and, as he is no longer a member of the county council, he ceases to be a member of the committee. How far will his disqualification from the county council affect his position on the committee—I think that is what these words mean.

I am going to open myself to the criticism of the Minister for Finance, who so often reminds us that in these matters we must always assume that the Minister is always going to be guided by common sense and that we cannot legislate against folly. But I imagine that here you are giving the Minister rather extravagant powers. He is going to make regulations which may say that one member of the drainage board shall be a member of the county council and that eight shall not. I do not think we should give that power at all. The county council is a public body that has responsibility for collecting the rates and finally for spending the money.

Deputy Baxter's statement with regard to the committee impresses upon me the necessity for having the maintenance in the hands of a committee, because I agree with Deputy Baxter that it is essential that we should have rated occupiers who are within the scheme and qualified as members of the committee.

As the Bill stands at the present time the whole drainage scheme may be managed by the county council. I would suggest that the Minister should still make it obligatory that a committee should be appointed to look after drainage and that that committee should consist of a certain number of members of the county council plus a certain number of outside members, portion of whom shall be rated occupiers. It stands to reason that if rated occupiers within the scheme are not included on the committee the scheme will not receive the attention that it ought to receive, and as the Bill stands at present it is quite possible that they would be altogether excluded. An amendment has already passed with regard to the committee being obligatory or not, but I suggest in view of the things that will come up before the committee that it is only right and fair that the rated occupiers who benefit from the scheme and are within the scheme should be included on the committee. I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary should reconsider this matter and introduce an amendment on the Report Stage making it obligatory that the committee should be appointed and that it should consist of so many outside members, a proportion of whom should be rated occupiers within the scheme. I am prepared to introduce that amendment myself, but I would sooner have it taken up by the Parliamentary Secretary.

There is this difficulty, if you have the committee restored compulsorily, then, in a place like County Cavan, where you may have and are likely to have twenty different drainage districts, are they all to be represented? If so, you will have a very unwieldy committee.

I do not suggest that if you are going to have a committee it must necessarily have representatives from all the different drainage districts, but I do suggest that if you are to have a committee you should have some men who are paying drainage rates on the committee.

On a hasty consideration I think there ought to be a number of committees rather than one. I should say that members of the county council might be the same men in all cases but there should be separate appointments for the separate drainage districts so as to ensure that at least there would be one occupier within each scheme on each committee. That is the idea I have at present. Would the Parliamentary Secretary consider any amendment of that kind?

I certainly would not introduce it, but the Deputy might.

I intend to.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I beg to move amendment 20:

In sub-section (4), line 62, to delete the words "committee or."

The reason for the deletion of these words is that if the committee is appointed solely to work under the county councils, its accounts, in the ordinary way, would come before the Local Government auditor. There is no necessity to have these words in.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 23, as amended, put and agreed to.
Section 24 put and agreed to.
SECTION 25.
(1) Where a drainage scheme provides for the diversion, removal, or other interference with a public road or bridge the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) where the execution of the works involves the closing of the road or bridge to traffic the Commissioners shall construct and shall maintain while such road or bridge is so closed to traffic a temporary road or bridge sufficient to carry traffic of such quantity and character as normally uses such road or bridge;
(b) the Commissioners shall at or before the completion of the works specified in the drainage scheme either restore the road or bridge to its former condition or construct a new permanent road or bridge sufficient to carry the like amount (in quantity and character) of traffic as the original road or bridge was able to carry and not substantially less convenient in gradient and curve than such original road or bridge;
(c) where the Commissioners construct a permanent new bridge and such bridge in the opinion of the Commissioners confers substantially greater advantages on the public than the original bridge, by affording an improved means of communication or otherwise, the Commissioners shall certify the cost of such new bridge and the proportion of such cost which ought reasonably to be borne by the local authorities whose functional areas or any part thereof are benefited by such new bridge, and thereupon the said proportion of the said cost shall be paid to the Commissioners by such local authorities, in such proportions, at such times, and by means of such rate as the Minister for Finance after consultation with the Minister for Local Government and Public Health shall direct;
(d) no portion payable under this section by a local authority of the cost of erecting a new bridge shall be included in the costs and expenses of carrying out the drainage scheme, but all other costs and expenses incurred by the Commissioners in complying with this section shall be part of the costs and expenses of carrying out the drainage scheme.

I beg to move amendment 21:—

To delete paragraph (c) and substitute a new paragraph as follows:—

"(c) where the Commissioners construct a permanent new bridge and such bridge confers substantially greater advantages on the public of any county or urban district than the original bridge, by affording an improved means of communication or otherwise, the Commissioners shall certify the cost of such new bridge and the Minister for Local Government and Public Health shall certify what part of such cost in his opinion ought reasonably to be borne by the council of such county or urban district, and thereupon a sum equal to the part so certified of such cost shall be raised by such council as part of the expenses of the maintenance of county or urban roads (as the case may be) and shall be paid by such council to the Commissioners."

The object of the amendment is to allay any fears on the part of the local authority that an undue proportion of the cost of the erection and maintenance of bridges is to be borne by the rates.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move amendment 22:—

In paragraph (d) lines 56 and 57, to delete the words "a local authority" and substitute the words "the council of a county or urban district."

This amendment is consequential on amendment 21.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move amendment 23:—

To add at the end of the section a new paragraph as follows:—

"(e) if any doubt, dispute, or question shall arise as to whether the Commissioners, in the construction, maintenance, or restoration of any temporary or permanent road or bridge pursuant to this section, have complied with the provisions of this section or as to whether a permanent new bridge constructed by the Commissioners confers substantially greater advantages on the public of any county or urban district than the original bridge, such doubt, dispute, or question shall be decided by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health whose decision shall be final and conclusive."

This is, similarly, a consequential amendment, embodying the same idea as the last.

It gives the decision finally to the Minister for Local Government and not to the joint committee.

Amendment agreed to.
Question—"That Section 25, as amended, stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.
Section 26 put and agreed to.
SECTION 27.
(3) Where the banks of any watercourse comprised in or leading to or from any drainage works constructed and completed or in course of construction under this Act or any embankment forming part of any such works shall be broken down or otherwise injured by cattle or other animals grazing or being upon any lands abutting on such watercourse or embankment, the occupier of such lands at the time of such injury shall be deemed to have committed an offence under this section and shall be punishable accordingly.

I beg to move:—

To add at the end of sub-section (3), page 15, the words "Provided always that the word ‘construction' may be construed to mean the construction of adequate protection of the embankments from cattle or other animals consistent with affording proper facilities for drinking places for such cattle or other animals."

An offence of the type set out in sub-section (3) may render a man liable to a fine of £50, or he may be sent to jail for six months. My idea is that in the work of construction steps should be taken to protect the embankments from the possibility of damage. Anyone who has experience of cattle grazing on the banks of a river in summer time knows that, if the weather is hot, there is no question but the banks will suffer very considerable damage. That might happen and there is need for protection. The only way the object of the section can be carried out is by the erection of a fence. I emphasise that at the outset. You cannot keep cattle or horses off the banks of a river if the banks are not fenced off with wire or by some other means. Otherwise the animals will break down the embankments. We have to accept it that there must be a fence. I want to put the responsibility for the erection of it on the people who do the work of construction, and who should bear the cost of the work of construction. The only way to ensure that an offence will not be committed is to insert the amendment that I propose. It will save more in the end. Perhaps a man might have a small farm, or might have a considerable portion of his land alongside a river. It may mean a lump sum of £2, £3, or £4 to that man for the erection of a fence. He must do that, or else render himself liable to prosecution. I cannot see any other way out than that the Commissioners should include in the work of construction the safeguarding of the embankments from trespass that would do harm to the whole works. I cannot see any other way to remedy the matter.

I desire to support Deputy Baxter's amendment, which, I think, is a very necessary one. It would be a most unjust thing to visit owners of cattle with such drastic penalties as are provided in the Bill, and there are no means suggested of preventing trespass. Any farmer knows it is impossible to prevent trespass on the banks of a stream, especially in summer time, except a proper fence is put up that will keep out cattle. I know that in one particular drainage work carried out under the Board of Works fences were erected, and they do prevent trespass from cattle grazing on adjoining land.

While the substance of the amendment is quite good, I would suggest that after the words "adequate protection" the words "where necessary" should be inserted. The amendment might mean that we are going to have a series of embankments and fences on every subway. It might mean a tremendous amount of unnecessary fencing, perhaps, if it is made obligatory. It would be a good thing, I suggest, if the matter of erecting fences where necessary was left to the discretion of the engineer, or whoever would be responsible. I would not approve of the idea of having fences erected at every place. Fences may be necessary in some places, and they may not be necessary in other instances.

Deputy Gorey has really given expression to my views on this matter. There are cases where fencing may be desirable; but then there are other cases where fences would be entirely unnecessary. If you have easy access to the river for drinking purposes fences may be necessary; otherwise no fences would be necessary, possibly. If you make this thing obligatory, however, you not only increase the cost of the scheme, but you also give a handle to litigation. You will do that still more if you make the provision applicable to proper drinking places. As a rule, in schemes of this kind, the practice has been to make proper facilities for cattle getting at the water. Engineers have these instructions, and sometimes the instructions are most elaborate. In some cases much simpler contrivances would do. As Deputy Gorey says, it is a matter that must be left to the discretion of the engineer to a large extent. The difficulty is that if you put this into an Act of the Oireachtas you will undoubtedly give rise to an enormous amount of unnecessary litigation, to the detriment of the scheme, and, perhaps, to its general effectiveness in the long run.

Perhaps the Minister is prepared to say that he will put up something else. In the Bill, the Minister has power to prosecute and fine a man up to £50, or send him to prison for six months for committing a certain offence. It is our responsibility to see that precautions should be taken by the Minister, that he will not, so to speak, leave the gate open and so let a man walk into danger. That is what it amounts to. It is our responsibility to see that the farmers will have safeguards. I know men—small farmers— who live along the banks of rivers and whose land extends over a quarter of a mile, perhaps. Practically their entire holding lies along by the river bank. That is the place where their cattle graze all during the summer months and there is no fencing done. It would be no trouble for an engineer to say: "These cattle are breaking in on the banks of this stream." The man might be taken to court and possibly fined. His only alternative is to put up a fence. He is poor and he cannot possibly do that. What is he to do in such a dilemma? I do not want to make it absolutely compulsory in every case that protection would be made. I am prepared to leave that to the Minister to provide for in whatever words he considers suitable. If works are erected, I think there is a responsibility on the Minister to see that certain protection will be afforded to the people whom I have instanced.

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would see his way to do away with the penalty of a fine or imprisonment. If he did so, it might go a long way in obviating the difficulty. During the summer months cattle break down the banks of rivers and streams, not alone for the purpose of getting water but also to get away from flies. As Deputy Gorey pointed out, it would be creating a very dangerous precedent to begin fencing subways.

May I point out to the Deputy who has just spoken that in a good many cases there is gross neglect by people who live along rivers allowing damage indirectly to be done to works? Any damage that will be done will have to be paid for by their neighbours and not by the State. I would also suggest that we are not prescribing minimum but maximum penalties, and the judge who tries the case will naturally take into account how far there has been culpable neglect, and how far reasonable precautions have been taken to prevent damage being done. If the amendment suggested by Deputy Baxter is put in, it will make it compulsory to do a great deal of unnecessary work—seven-eighths, perhaps, might be unnecessary —the expense of which must be borne by the scheme. Moreover, if I put in a modified form of words, in attempting that modification there would probably be left all sorts of loopholes for litigation of different kinds.

In my opinion the only difficulty would be in regard to sub-sections 3 and 4. We do not object to the other section, which refers to an act of an individual. The damage referred to in sub-sections 3 and 4 is generally done in the months of June and July and in the first two weeks of August, and, after that, injury done by cattle, except breaking and trespassing in the ordinary way, ceases. The damage done in those summer months would do no actual harm until September or October. Discretion will have to be exercised by whoever is the responsible authority in the district, probably the Committee's inspector, as to the interpretation of the wording of the sub-sections. If the damage is done, say, in June, and if it is repaired by September, I say that there has been no offence. It depends a good deal on the method of administration and also on the manner in which the persons in authority interpret the sub-sections. I take it that a magistrate or Peace Commissioner, as the Bill stands, would feel it his duty to inflict a fine if the damage was done, say, in June and was not repaired by the following week.

Would the Minister consider the withdrawal of this sub-section? A farmer will be put to the responsibility of trying to protect himself and in doing so will be put to considerable expense. I have definite districts in mind where there is no possibility of farmers keeping cattle off the banks of rivers otherwise than by erecting a paling. The farmer will find himself in court regularly for such offences. There is no alternative in this. There must be some protection put up and the question is, will it be put up by the farmer or by the people constructing the work? It is impossible for small farmers to put up protective palings.

I suggest that the sub-section should be withdrawn and that it should be changed to read that where the damage done was repaired by the occupier of the land at his own expense within a specified time, no offence would be deemed to have been committed. As the sub-section stands, it seems to me that the occupier of lands who immediately repairs any damage done by his cattle would still be liable to punishment. That suggestion might meet the difficulty to some slight extent.

I think that sub-sections (1) and (2) to a certain extent effect what the Minister wants, and that sub-section (3) would seem rather unnecessary, and, in fact, in its present form both undesirable and impossible. I suggest the re-drafting of that sub-section altogether.

So far as the actual trespass of cattle goes, if the Deputies read any of the reports from the engineers who were sent down to inspect the various schemes that are in existence, and which have got into a state of bad repair, they would know that one of the most frequent causes of flooding is the trampling down of banks by cattle.

I agree.

We will have to have some method of dealing with that. I may be able to consider the point raised by Deputy Heffernan. It may mean the re-drafting of the sub-section to some extent, but at the moment I cannot see how far I could fully meet the wishes expressed by Deputies. It does seem rather hard, but, probably owing to the fact that the law has not been enforced, there has not been a large number of prosecutions. I am quite aware that this is a new Bill, but this is not a new idea. It is the existing law, as far as that is concerned; the Act of 1863 has this provision about cattle doing damage. We are not introducing anything revolutionary in this. How, on the one hand, you will not come down too hard on the people whose cattle graze along the river, and, on the other hand, how you will preserve the drainage as a whole from what is one of the most serious causes of its falling back, is another matter. I am quite ready to consider it and to see how far I can meet the wishes of Deputies, but I cannot make any promise.

I agree to that.

What strikes one is that in sub-sections (3) and (4) you are definite in providing penalties; in fact, the penalty seems to be very much more a matter of concern than the repairing of the damage done. From reading these sub-sections one is inclined to think that the Government is more keen on having penalties inflicted where cattle do damage than having the damage effectively repaired.

I will consider Deputy Heffernan's point.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary withdrawing the sub-section to reconsider it?

Oh, no. I will try to see whether I can re-draft it or not. That is all I can promise.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,
Question—"That Section 27 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 28.
(1) Every committee and joint committee maintaining drainage works under this Act may make bye-laws for all or any of the purposes following, that is to say:—
(a) regulating the opening, closing, and working of sluices, hatches, flood-gates, and other machinery comprised in the works,
(b) regulating generally the management and operation of the works,
(c) prohibiting persons from obstructing, polluting, or putting solid matter into any watercourse flowing to, through, or from the works so as to prevent or hinder the efficient operation of the works or to cause flooding of any lands drained by the works,
(d) prohibiting any injury or damage to the works by any person or any interference therewith by unauthorised persons,
(e) compelling persons liable to maintain any watercourse or drain to keep the same cleaned and scoured,
(f) prescribing the penalties which may be inflicted on persons found by a court of summary jurisdiction to be guilty of contravening the bye-laws but so that no such penalty shall exceed a fine of twenty-five pounds altogether with, in the case of a continuing offence, a further fine of five pounds for every day during which the offence continues or, in any case and at the discretion of the court, imprisonment for a term of three months.
(2) Any person found guilty by a court of summary jurisdiction of contravening any bye-law made under this section may be sentenced by such court to suffer any penalty not exceeding the penalty prescribed by such bye-laws in respect of such contravention or, where no penalty is so prescribed, not exceeding a fine of twenty-five pounds together with, in the case of a continuing offence, a further fine of five pounds for every day during which the offence continues or, in any case and at the discretion of the court, imprisonment for any term not exceeding three months.

I move:—

Immediately before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

"(2) No bye-law made under this section shall be of any force or effect unless and until confirmed by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, and every such bye-law when so confirmed shall come into operation on the date prescribed in that behalf by the said Minister when confirming the same or, if no such date is so prescribed, immediately upon such confirmation."

This gives power to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to sanction or otherwise any bye-laws that are made. It is the usual procedure.

You are giving a committee that may not exist power to draft bye-laws, but you are giving no power to the county council.

That is so. That will be changed.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 28, as amended, put and agreed to.
Section 29 and the Title put and agreed to.
Top
Share