Vol. 11 No. 23
I beg to move:—
In page 2, section 2, line 27, after the word "drainage" to insert the words "or being persons upon trust for whom or for whose benefit any such lands are held by the rated occupiers thereof."
This is to meet a point raised by Deputy Conlan and others on the Committee Stage.
Before this amendment is put, I would like to ask for some information from the Parliamentary Secretary. I believe that the Land Commission are either actually in possession of most of the bogs of the country or that they will be shortly in possession. What I wish to ask is: Will the Land Commission stand as rated occupiers?—because, if so, this amendment will meet the object I had in view in putting down amendment No. 2, inasmuch as it would provide the machinery by which schemes for the drainage of bogs is to be put up. It is hardly necessary for me to stress the importance of providing facilities for the provision of turf. Deputies may not expect a dissertation on what we might call commercial turf from a Kildare man, but I would like to explain to the uninitiated that there are two kinds of turf, one the commercial turf which warms our hearths, and the other, the sporting turf which has a tendency to burn holes in our pockets.
The amendment just proposed, which stands in Deputy Duggan's name, and the amendment standing in the name of Deputy Conlan, really aim at achieving the same object. Generally, if the people who use bogs are not the rated occupiers, the bogs are in the hands of trustees for the rated occupiers. It would not be sufficient simply to state that if the trustees who are the rated occupiers move in the matter, the scheme can be considered, because in many cases the trustees would be only one or two persons. That would be in itself an obstacle. Therefore, we are moving to insert the amendment in the form that is on the paper. The trustees, as a rule, are the rated occupiers. In the case of the Land Commission, if they hold land they will be the rated occupiers. Deputy Conlan's amendment, which is the other alternative to this, suffers from the fact that having got the amendment inserted there is no further procedure as to how it would be carried out. That is the advantage if our amendment is accepted.
I was warned off the domain of the Minister for Finance on the last occasion.
They proposed something about money. Here it would have come in under the general procedure of the Act, but in any case our amendment will, I think, achieve what Deputy Conlan has in view. That is the reason we put it forward.
That will satisfy me.
I beg to move:—
In page 3 to add at the end of Section 3 a new sub-section as follows:—
"Any county council or combination of county councils, in lieu of referring such petition to a county surveyor, may with the sanction of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health refer the petition to some other qualified engineer nominated by such council or councils, and in such case all references to this section to a county surveyor shall be construed and have effect as references to such qualified engineer and the remuneration of such qualified engineer shall be paid out of the county fund of the council or in such proportions as the Minister for Local Government and Public Health may direct out of the several county funds of the council by whom he is appointed."
This amendment is put forward to meet a point raised by another Deputy on the Committee Stage, and I think it meets that point.
In reference to the term "qualified engineer" in this amendment, would the Minister give us a definition of what he exactly means? I think I put in something of the same kind myself in a former amendment, but I may have used the words "fully qualified." We have down the country numbers of men who merely go around, as they say, making maps. I want to know if such men, men with qualifications like that, will be deemed to be qualified engineers under this amendment or whether that means men who have really gone through engineering examinations and who have university qualifications.
What an engineer is exactly, is not easy to determine, but he certainly need not have gone to a university or got a university degree. If he is a member of any of these engineering societies, I think in that sense he would be a qualified engineer, but in any case, Deputy Baxter's own words were "fully qualified." I think that these words would be still more difficult to define. The engineer could hardly have been more qualified than the person whose place he is taking, that is the county surveyor, because in most cases the county surveyor can do the work. I doubt if it is necessary for me to have an examination as to qualifications, of the kind Deputy Baxter suggests. The amendment is really put in to cover the point originally raised by Deputy Baxter, and in reality to provide that in case the county council's engineer, the county surveyor, owing to pressure of other work, could not undertake to do this particular work, the county council could appoint a man qualified to do this work.
I would be quite satisfied with the qualifications of the county surveyor, or perhaps with the qualifications such as some of the assistant surveyors possess. I see that certain complications may arise from the form of this amendment. For instance, you will have men who will go to a place to make a map, who will appear in court after making the map. They prove they made the map and that they were there. They are merely what you would call handy men. Whether we are to have men such as they are, or men who are qualified to do engineering work, from the point of view of an engineer, is what I want to get at. I also want to know whether sanction would be withheld from the county council who would appoint men, who would make reports on the work, reports which certainly could not be accepted as full reports from the engineering point of view.
I think the difference between a qualified engineer and a fully qualified one is a Pickwickian one. May I suggest that possibly the addition of the words "who has practical experience of drainage work" might possibly meet Deputy Baxter's point.
Then would the Parliamentary Secretary consider Standing Order 40 with regard to Private Bills, as to what a qualified person is? The definition has been laid down there. I do not think it will entirely get over the point but it makes the definition plainer.
I take it that the county council are bound to appoint such an individual to carry on the work before any steps are taken, and that they will acquaint the Department concerned of the appointment. The Department will then be in a position to see that the man is suitable for the work.
Deputy Cooper asked about appointing a person who had experience of drainage work. The appointment is not for the carrying out of the work. It is only for the preliminary stage, to see if the scheme is, so to speak, a reputable one that could be submitted to the Board to carry out. I do not think it would be wise to insist too much on qualifications in this case. If it was a case of carrying out the work it would be more important. Here it is a case merely of examining the petition and reporting to the county council if it is a proper one for consideration by the Board of Works, who will then appoint one of their own engineers, who is fully qualified to carry out the work.
It is then analagous to the procedure of Private Bills.
The engineer in question does not draw up plans. He simply decides if it is a scheme for which plans will be drawn up by a qualified engineer—namely by an engineer belonging to the Board of Works. The plans are not drawn up by him. This man will get the petition and will report as to whether it is or is not a scheme that deserves consideration. Beyond that he has nothing to do.
Might we take it that any man who has made a map and who has proved it before a court will be qualified to do this?
What I am anxious for is not to have at the preliminary stage of the Bill too many difficulties in the way by requiring too many qualifications.
I do not want that either but I want a definition. I say that in areas where others besides the county surveyor will have to do this work, there are thousands of men who have little or no qualifications seeking these appointments. Perhaps many of them are incapable of doing this class of work.
I am not a qualified engineer, but I imagine that in any engineering problem of this kind there will have to be certain plans. If a man submitted a broad outline of the scheme, the engineer must form some plan of his own and take a certain section of it to test the scheme put to him. He could no more avoid doing that than a man confronted with a mathematical problem could deal with it without a formula. I think some definition is necessary, and that we should not have a jobber, such as a kindly man who comes in in place of a "vet" to cure your cow when it is ill. I do not think that will make for the smooth or efficient working of the Act. A good deal of money is liable to be expended on this scheme, and it is desirable that the plans should be well formulated in the first instance, and that the surveyor should be a suitable person. If he lacks experience of this work, and feels that he is incompetent to deal with it, there should be someone else who is as well qualified as the county surveyor to do the work. I think Deputy Baxter's request is a reasonable one.
I do not want to press it further. I feel that having appointed an engineer to make a preliminary plan the work of the county council is not finished. They may spend money on it at a later state. While we assume that the man is only to make a pre-on it at a later stage. While we assume that the interest of the county council in the work is then finished. Apart from the Board of Works engineers it may be necessary that the county council should be represented on the spot by a qualified man. If you get yourself into the position of sanctioning appointments and having county councils not knowing whom they may or may not appoint, I am afraid there might be difficulties in the administration of the Act that would make its working unsatisfactory. I leave the matter to the Minister to reconsider.
The Parliamentary Secretary has, I presume, a natural delicacy in this. Being himself a University Professor he is unwilling to stipulate that it should be a requirement that the engineer should have University qualifications. Whatever delicacy may affect him is removed in my case from the fact that I am a University representative. As men eminently qualified for this type of work are amongst my constituents, I submit it is my clear duty in their interests to remind the House that it votes annually large sums of money to two Universities for the education and training of men for work of that particular type. This House, in view of the Estimates that are coming on for the Education Vote might do well to stipulate that it should get a return for this money through this channel. Therefore I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that the necessary stipulation here should be, in order to secure that the substitute for the county surveyor should be at least as well qualified as the county surveyor, that no one should be appointed who has not a University qualification in engineering, that department of engineering especially for which professional skill and what I might call specialised knowledge is necessary.
I move:—
In page 4, line 5, to add at the end of Section 5, after the word "councils" the words "and shall at the same time communicate to such council or councils the reasons on which such opinion is based."
This is to meet an amendment moved on the Committee Stage by Deputy Conlan.
I move:—
In page 4, Section 6, line 50, to add at the end of sub-section (2) the words "and
"(h) the amount which the Minister for Finance proposes to contribute out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas towards the cost and expenses of carrying out the scheme."
This amendment is to meet a point raised by Deputy Baxter on the Committee Stage.
I move:—
In page 5, Section 7 (2), line 48, to delete the word "prepaid" and substitute the word "registered."
A similar amendment was accepted by the Minister of Industry and Commerce on the discussion of the Shannon Bill. I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary might accept this one.
I am sorry I am still unconvinced as to the necessity and wisdom of this amendment, even though it has passed the gauntlet of the long debate on the Shannon scheme. I do not think it is necessary, and from anything I have heard since the last debate I doubt that it is the best way if you want to get a letter delivered to register it. In a good many cases in the Courts I understand there is a practice, that if they are anxious a certain notice of an official kind shall reach a man, and that if he is not to be warned to keep out of the way of a notice of this kind, it is best not to register the letter. It is not an infrequent habit in the country for a man, in the case of a registered letter, to get out of the way and give instructions that nobody is to sign for him. There would be a presumption created that the notice had not been received unless receipt of the letter was signed. We want to avoid that, and to prevent a man coming up once a thing has been carried through and saying "I never received notice of this, and the proof is that you have no receipt from me." That would be an easy way for a man to get all the benefits of the scheme, and then to allege that he was in no way committed to the scheme. The Deputy will see that the section is in every way preferable to the amendment.
No. If the Parliamentary Secretary wants to be sure of the delivery of a letter the best way is not to pre-pay the postage on a letter. When the Post Office has fourpence to collect it always delivers the letter. The word "pre-paid" should be deleted, and the first part then is admirable.
I move:—
In page 6, Section 8 (1), line 2, to add after the word "scheme" the words—"but they may if they so think fit prepare a new or a modified drainage scheme to effect the objects or some of the objects of the proposals contained in the petition and in such case the provisions of this Act (including this section) shall apply to such new or modified scheme as fully as they apply to an original drainage scheme."
That is to meet a point raised by Deputy Heffernan.
I move:—
In page 12, Section 23 (1), lines 43 and 44, to delete the word "may" and substitute in each case the word "shall" and at the end of the sub-section to add the following words "and in the appointment of members of the committee the county council shall have in view the advisability of appointing, whenever possible, rated occupiers who are within the schemes which are to be maintained by the said county council."
The object is to make it compulsory on the county council to appoint a committee to deal with the drainage schemes within the county. In the Bill, as originally drafted, the wording was the same—it was "shall" and not "may." I think it is a mistake on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary to introduce an amendment changing it from "shall" to "may." I maintain that work of this kind cannot be effectively done by a whole county council. While it is probable in most cases that the county council will pass the work on to a committee, still I think there is not the least bit of harm done in making it compulsory on them to do so. I think there is a good purpose served by making it compulsory. That is with regard to the first portion of the amendment. With regard to the second portion, I think it is practically met by the following amendment in the name of Deputy Duggan. It is to the effect that one member of the committee at least must be a rated occupier. I would ask the Minister to consider the advisability of the council delegating the work to a committee. I cannot see what objection there can be to that. More attention would be given to the work by a smaller body than the whole county council.
As the Deputy has pointed out, there are two portions to the amendment. The second portion is possibly more amply met than the Deputy contemplated in the next amendment in the name of Deputy Duggan. Because of the arguments on a previous occasion we thought an opportunity should be given to a locality to have some voice in the matter, but it is not so necessary where the county council as a whole deals with the scheme to appoint a committee. The committee is a comparatively small body. It may not appoint a person from the drainage locality, or having any connection with the locality, and therefore we suggest that in that case a person from the drainage district must be appointed. But if the county council as a whole deals with the scheme itself, then the people of the locality will be represented. I do not desire to impose on the county council, if they do not think fit to do so, the necessity of appointing a committee. If they find that is the best way to work I have sufficient trust in their wisdom that they will appoint a committee, but I do not think that they should be compelled to do so if they think that the volume of work in connection with drainage in their county does not require it.
I am not particularly strong on this amendment. There is no great objection to the Bill as it stands. I am still more or less prejudiced in favour of my idea, but I think it is of no great importance. In view of the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary, I am willing to withdraw the amendment.
I move:—
In page 12, Section 23, before sub-section (4), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"At least one of the persons, not members of the county council or any of the county councils concerned, who are elected to be members of any committee or joint committee appointed under this section in relation to any drainage works shall be a ratepayer liable to pay drainage rate in respect of such drainage works."
I move:—
In page 13, Section 23 (4), to delete the words "committees and"
I move:—
In page 15, Section 27, to delete sub-section (3).
This is to meet a point raised by Deputy Baxter and other members on the Farmers' Benches on the Committee Stage.
I move:—
In page 15, Section 28 (1), line 40, to delete the words "committee and" and substitute the words "county council maintaining drainage works under this Act either directly or through a committee appointed by it, and also every."
I move:—"That the Bill be received for final consideration."
