I move the adjournment of the Dáil until 3 o'clock on Tuesday next.
ADJOURNMENT DEBATE—THE SUCK DRAINAGE BOARD.
I gave notice to-day that, on the motion for the adjournment, I would raise a question relating to the action of the Suck Drainage Board in issuing civil bills and in having decrees executed for arrears of maintenance tax. I desire to state briefly the position as it is at present in reference to the Suck drainage area. For a number of years past no maintenance work was done by the Board, and as a result no maintenance tax was paid. The people were willing to pay, but they refused to do so because no work was being done. Year after year the condition of affairs was getting worse and worse as a result of the flooding of the lands, and great damage was done to the crops. When the Drainage Act of 1924 was put into operation, the Suck Drainage Board, after years of apathy and negligence, suddenly awakened to a realisation of their responsibilities and got to work. Their efforts were not directed towards relieving the distress that was prevailing in the area as a result of their negligence in the years past, but they got their solicitor to issue civil bills for the arrears of maintenance tax over the whole period during which no work was done.
The decrees are now being executed by the Board, and the unfortunate people whose lands have been flooded and whose crops have been destroyed are now being decreed. Their lands are being cleared of stock and cattle to pay arrears of maintenance tax over a period when no work was done. The Board of Works is at present engaged in carrying out restoration work in the Suck drainage area. Representations and appeals have been made to the Suck Drainage Board in connection with the matter, but all to no purpose. The Board of Works, I understand, has asked for a conference to discuss the situation, but they have been ignored by the Suck Drainage Board, who are determined to carry on their work of devastation on the farmers whose lands have been ruined by their negligence during years past. I understand that the total liabilities of the Suck Drainage Board at present amounts to roughly about £1,000. I understand that nearly half that amount is due to the solicitor for issuing civil bills for the remainder. The total amount of arrears to be collected is approximately £5,000. The people are asked to pay all that, but they are unable to do so. They are willing to pay any liabilities that the Board may have to meet at the present time but all appeals for consideration and all appeals for discussion have been turned down by the Suck Drainage Board. I want to ask the Minister for Finance to put a definite stop to the action of the Suck Drainage Board. As I have said, the Board of Works is carrying out restoration work, and no further work can be done by the Suck Drainage Board, no matter how much money they collect— even if they collected the £5,000 due in respect of the years when no work was done. There is no purpose to be served by gathering in that money by the decrees that are being executed at the present time except to lodge it to the credit of a Board that will automatically go out of existence as soon as the drainage work is completed by the Board of Works.
Owing to the unwarrantable hardship and injustice that are being inflicted upon the people, I want to submit to the Minister for Finance that it is absolutely necessary for him to promote legislation, and to promote it immediately—legislation that will relieve of all responsibility this Board that has utterly failed to discharge its duties during the past years; that has refused to listen to any appeals for consideration; that has ignored the representations made by the Board of Works for a conference; that is determined to carry on its work of devastation, if I may call it so, and to go on full steam ahead with decrees that will utterly ruin the people whose interests the Board have neglected during the last seven or eight years.
I submit that it is but a very small Bill that is necessary. I have the greatest sympathy for the official draughtsman in the onerous work that is being done by him, but I suggest that a short Bill amending the Drainage Act of 1924 is all that is necessary to apply to the Suck Drainage Board. It is absolutely necessary, and it is a matter of urgency, and I suggest to the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Justice to take some steps to prevent any further execution of decrees being carried out by that Drainage Board.
I quite agree with what Deputy Lavin has said on this subject. As regards the Suck catchment area in Galway, representations have been made to me by ratepayers of that area. The same complaint is general in portions of Galway as in Roscommon. It is not because these people refuse to pay drainage rates, but when they pay they want to see work done. It may be argued by the Drainage Board: "How can we do the work unless the rates are paid?" Well, they did no work whatsoever in the area of the Suck Drainage Board for the past five years, and up to the present they are even assessing rates on these people. In addition to that, as Deputy Lavin has stated, owing to the carelessness of the Suck Drainage Board, the Board of Works had to take a scheme in hand itself to the tune of about £16,000. I believe that if the Suck Drainage Board did their work as they should have done it during the past five years, the ratepayers in the catchment area would not have to pay for this scheme, which amounts to in or about 1s. 3d. per acre for a period of 20 years. The Drainage Board, I believe, will remain in existence until the Suck Drainage is completed, which probably may be at the end of next season.
As an instance of a drainage board that has done its work well, I might mention the Lough Corrib Drainage Board, in which some work has been done and the rates paid. The same thing would apply to the Suck Drainage Board if throughout the Board did their work properly. I think it is necessary that the Suck Drainage Board should be put out of existence, or, if not, the landowners in that area cannot pay two rates, one on the £16,000 scheme, and another rate to this Board, which is doing nothing.
I would wish to endorse the appeal that has been made to the Minister for Finance or to the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Works by Deputies Lavin and Broderick. This flooding of the Suck also caused considerable damage to the County Galway, and, as Deputy Broderick stated, the ratepayers of the Suck catchment area feel that they have a decided grievance because more effective work has not been done in carrying out a proper drainage system. Many of those people against whom decrees have been got at the moment, have lost stock owing to the flooding of their lands by the River Suck. That, along with everything else, has left many of the people there in an impoverished state at the present moment. I think it would be well if the Minister could see his way to hold up those decrees until such time as the Suck is properly drained. Of course, we expect that under the Shannon scheme a large improvement will take place in the drainage of the Suck. That is likely to happen in the next couple of years. Those people have a decided grievance considering that very little relief has been afforded to them by the drainage board up to the present, and also that they have lost a considerable amount of stock in that area owing to the flooding of their land. Under these circumstances it would be a very decided hardship if the people are decreed for a rate from which they receive little or no benefit.
I wish to associate myself with what has been said by Deputies Lavin, Broderick and O Máille. I am sure that the Dáil will agree, in view of the hardship that has been inflicted on the people in the Suck area, that Deputy Lavin has been justified in bringing the matter before them. In a short period of time, at any rate, this Suck Drainage Board will go out of existence. This is its dying kick now against the people. They are putting these heavy costs on the people when they are at the end of their existence. I submit that the Dáil will be justified in introducing a short Bill to put an end to this Board and transfer its operations to the County Council. Eventually that will take place, and I think it would not be very difficult to have that matter attended to. I think it is a rather sad state of affairs that the forces of the State should be placed at the disposal of the Board to inflict hardships such as have been described at the present time. I would appeal to the Minister for Justice to see that the forces of the State are not placed at the disposal of the Board to inflict further hardships on these people. This is a matter of urgency for the people concerned, and I appeal to the Government to deal with it as quickly as possible.
The facts in regard to this question have been fairly accurately stated by the Deputies who have spoken. I rather anticipated the point they would make was that the Board of Works or the Minister for Finance would intervene to put an end to the proceedings taken by the Drainage Board. The reply to that, of course, would be that neither the Board of Works nor any Department of Government has any control whatever over the Drainage Boards. They are statutory bodies with statutory functions. In this instance they are proceeding to collect arrears of rent due, which amount to about £5,000, but I believe that the actual amount of money they have expended on drainage work is only about £1,000. A deputation came to me some time ago, and they having stated the facts, I felt that it would be a reasonable thing to suggest to the Drainage Board that they should meet the representatives of the ratepayers and endeavour to come to an effective compromise by which the ratepayers would pay to the Board the amount actually expended, and that the Board should not proceed with respect to the balance, that is £4,000.
The Board of Works got into communication with the Drainage Board, and suggested that a conference should be held, and further suggested that, if they agreed, a representative of the Board would attend it. The Drainage Board, in reply, point blank refused to agree to any such conference. That ended my functions in the matter, because there is no legal power whatever to interfere with them. They have a perfect right to proceed and collect the arrears due, but I quite agree with Deputies that I think it is unreasonable for the Suck Drainage Board to proceed to collect arrears amounting to £5,000 in view of the fact that their actual expenditure was only about £1,000. The real difficulty is that there is no legal power to interfere with them in the collection of the arrears. If the proceedings are to be stayed, that can only be done by legislation in this House. In so far as Deputies have made that suggestion, I can only reply that, in view of the obvious unfairness of the action of the Drainage Board in this matter, I think it is worthy of the consideration of the Government, and I am sure it will have that consideration. I might also mention that a new Drainage Board will be elected in January, and I hope the ratepayers will take a greater interest in that election than, possibly, they may have taken in the past.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that ratepayers owing arrears of rates are not allowed to vote, and that consequently practically the whole body of the ratepayers will be deprived of an opportunity of taking part in the election?
I am afraid I could not answer that question right off.
The Dáil adjourned at 6.30 p.m. until Tuesday, 7th December, 1926.