Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 22 Mar 1927

Vol. 19 No. 1

BILLS FROM THE SEANAD. - BARROW DRAINAGE BILL, 1927—SECOND STAGE.

The Order of the Day for the Second Stage having been read,

Mr. DUGGAN (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance)

In moving the Second Stage of this Bill, I think I may congratulate the Dáil and the Government on having got so far towards the solution of a problem which has troubled this country for many years past. But if the scheme is brought into successful operation, the credit will be due, not only to the Dáil and the Government, but also to the counties concerned for contributing substantial financial assistance, and not least, perhaps, to the skilful engineers who have succeeded in producing a practical scheme at a practicable cost.

It would not be reasonable for me to detain the House with the history of all the projects for improving the Barrow which succeeded one another during the nineteenth century; the outstanding fact is that until we started work last August no man had ever put a spade or a pick into the ground, so far as I can learn, for the purpose of arterial drainage on that river. Extensive works were carried out in the eighteenth century for the purpose of navigation in the lower part of the course—from Athy; but the part of the river above Athy, where the lands suffer most from floods, was absolutely untouched. An attempt was made by the British Government, 40 years ago, to deal with this problem, but it fell through owing to lack of popular support.

The modern history of this subject begins in March, 1924, with a very representative deputation from the districts affected by the Barrow floods to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. That deputation urged the Government to carry out the scheme proposed by the British Government in 1889. They estimated the present cost at £800,000, and said that the locality would pay half if the Government would pay the other half. That is a promise of £400,000. Of course the locality includes the improved lands— it was not intended that the whole £400,000, or even the greater part of it, should be paid out of the county rates. Nevertheless, I think the Dáil will agree that that offer represented a very considerable advance in the public spirit of the localities concerned. The Government took that view; and after taking time to think it over, decided to accept the offer. That is to say, that they would inquire into the engineering question, and if they could get a practicable engineering scheme they would carry it out and pay half the cost out of public funds, with the assent of the Dáil, provided the other half was paid by the improved lands and by the counties concerned. And as there has been a certain amount either of misunderstanding or of misrepresentation about this matter, particularly at election times, I wish to assert here quite plainly that at no time and in no place did the Government promise any more than that, and at no time since they gave the promise have they withdrawn from it.

But it was by no means as simple as it looked to find a practicable engineering scheme. The first step, naturally, was to investigate the records of the scheme of 1889, that mentioned by the deputation—a scheme associated with the name of Mr. Gamble.

The result of the investigation was, in the first place, to raise grave doubts whether the scheme was a good one, and in the second place to establish that, good or bad, it was not in a condition in which it could be carried out or published immediately. The Government, thereupon, decided that they could not take the risk of proceeding with that scheme without further advice; and they asked Professor Meyer-Peter of Zurich to advise. His report, dated March, 1925, has been published and is, no doubt, familiar to the minds of the Teachtaí, but as the matter is complicated it will be useful for me to summarise the leading facts and figures. Professor Meyer-Peter did not think the scheme of 1889, Mr. Gamble's scheme, was conceived on the right lines; in particular he thought that scheme contained too much embankment and too little excavation. He therefore proposed a fresh scheme, for which he gave an estimate of £1,130,000. But he pointed out that all previous estimates of cost, and also his own, rested upon a very poor basis of ascertained fact, because at no time had there been any actual measurement of the flow of the river. Now, in designing a new channel for a river an engineer must necessarily begin by deciding what amount of water he will provide for; on that his whole scheme depends. But no one had ever attempted to ascertain by direct measurements what amount of water comes down the Barrow in a flood; all the engineering schemes, including Professor Meyer-Peter's own, were founded on estimates of flow, and these estimates differed widely. Professor Meyer-Peter, therefore, advised that the actual flow should be ascertained by measurement before the Government committed itself to any scheme. This was done; it was a matter of some time, because, of course, it is necessary to measure the flow on many days in varying conditions of high and low water, before you can get trustworthy results.

The result of the flow measurements was, very fortunately, to show that all the engineers had over-estimated the amount of water brought down by the Barrow. I say very fortunately, because if it were really necessary to spend £1,100,000 on this scheme I do not think it would be done at all. The Government was ready to ask the Dáil to pay one half, that is £550,000, but I do not think the localities could well have borne the other half. I do not wish to weary the Dáil with too many figures, but I will just mention the various estimates of the flow. Mr. Manning, an eminent engineer who made a scheme in 1885, provided for 400,000 cubic feet of water per minute passing Athy at maximum flood. Mr. Gamble, who made the scheme for the Bill of 1889, provided for 320,000. Professor Meyer-Peter's estimate for maximum flood was 486,000. The actual measurements of the flood of February, 1926, which appears to have been one of the largest ever known on the Barrow, gave 268,000 cubic feet per minute.

Acting therefore on the measurements of flow which we owe to Professor Meyer-Peter's advice, the Government decided to have a modified and reduced scheme prepared. This has been done by Mr. Chaloner Smith, an engineer in the service of the office of Public Works, whose name is known among hydraulic engineers by his work on the flow of the Shannon. If the scheme for the Barrow is carried out successfully, that success should be associated with the names of Professor Meyer-Peter and Mr. Chaloner Smith.

The estimate for the modified and reduced scheme is £425,000 and we are advised that it will be practicable to obtain, for that sum, immunity from ordinary high floods for the lands on the Barrow, and, what is more important for the farmers, to secure that any abnormal floods which come upon the lands will not lie there long, and that the ordinary water level under the soil throughout the year will be reduced rendering thorough drainage practicable.

Coming to the specific provisions of the Bill, I think it is not necessary to go into detail at this stage except on one point—finance. The other provisions, apart from finance, are much the same as those with which the Dáil is familiar in the Arterial Drainage Act of 1925 and the Owenmore Drainage Act of 1926. But the financial provisions are new.

The maximum expenditure for which the Bill provides is £425,000. If it turns out to be necessary to spend more, we shall have to bring in another Bill, but we think it will not be necessary. Clause 9 says that the Government is to pay half the cost, within that limit, as a free grant. The other half will be advanced by the Government and repaid on the ordinary terms for Arterial Drainage loans by the improved lands and the counties concerned. In addition to the repayment of the capital cost, there will be an annual charge for maintaining the works. We cannot tell what that will be, but we estimate it, one year with another, at £4,000 a year.

Now the Government proposes, with the assent of the Dáil, to grant not only half the capital cost but also, during the period of repayment of capital, to grant half the cost of maintenance, provided the works are properly maintained. That is, of course, a very exceptional provision, but we think it justified in this case. Now let us see how the finance works out for the localities. The localities are to repay one half of the capital cost not exceeding £212,500. They are also to pay £2,000 a year for maintenance. The repayment of £212,500 means an annual charge of nearly £14,000 for 35 years, £14,000 plus £2,000 makes £16,000. The maximum charge on the localities, therefore, under this Bill is £16,000 a year for 35 years, and after 35 years the charge for repayment of capital ceases and the localities have to bear the whole cost of maintenance, whether that proves to be £4,000 a year or more or less.

Now, how are these charges to be divided between the improved lands and the county funds of the counties concerned? We have adopted what seems to us the simplest and most equitable method; we impose on the improved lands a charge equal to the assessed improvement, whatever is left over is to be paid from the county funds in the proportion of the assessed improvement in each county. I can, perhaps, make this clearer by an imaginary simplified example. Suppose there were only two counties concerned, County A and County B; suppose the total annual payment to be made is £21, and the assessed improvement of lands in County A is £6 and in County B £8—total £14, then these lands will have to pay those amounts, and in addition County A must pay £3 out of the county fund and County B £4 to make up the total of £21.

As all the payments depend on the assessed improvement, nothing is laid down beforehand except the maximum total, and it is not possible to say what any particular county will have to pay. But we have, of course, some notion, based upon previous valuations and upon what we learn from our valuers now at work; and if things work out as we expect, it is probable that the payments to be made from county funds, apart from payments by the improved lands, will be something between £2,500 and £3,000 a year from each of the counties of Leix, Offaly and Kildare, with very much smaller sums from Wicklow, Carlow and Kilkenny. But of course these are only conjectural estimates. I think the Bill may be commended to the Dáil as a very generous attempt to solve the vexed and century-old question of the Barrow drainage.

Mr. JOHN CONLAN

As one of the representatives of a county which I may say is primarily concerned with this question, I am glad that the Government has brought forward, even on the eve of a dissolution, this Bill for the drainage of the Barrow. As the Parliamentary Secretary told the House, this is an age-old question. As far back as the early years of the eighteenth century a scheme was brought forward for the drainage of the Barrow, and implements that, I suppose, would be called crude implements at the present time, were bought. The Napoleonic wars broke out, and the whole scheme was knocked on the head because it was impossible to get any assistance from the Government. Later, when a Conservative Government was in office in England and was adopting the policy of killing Home Rule with kindness, a large grant, amounting, I think, to a quarter of a million, was offered for the drainage of the Barrow. That also fell through on account of some dissatisfaction that was expressed by the then Irish Party with some provisions of the Bill. Of course, the House knows that Mr. Birrell attempted to deal with the question, but his scheme fell through because of the outbreak of the Great War. I express the hope that happier times await the Parliamentary Secretary and his advisers in connection with the present scheme.

Coming to the provisions of the Bill, I am pleased to see that the Government has come to realise that the original proposals outlined by Professor Meyer-Peter were far too costly; in fact, that it was not within the competence of the counties concerned to bear an impost of over half a million pounds. The Parliamentary Secretary has alluded to the circumstances in which the offer of £1 for £1 was made. I do not like to touch upon it because the gentleman who made the offer without consultation with any other member of the deputation is no longer with us. As I have said, that would be an impossibility with regard to a sum amounting to £575,000. Other members of the House and I have said more than once that if the Government insisted in proceeding on the basis of Professor Meyer-Peter's scheme, requiring half the cost to be met from local sources, it would be going on altogether wrong lines. It is satisfactory that the Government now realise that the original proposal was an impossible one. The reduction in the estimate from £1,130,000 to £425,000 is certainly a drastic one. I suppose that I may presume that was done after due deliberation and consultation with engineers of standing. I accept the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary that the measurement of the flow of the river has a good deal to do with the modification of the proposal. I am sorry that even under the modified scheme the Government are insisting on a £1 for £1 contribution. I always regarded the drainage of the Barrow, the second largest river in Ireland, as a great national work, the cost of which should to a great extent be borne by the National Treasury. I do not say that the owners and occupiers of land who are benefiting by the drainage should not pay a fair proportion of the cost or a contribution in proportion to the benefit received. But we must take into account that in the contributory counties there are dozens of ratepayers deriving no more benefit from the drainage than ratepayers in Donegal or Cork. It would be a great mistake to fix the contributions for benefited land at too high a rate.

I do not know whether Deputies are acquainted with the flooded areas. Those who are will agree with me when I say that these areas are vast open expanses without hedges, fences or trees. Even if the land is relieved from flooding a great deal of labour and expense will be necessary to bring it into cultivation. Field drainage would be necessary, and also the erection of fences. The only boundaries at present, as far as I know, are some open drains and small rivers. For that reason I think it would be a great mistake to fix too high an improvement rate on the land benefiting. Of course, the difference between what will be the contribution payable because of the benefit to the land and the amount necessary to repay the loan will have to be borne by the rates. The county councils will have to fill up the gap. We all know that local ratepayers are at present overburdened, and that the county councils are finding great difficulty in collecting the rates. If any considerable addition is made it will be extremely hard to get the ratepayers to respond.

I should like to ask a question as to Section 6. Section 6 endows the Commissioners with very wide powers. As I read it, it gives them authority to bring in a substituted plan and to make whatever alterations are necessary, whether involving an increase or not of the cost. I should like to know, if it should prove necessary to bring in a substituted scheme at additional cost, whether it would come within the purview of the Dáil, or whether the Commissioners could go on with an altogether new scheme without any check whatsoever. As regards the term of the loan—thirty-five years—I thought that these short-term loans applied only to minor drainage works, and that a loan for a scheme like this, which involves a large sum to the local authorities, would be on the same terms as loans under the Land Purchase Acts. If the loan were arranged on that basis, it would lighten the burden to be borne by the ratepayers. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether it would not be possible to make this a long-term loan instead of a loan for a term of thirty-five years.

As regards the Barrow Drainage Board, I take it that the members of that Board will have very important duties to perform. I think that Board should be set up immediately on the passing of the Bill, because they would be in touch with the Commissioners, and I am sure would give very valuable assistance in carrying out the scheme. As one who has taken part in the agitation for the drainage of the Barrow for a great many years, I desire to express the hope that this Bill, amended, perhaps, in some respects, will be the means of remedying a crying evil, and one which was most discreditable to any Government which allowed it to exist. With these observations, I support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. DAVIN

I welcome the introduction of this measure on the understanding that it represents a genuine and sincere attempt on the part of the Government to effect the drainage of this river. The Parliamentary Secretary said a good deal about the Bill, but he said nothing that would give any Deputy any indication as to the rough-and-ready details of the scheme upon which the Bill was based. We are asked in the Bill to give very extensive powers to the Commissioners to proceed with a partial scheme—I think that is how the Parliamentary Secretary referred to it—subject to a maximum expenditure of £425,000. One section of the Bill makes provision for proceeding on those lines subject to that maximum expenditure, but another clause— that referred to by Deputy Conlan— gives powers to the Commissioners to prepare a substituted or additional scheme. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that if a substituted or amended or new scheme has to be prepared which would involve expenditure exceeding £425,000, the Government would have to come to the House for authority for the expenditure involved over and above the £425,000. I take it that that is quite definitely the position.

I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary, when replying, whether this Bill, providing for a maximum expenditure of £425,000, is based upon a skeleton scheme already in existence—a scheme which can be produced and acted upon, in accordance with the procedure outlined in the Bill, immediately this measure becomes law. If the maximum laid down in the Bill is not based upon a skeleton or some considered scheme, how did the Government arrive at that figure of £425,000? It is quite true that a representative deputation waited upon the late Minister for Industry and Commerce in March, 1924. I dare say that a shorthand note is available of the proceedings at that interview. As far as I remember, a shorthand notetaker was present, and an official report was subsequently circulated by the Government to the Press. It is a fact that the late Senator MacEvoy made an offer on behalf of large ratepayers in the area—whether after consultation with them or not, I am not going to say—that if the Government would proceed with the work of draining the River Barrow, the people in the locality, as between the flooded lands and the counties concerned, would find £1 for £1. It is, I think, a fact also that Deputy Colohan, on that occasion, suggested that the Government should provide two-thirds of the actual cost of carrying out the work. I think if the shorthand note is available it will show that those two suggestions or proposals were put forward at that interview.

Coming to the question of carrying out a scheme on the lines suggested in the Bill within the maximum limits of expenditure proposed, one has got to examine the possibility of that being done on the lines proposed by the various experts who previously inquired into the matter and made recommendations in respect of it. We have the scheme of the famous Professor Meyer-Peter, involving an expenditure of £1,130,000. We have then the Batchen proposal, based upon the Gamble scheme, at an estimated expenditure of £900,000. We have now, without any explanation or justification as to where the difference exists in detail, a scheme put forward at an estimated maximum expenditure of £425,000. The Government in the past was very much disposed to rely on the advice of foreign experts, and I suggest now that the present scheme, providing for a maximum expenditure of £425,000, is either unsound or that the advice of the foreign experts was not so good as the Government previously thought it was. If the scheme can be carried out at a cost of £425,000, it is to the credit of Mr. Chaloner Smith and others concerned. It is certainly not a tribute to the advice of the foreign expert who was asked to go into the whole matter, and who estimated the expenditure at £1,130,000. If it can be done I say it is a tip to the Government not to rely so much in future on the advice of foreign experts as they have been doing up to the present.

At the interview referred to it was suggested by the Secretary of the Barrow Drainage Board that the scheme the Government should adopt was the scheme based on the Barrow Drainage Bill of 1889. What was that scheme? It involved an expenditure then estimated at £360,000, and of that amount £215,000, or three-fifths, was to be borne by the British Government by way of grant, and £20,000 was to be borne by the people in the catchment area. This Bill is not on the lines of the suggestions put forward by the deputation referred to. It is quite true there was a difference of opinion as amongst the members of the deputation and the offer made of pound for pound was not, I contend, an offer unanimously suggested by the representative deputation of which Deputy Conlan, myself, and others were members; I think Deputy Wolfe was also present.

So far as I can gather from reading into the matter, there is one explanation for Professor Meyer-Peter's scheme as against Mr. Batchen's scheme; there was a greater deepening of the bed of the River Barrow in the scheme of Professor Meyer-Peter than in the scheme for which the estimate was £900,000—that is, the Gamble scheme. I want to know from the Minister whether the estimated cost of £425,000 includes the £20,000 and the £75,000 which were provided in the estimates of 1926-27 and 1927-28, for carrying out the preliminary work in connection with this undertaking. Is the amount of £95,000 already voted by this House for preliminary work included in the estimated cost for the carrying out of the drainage work? Section 2 (3) of this Bill says:

The expenses incurred by the Commissioners in preparing the draft scheme shall be part of the general expenses of carrying the scheme into execution and shall be paid accordingly.

Does the £425,000 also include the amounts of £3,059 contained in the 1926-27 estimates and the £4,090 contained in the 1927-28 estimates for the payment of engineers and other officials engaged in the work of preparing the scheme, if they have been engaged on that work, or in supervising the preliminary work at present being carried out?

In the scheme suggested by Professor Meyer-Peter he made provision for the regulation of the river, including the protection of banks, back drains, and pumps, and the removal of old weirs, at a cost of £750,300; for new weirs he estimated £97,500; for navigation canals with locks, £106,000; for tributaries, £128,700, and for bridges and mills, £47,500. What provision, if any, is made for the carrying out of these works in the scheme now propounded in this Bill and included in the maximum expenditure of £425,000?

To what extent is there likely to be an improvement in the Barrow navigation? If there is going to be an improvement in the Barrow navigation, why is there not provision made for some payment by boat owners or the people who use the canals? Why are they not asked to contribute towards the improvement that will come about in the navigation of the river? Professor Meyer-Peter evidently had that in mind, and all the previous experts, including those connected with the All-port Commission, who reported on this, dealt with this particular matter.

Some three years ago I was down the River Barrow with a couple of engineers and others. We travelled down the river from Monasterevan to St. Mullins in boats in bad weather. Seeing the canalised portion, it was apparent to us that the carrying capacity of boats suffered as a result of the silt in the river. The carrying capacity of boats with a normal carrying capacity of 45 tons was reduced in some cases to 30 tons. If the carrying capacity of boats taking advantage of the Barrow navigation is going to be increased to 45 tons, the people whose position will be improved as carriers should pay something towards the carrying out of this work. Will any provision be made for payment from that source, and, if not, why not? It is only natural to expect that there will be some improvement in the Barrow navigation. I do not see why maintenance work on the canal should be provided for at the expense of the Government, leaving those who benefit by the carrying out of the maintenance work to pay nothing, although the improvement is in their own interest.

Section 20 of this Bill refers to the provision for the repayment of advances by the Commissioners. Sub-section (1) says:—

The advance by the Commissioners with interest thereon at the rate to be fixed by the Minister for Finance shall be repaid by the payment by the county councils in accordance with this section to the Commissioners of an annual sum of such amount as shall be fixed by the Minister for Finance and such annual sum shall be so payable for the thirty-five local financial years next after the 31st day of March following the date of the final award.

Can we have any indication from the Parliamentary Secretary as to the rate of interest? Some information ought to be available, and if the Minister has it—he must have if the scheme is a considered one—it ought to be given to the House.

The Parliamentary Secretary used very vague language in his rather brief explanation of this very important measure. He said that the general scheme in the Bill was to provide immunity from ordinary high floods. Is that the only kind of language that he can use with regard to the whole scheme? Can he tell us whether he is proceeding on the lines laid down by Professor Meyer-Peter regarding the improvement of the navigation, the removal and provision of bridges, and the necessary attention to tributaries? What is omitted from the scheme as detailed by Professor Meyer-Peter and other experts?

On the general question of Government policy regarding payment for the carrying out of this work, I certainly do congratulate the Government in having agreed, at the last moment, to place the responsibility upon the people in the flooded areas, firstly, the people whose land will benefit, and, secondly, the people in the catchment area and the counties concerned, for the repayment of what is known as the local charge.

I and other Deputies here are aware that in the earlier interviews we had with the Minister the general proposal was to place the local cost of the carrying out of the work on Leix, Offaly and Kildare. I congratulate the Minister on having agreed in the long run to adopt the lines now laid down in this Bill and to have this work in the long run carried out at the cost provided for in the Bill. That cost can be apportioned in the manner laid down in the Bill. I say that the Bill is a good one and will be a benefit to the area of the flooded lands, to the catchment area and to the counties named in the Bill. If the Minister has the scheme ready I hope he will proceed to follow the lines laid down in the Bill and get on to the actual work of draining this river at the earliest possible date.

There is one other point that I want to refer to and that is the wages paid to the men carrying out this preliminary work in the drainage of the river. I think the wages paid to the workmen engaged in the preliminary work is not a living wage. I agree that the Government have taken advantage of the large amount of unemployment in the country for the purpose of getting men, as they will get them, at a low rate of wages to do work of this kind. I think that the Government might consider the proposal to pay these men who are doing this dirty and dangerous form of work, the same wage as men are paid in connection with the Shannon scheme which is not an over-rated figure. Generally speaking, I welcome the Bill and I say that if this work is eventually carried out at the cost provided for in the Bill it will be a lasting tribute to the people responsible for drawing up the scheme and for carrying it into effect afterwards.

Mr. DWYER

It is with great pleasure that I welcome this Bill. We have heard very much about the drainage of the Barrow for generations and, at the recent by-election in Leix-Offaly, as Deputy Davin said on several occasions, it was our front plank. However the promise had been given, as Deputy Davin said, that if I were elected the Barrow would be drained. Well, I was elected and the Barrow is now definitely going to be drained.

When Deputy Davin next comes down to Leix-Offaly he will no longer have his little joke about the drainage of the Barrow. Now, at all events, the people will see that the Government means business and the Barrow will be drained. As regards the recent deputation that I have been on, and the promise given by the County Council of Leix of contributing £ for £, at that time the Leix-Offaly people were the principal people in it. The late Senator MacEvoy said that an undertaking had been given by the previous county council that if the Barrow had been drained the people were prepared to pay £ for £. However, the people at that time turned it down, and I myself, as representative of the people, could not stand by that. I am glad that I am a member of the Government who are tackling the drainage of the Barrow, and who are going to see that it will be drained. It is a great tribute to the Government to undertake this work. A great many governments considered this problem of the drainage of the Barrow in the past, and they failed to carry it out, but now the Saorstát Government is at last going to do what so many governments were unable or unwilling to do.

Mr. WOLFE

There is an old saying that the man who can wait long enough generally gets what he wants and this is exemplified in the case of the Barrow drainage. A great many people have been wanting to get the Barrow drained for more than a century. At last the matter has become a reality. At least, I think it has.

Mr. DAVIN

Hear, hear.

Mr. WOLFE

Well, I feel certain that it will. It is as certain as any human thing can be. When we come to think of it we recall that Chief Secretary after Chief Secretary who came to Ireland received deputations about the drainage of the Barrow and the Bann. After a hurried visit to the West, which was always made by every Chief Secretary, where they went to make acquaintance with the conditions there, they were, generally speaking, on their arrival back, waited upon by deputations dealing with the drainage of the Barrow and the Bann. A great many promises, no doubt, were made as to the drainage of these rivers, and one or two of the Chief Secretaries actually came to figures, but that was all. There was always something to prevent the work being carried out—either the people would not contribute enough, or what the Government considered was enough, or the Government themselves would not give enough to put through the work and the thing never came to a head. Although very celebrated engineers have put their names to several schemes, they never made the schemes sufficiently attractive to get them taken up and thoroughly entered upon. It will be a feather in the cap of Mr. Chaloner Smith that he alone, after all the other engineers have failed, is in the position of being the engineer who is carrying this matter to a satisfactory conclusion.

I hope he will carry it to a satisfactory conclusion. Deputies Davin and Conlan entered into a great many particulars about the drainage of the Barrow. There is no use in recapitulating further the history of all that. Considering the extent of what is going to be done and the value of money to-day, the amount mentioned, £425,000, if it carries out the whole expense of the Barrow drainage, does not appear to be a very excessive figure, considering what we have been accustomed to hear up to this—figures of one-and-a-quarter millions and sums of £900,000 and little items like that. The figure in this Bill is really quite a modest estimate. Indeed my breath was taken away when I first saw this Bill and found that the figure was only £425,000. A good many other people, too, were surprised at the smallness of this figure. It says a great deal for the engineer if he can carry through the work at the figure in the Estimate when we consider that the other estimates were round about a million. I have come to the conclusion that the difference between this Estimate and the others has had a good deal to do with the estimation as to the flow of the water. I take it that this engineer estimates the flow at a very much smaller figure than any of the others. No doubt as he is the latest in the field he will probably be the most accurate, having had the advantage of the experience of all the other estimates to go on.

Considering everything, I think that the arrangement about the money part of the scheme is not unfair. Kildare, of course, is very much burdened with heavy rates and we naturally do not like a further burden thrown on us. The money, however, could be spent in a much worse way. The work itself will help a vast number of people in the way of obtaining better health and conditions in the districts and will also improve a vast area of land in time to come. Better still, it will give a vast amount of employment to people who are at present doing nothing. Money could not, in fact, be better spent than in giving employment to people who are idle. I do not believe that the people, when they come to consider it, will grudge paying a certain proportion of the cost. We must not be entirely selfish and still expect benefits to accrue to our own particular neighbourhood. I do not think that the people will view it in that light.

People all over the country will be delighted to know that the scheme is at last about to fructify. A rate of one penny in the pound represents about £1,300, so that the sum of £2,500, which the Minister gives us, represents about twopence in the pound. There is one point about which I am not sure. There is a maintenance charge of £2,000, which, I fancy, is to be a permanent charge. The Minister mentioned, I think, £4,000. Deputy Davin and other Deputies have alluded to most of the matters which I would have gone into, and at this stage I may say that I, for one, welcome the fact that the Government are fulfilling the promise which they made that the drainage of the Barrow would be tackled before they went out of office. The fact will, I think, always stand to their credit.

Mr. COLOHAN

I would also like to congratulate the Minister on the introduction of this Bill, but I think he should get his Department to prepare a general statement giving approximate costs of each important section of the river and any unforeseen works or expenses, such as compensation for mills to which Deputy Davin referred. That would give Deputies representing those districts an idea of the cost of the various sections. I have no doubt that as the work proceeds on many sections there will be criticism as to the amount of benefit each section derives from the sinking of the main stream, or river, to a certain depth. It may not be sunk deep enough to take off the water from certain sections of the river. I think it would be fair to Deputies and to landholders in the area to have such a statement. When I say that, I do not mean to pass criticism on the ability of our engineer, Mr. Chaloner Smith. I am proud to say that it is my honest belief that we could not get a better man to carry out drainage works on the River Barrow, and I hope that the Government will avail themselves of his services until the scheme is complete.

As to taxation and the £ for £ basis which was proposed by the late Senator MacEvoy, I may say that I was present when the deputation was received, and I am perfectly sure that, although there were some twenty-five members on the deputation, there was not one, except Senator MacEvoy, who was satisfied with that basis which he himself proposed. I would ask that in the distribution of the cost of the scheme the ratepayers on the land affected should be let down as lightly as possible. I think the Government should pay, at least, three-fifths of the cost of the scheme. By limiting the period of payment to thirty-five years, I think all the expense will be thrown on the present generation. Why not extend that period to fifty or sixty years and thus lessen the burden of the people who are in possession? Goodness knows, they had enough to bear for the last five or six years.

We have heard a lot about giving employment on the Barrow. I am glad to find a large number of men working about Athy and Monasterevan. I would like to see them getting a fair wage. They are getting thirty shillings for standing up to their knees in mud and water. They have no shelter, and they are out in the rain all day. When they are not working they do not come under the Unemployment Insurance Act. That, of course, was done to cheapen the cost of the scheme. I do not think it is fair to be taking it out of the unfortunate labourers all the time simply to cheapen the cost. Deputy Wolfe spoke about the improvement that would accrue in the health of the people of the neighbourhood. I agree, but I do not want to see it taken out of the men working on the Barrow. I am sure that their health will be impaired after working there for a short time. I would like to see the Minister making provision to give them medical treatment for disease, whether it be rheumatism or tuberculosis, which they might contract while working under slavish conditions on the river.

It is not too much to ask. They are our own countrymen, and we are in honour bound to protect them when carrying out this scheme. Deputy Davin said that they should be paid, at least, the same wage as the workers on the Shannon scheme. I mentioned that matter to the Parliamentary Secretary last October, but I could not get him to agree to it. Would there be any possibility now of softening the heart of the Minister or the hearts of the Executive Council, and getting them to make that gesture now on the eve of the general election, and raise the wages of these men? I do not think that it is too much for Irishmen to ask of the Executive Council of their national Parliament, and if they do that they will inspire confidence in a great many people, especially amongst the workers.

Mr. BAXTER

One would hesitate to throw an apple of discord into this discussion, or say anything that would detract from the congratulations showered on the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government in connection with this Bill. At times I regret that I do not live near the Barrow or near the Carlow beet factory—that area upon which the blessings of posterity are to be showered at the expense of the taxpayers of the country as a whole. I just want to ask one or two questions in connection with this scheme. It strikes me that all the people in the areas concerned will not congratulate the Ministry on this Bill. I have no doubt whatever that Deputy Wolfe and other Deputies will find, when the ratepayers in those counties come to understand that whether their lands are to be benefited or not they will have to pay twopence or threepence in the pound for the construction of these drainage works, they will not be very pleased.

I would like to put it to the Parliamentary Secretary, were the local councils in the different counties consulted before it was decided to impose this obligation, and expect that they would be responsible for collecting a rate for the construction of the drainage work from farmers who are not going to benefit?

Mr. DAVIN

Is it not a fact that provision is made for the holding of an inquiry, and those who have any objections can make them at that inquiry?

Mr. BAXTER

I want to know whether the councils were consulted. One would think before any council would be put in the position of having to collect a rate for any purpose whatever that it would be consulted. Deputy Conlan made a point which I think he did not sufficiently stress. He suggested that a Drainage Board should be set up at the earliest possible date. I would urge that course. The work, no doubt, is to be carried out by the Commissioners of Public Works, but from the point of view of the ratepayers in the affected areas it has to be remembered that they are going to contribute half the cost of the construction of these works. I am not suggesting that the Commissioners of Public Works and their engineers are not competent to do the work, but I think in the interests of the people who are going to pay half of the total cost of construction of these works that they should have in existence some authority, and under that body competent engineers who would at least look after the interests of the ratepayers in the areas concerned. That would seem to me to be most important. It is true that the Board of Works and their engineers, working in their official way on the scheme, must be expected to do the work in a satisfactory manner, but there may be local considerations that should be taken into account. One would like to know whether this Board will only be set up after the work of construction is carried out, and whether the local authority will have to depend entirely on that Board and have no officers of their own to look after their interests and with whom they can consult.

If all responsibility is to be placed entirely on the Commissioners of Public Works I think in the interests of local authorities that the Board should be set up at a very early date, and that there should be engineers who would supervise on behalf of the ratepayers, so that local interests would be safeguarded. I think that is necessary for the satisfactory carrying out of the work if such benefits are to come from the scheme as proposed, and as one would wish for it now that it is to be undertaken. Precautions should also be taken that the work would be done in such a way as to give satisfaction to the people most intimately concerned. If they have merely to look on at the construction and contribute their quota to the amount necessary for carrying out the work, then, perhaps, there will be grounds for dissatisfaction. I think the Ministry and the Board of Works should safeguard themselves against that. Perhaps the good work the Ministry see it necessary to undertake on behalf of the farmers in the five or six counties concerned will have such beneficial results that they may do something similar for other parts of the country, and it may come to be recognised that the Erne is as worthy of consideration from the national point of view as is the Barrow.

Mr. DUGGAN

I would like to express my appreciation of the manner in which the Bill has been received by Deputies in every part of the House. I naturally expected that there would be some criticism of details. I do not know if some Deputies are quite clear in their minds on this matter. Deputy Davin referred to the scheme. Under the Bill we are getting power to prepare a scheme.

Mr. DAVIN

Have you a skeleton scheme in the pigeon holes in the Board of Works on which you justify the Bill now before the House, based on a maximum expenditure of £425,000?

Mr. DUGGAN

I do not know what the Deputy means by a skeleton scheme. We make sufficient investigations and have got sufficient information at our disposal to enable us to say that we can drain the Barrow satisfactorily at the figure in the Bill—that is, we can prevent damage by flooding.

Mr. DAVIN

I would like to press the Minister on the point. Has he a considered scheme already approved of by the Executive Council which would justify him in coming to the House and asking for the acceptance of the proposals in the Bill?

Mr. DUGGAN

I do not know what the Deputy means by a considered scheme. We have not a draft scheme, but I say the matter has been investigated by our engineers, and the result is such that we are justified in coming to the House and asking it to pass this Bill in which the figure mentioned is £425,000.

Mr. DAVIN

In other words, you are asking the House to give approval for the preparation of a scheme based on a maximum expenditure of £425,000?

Mr. DUGGAN

That is quite clear in the Bill. Deputy Conlan seemed to suggest that there was unnecessary delay in the introduction of the Bill, and he made reference to the eve of a dissolution. Any delay in the introduction of the Bill is due entirely to two causes. One is that Professor Meyer-Peter in his report directed that the Board of Works engineer should make certain measurements. That work occupied a considerable period of time, and it is as a result of these measurements we have got the first actual figure in existence on which one could base estimates for doing this work; and the other cause of delay is one which arises in connection with nearly every Bill, and that is pressure of work in the draughtsman's office. Deputy Conlan expressed the fear that perhaps the rate levied on the landowners affected might be on the high side. I can say from my experience of land valuers of the Board of Works that that is very unlikely to occur. Their leaning always seems to be in the other direction.

Reference was made to the power taken under Section 6 to bring in a substituted scheme. That is merely precautionary, and if Deputies refer to the wording they will see that it merely provides that if it appears that alterations are necessary in the works proposed under the scheme a substituted scheme can be prepared. The scheme having been approved, if we find it necessary to make perhaps a trivial alteration in it, it will not then be necessary to come to the House for another Bill. I do not think that is likely to arise, and, as I say, it is merely precautionary. I do not think I can hold out any hope that the period of repayment of the loan will be extended and, as a matter of fact, an extension would make very little difference in the annual charge, very much less than Deputies imagine. Deputy Davin asked whether the moneys already expended on the preliminary works form part of the money provided for in the Bill. They do. He also asked whether certain engineers' fees are included in the expenses for which the Bill provides. The specific items to which he referred are not. They are regarded as office expenses of the Board of Works, and not as part of the cost of the scheme. Deputy Davin also mentioned the possibility of some improvement in the navigation of the Barrow as a result of the drainage works. I must say that I had not considered that matter. If, incidentally, there is an improvement in the navigation I will have the matter considered and dealt with.

Mr. DAVIN

I suggest if the scheme is based upon the deepening of the river that there is bound to be an improvement to the navigation, to the advantage of the people making use of the navigation.

Mr. DUGGAN

That is so. I will have the matter considered. The rate of interest is, of course, the ordinary 5½ per cent. Deputy Baxter suggested that there might be some form of cooperation between the Board of Works engineer and the members of the Drainage Board. I think that in a matter of this kind you must have some person responsible. You cannot divide responsibility. I think that that would be the very worst thing that could happen. The members of the Drainage Board will have their own duties to carry out, and the Board of Works engineer in charge of the scheme will have his reputation at stake, and I think it is better to let him do his work and the Drainage Board do theirs.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time.

Ordered: That the Bill be considered in Committee of the whole Dáil on Wednesday, March 30th.

The Dáil adjourned at 7.55 p.m. until Wednesday, 23rd March, at 3 p.m.