Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 31 Mar 1927

Vol. 19 No. 7

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - BARROW DRAINAGE BILL—MONEY RESOLUTION.

The Dáil went into Committee on Finance.

Mr. BLYTHE

I move:—

Chun críche aon Achta a rithfar sa tSiosón so chun socrú do dhéanamh chun scéim i gcóir dréineáil airtéireach Abha na Bearbha agus a suainmheachán do chur le chéile, do chur i ngníomh agus do chimeád ar siúl, go bhfuil sé oiriúnach a údarú—

(1) go roimh-íocfidh Coimisinéirí no nOibreacha Puiblí amach as airgead atá fé n-a gcúram agus is ionchurtha chun iasachtaí suim is có-ionann le leath costaisí agus caiteachaisí iomlána na scéime sin ach nách mó ar fad ná suim Dhá Chéad agus Dha Mhíle Dhéag agus Cúig Céad Punt.

That for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the formulation, carrying out and maintenance of a scheme of arterial drainage of the River Barrow and its tributaries, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the advance by the Commissioners of Public Works out of moneys under their control and applicable to loans of a sum equal to one-half of the total costs and expenses of the said scheme but not exceeding in the aggregate the sum of Two Hundred and Twelve Thousand Five Hundred Pounds.

As Deputies will see, the motion provides that the Commissioners of Public Works may advance a sum equal to one-half of the expense of the Barrow scheme, not to exceed £212,500. It also provides that during the thirty-five years of the currency of the loan half of the annual cost of maintenance shall be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas. As regards the remainder of the cost of the scheme it provides that that shall be paid out of the moneys provided by the Oireachtas. The position then is that the State undertakes to pay half of the cost of carrying out the scheme. But if the cost of carrying out the scheme should be a sum exceeding the £425,000 estimate then the excess will be borne by the State. If, on the other hand, the scheme is carried out for less than £425,000 the districts will get their share of the saving. If, for instance, it is carried out for £400,000 instead of £425,000 the total cost to the districts will be £200,000, and to the State £200,000. As was said on the Second Reading the basis of consideration on which this scheme has proceeded has been that half the cost shall be borne by the general taxpayer, and half the cost by the districts, the local costs being divided between the cost to the county at large and the amount that can be levied on the benefited lands.

Mr. DAVIN

The Money Resolution does not seem to be in strict accordance with the clauses in the Bill making provision for raising the necessary money. The Minister now states, and I am glad to hear him do so, that if the actual cost of carrying out the scheme exceeds the £425,000 laid down in the Bill, any excess will be borne by the State. There is a clause in the Bill to the effect that the scheme, such as it is, is not to exceed £425,000. Are we to take it that as a result of the Minister's speech and the wording of the Money Resolution that particular clause will have to be amended? Until the Minister explained it appeared to me that the first charge for carrying out this work would lie on the people in the localities affected —that if by any chance the scheme was carried out at less than £425,000, the £212,000 would certainly be a first charge, and only the remaining amount, the difference between £212,500 and the full cost, provided it was less than £425,000, would be met by State funds. That would not be on the basis of pound for pound which was intended and as the Parliamentary Secretary explained when introducing the Bill. I want an explanation with regard to the Money Resolution. Sub-section (3) of Section 2 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.

In answer to a question of mine the Parliamentary Secretary on the Second Reading stated that roughly £3,000 or £4,000 provided in the Estimates for 1926-27 and 1927-28, covering the charges for salaries of engineers and others, would not be included in that sub-section. Are we to understand that the second part of the Money Resolution and sub-section (3) of Section 2 mean that the people in the affected areas, who will have to bear the local portion of the charge, will have to pay for the fees and expenses incurred as a result of the advice—bad advice— received from Professor Meyer-Peter and from experts, or alleged experts, previously engaged on the work? I would object to local people being called upon to pay high fees to alleged experts who gave advice on this matter that turned out to be absolutely useless. I want to know if the second part of the Money Resolution means that the local people will have to pay the costs and expenses of advice from experts who previously tinkered with this problem? If the money is to be provided in another Vote it is all right, but I protest against local people having to pay for advice which turned out to be useless and that has no bearing whatever on the scheme as it is being put into operation.

I also want to know whether there is a scheme actually in existence. I was unable to find that out from the Parliamentary Secretary. In the ordinary course when authority is asked to spend the taxpayers' money on any works Deputies are entitled to an explanation as to how the money is to be set aside. On previous occasions the Dáil has been asked to give authority to the Government to spend money— for instance, under the Beet Subsidy Act and on the Shannon scheme. Under this Bill the Dáil is asked to provide a very large sum of money without any detailed explanation as to how it is going to be used. On the Second Reading of this Bill I asked the Parliamentary Secretary what kind of a scheme this was, whether it was on the basis of the scheme reported on by Professor Meyer-Peter or one known as the Gamble scheme—whether it was for the deepening of the river or the strengthening of the embankments. The Dáil and the people in the areas affected are entitled to that information so that they may prepare their case for the inquiry that must be held as a result of the passage of the Bill. Deputies are entitled to have an outline of the scheme, if there is one in existence, and the manner in which the money is to be expended. There will be no further opportunity for discussing the scheme here. One section in the Bill lays down a maximum expenditure, but another section authorises the Minister, after consideration, to prepare a substituted scheme. Necessarily one is confused by these sections. I would like the Minister to give more information generally about the scheme, and certainly more than was given by the Parliamentary Secretary on the Second Reading.

Mr. J. CONLAN

I desire to support the contention that was put forward by Deputy Davin—that the cost of this preliminary work should not be borne by the local taxpayers. It appears that Professor Meyer-Peter, who, we were told, was a great authority on the drainage of rivers, made a mistake. One of the reasons the Parliamentary Secretary gave for the drastic reduction in the estimated cost of carrying out the work was that no measurements had previously been made of the volume of water which the river could carry. I have been reading a report of the Castletown Commission, in which Mr. Robert Manning, Chief Engineer of the Board of Works, stated that the estimated volume of water discharged by the river was 400,000 gallons per second. Taking that into account, it would appear that measurements had been made in the past.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

They are estimates, but not measurements of the type the Parliamentary Secretary referred to.

Mr. CONLAN

I am quite clear that the Parliamentary Secretary stated that that was one of the reasons—that measurements had not been taken.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

That is what I say.

Mr. CONLAN

Does the Minister dispute what is stated in the report—that measurements had been taken?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

There was an estimate which was not based on measurements of the type referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. CONLAN

I am not in a position to contest that statement. Passing from that, I do not object to the amount set forth in the Money Resolution but I do object to the manner in which the contributions have been allocated as between the Government and the local taxpayers. In previous schemes for the drainage of the Barrow, there was no suggestion made that local taxpayers should contribute half the cost. In the scheme that was foreshadowed in the Allport Commission Report, it was stated that the drainage of the Barrow should be regarded as a great national work, and, of the estimated cost of £360,000, it was recommended that the Government should contribute £215,000. Instead of £1 for £1, it was recommended, in that case, that the Government should contribute three-fifths of the cost.

I need hardly say that it is on behalf of the harassed local taxpayers that I speak. Deputies in every part of the House, especially Deputies who represent rural constituencies, know how difficult it is for local ratepayers to meet their obligations in respect of rates. It is essential that any additional burden to be placed upon them should be as light as possible. In County Kildare, there are several drainage districts and to the cost of carrying out the drainage of those districts local ratepayers have to contribute. In one of the districts at least—one of the tributaries of the Barrow—the County Council find great difficulty in collecting the tax. That is not on account of any organised opposition to the payment of the tax but on account of the poverty of the people. The County Council took action against those people and got decrees against them. In nearly every case the Sheriff returned the decree marked "nulla bona." That shows that they are not in a position to pay. Taking these facts into account, I think the Government will be well advised to vary the incidence of this tax, and to contribute from Government resources a larger proportion than is set out in the Money Resolution.

Mr. COLOHAN

I should like to support Deputy Conlan in his plea for a larger contribution from the Government towards this scheme. I know the President is adamant on this point, but he might give way now that the cost of the scheme has been reduced from £1,132,000 to £425,000. A larger contribution from the Government would help the poor farmers in the affected areas.

The PRESIDENT

I am sure the Deputy has a lot of sympathy for the poor farmers.

Mr. COLOHAN

I have—especially for those in Kildare. I understand that the Minister for Finance stated that if the scheme cost anything more than £425,000 the Government would meet the extra expense. If that be so, I think we can take it that the cost of the scheme will be kept within the proposed limits. As to Section 6, to which Deputy Davin takes exception, and which provides for the preparation of substituted or additional schemes, I think that is a very wise precaution——

Mr. DAVIN

I did not object or refer to that.

Mr. COLOHAN

I think it is wise to make provision for any alterations or variations which may have to be made in the scheme as the work proceeds. I have no doubt that that provision has been inserted at the suggestion of our engineer. I have faith that he will make the scheme a success. Considering the great reduction that has been made in the estimate of Professor Meyer-Peter, we ought to be very well pleased. I wish God-speed to the scheme.

Mr. WILSON

There is no doubt that the people in the area of the Barrow want that area drained. The only question in dispute is as to how much the local people should pay, or are able to pay, and how much should be contributed from central taxation. I represent an area which will probably be called upon to pay something under the Bill and the lands in which will not be benefited by any drainage in the river lower down.

Mr. CONLAN

Question!

Mr. WILSON

It is unquestionable that in Wicklow the lands will not be benefited. But that point will come up later and we can argue it. Half of the money. I understand, is to be advanced by the Commissioners of Public Works on loan. I take it that that is the amount that will be collected from the ratepayers. As regards item No. 2 in the resolution—payments out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas— I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether this money will be raised by taxation or by loan. Will it be regarded as an item which will be in the nature of abnormal rather than recurring expenditure?

Mr. BLYTHE

Certainly.

Mr. WILSON

That will ease the taxpayers' minds. They will be glad to hear that they will only have to pay interest and sinking fund. The question of clause I will come up on the Estimates and I will not detain the House in speaking of it. This particular service is necessary. We have been all asking for it and not least Deputy Davin. The Deputy need not now be quibbling over small matters. The Government have faced up to the problem and are attempting to solve it. It will be, I am sure, to the benefit of Deputy Davin's constituents that he will be able to go down there and say that the Government have at last drained the Barrow.

Mr. DAVIN

Has the Deputy gone over to the Government Party yet?

Mr. BLYTHE

It had not been intended to charge up Professor Meyer-Peter's fee to the cost of the scheme, but, in view of Deputy Davin's remarks, I am prepared to reconsider that. It is not a large item, but still I think it ought to go into the cost of the scheme.

Mr. DAVIN

What is the amount?

Mr. BLYTHE

I could not tell the Deputy at the moment.

Mr. DAVIN

It was very badly spent, whatever the amount is.

Mr. BLYTHE

It is not worth while taking Deputy Davin's remarks seriously, but the scheme that will be carried out is Professor Meyer-Peter's scheme, as modified by his own advice, on the ascertainment of the flow of water. Up to the time that Professor Meyer-Peter came into the scheme there had been no measurement of the actual flow of water. Various estimates, differing fairly widely, had been made of the amount of water that passes down the river, taking into account the area and the measurements of rainfall. The actual measurements of the flow showed that those estimates were very inaccurate. When we had measurements of the actual flow, on Professor Meyer-Peter's advice, his original scheme was modified, and it is that scheme that we are proceeding with.

Mr. CONLAN

Has the Minister the figures showing the actual flow?

Mr. BLYTHE

Yes. The actual flow was shown at a time of very exceptional flooding to be 628,000 as against an estimate of 400,000, and considerably over that amount. I think there were other matters raised which might be dealt with on the Committee Stage. I do not propose to discuss the question of the proportion of the cost which the State will bear. From the beginning, we said that the locality is to bear half and we do not propose to alter that.

Mr. DAVIN

Would the Minister refer to Section 9 (b) which fixes the maximum amount which the State shall pay at £212,500? Would he say whether that is in accordance with the second portion of the Money Resolution which does not fix any amount to be paid by the State?

Mr. BLYTHE

We do not anticipate that it will cost more than £425,000 but, if it does, we will have to come to the Dáil.

Mr. DAVIN

The Minister stated that any money in excess of the £425,000 would be borne by the State but in Section 9 the maximum is laid down.

Mr. BLYTHE

If we have to exceed the maximum we will have to come back to the Dáil.

Motion put and agreed to.

Ordered that the Resolution be reported.

The Dáil went out of Committee.

Resolution reported.

Question—"That the Dáil agree with the Committee in the Resolution"—put and agreed to.