I move: "In sub-section (1), line 19, to delete the word ‘Wicklow.'" The people of Wicklow are in favour of the scheme to drain the Barrow and are willing to contribute their State quota to it. They do not, however, consider that the drainage of the Barrow would be of any benefit to the county, and they do not, therefore, think that the county should be included in the Bill amongst the counties concerned.
IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - BARROW DRAINAGE BILL, 1927—THIRD STAGE.
I am surprised that Deputy Byrne should try to debar Wicklow from contributing towards this great national scheme. It is true that the county at large will not be benefited by the scheme, but certainly a large extent of land in that county will be benefited. One of the tributaries of the Barrow is the River Griece, which rises in Wicklow and which does some injury along the border between Kildare and Wicklow. In that respect it is only fair that County Wicklow should contribute. I have seen it stated on good authority that the drainage of the Barrow will have a beneficial effect on the health of the inhabitants of Kildare and Wicklow. In view of these considerations I think the amendment should be withdrawn.
As the scheme is not before the House, nobody is in a position, except, perhaps, those who have an inner knowledge of the intentions of the Board of Works, to know whether the scheme will include Wicklow, or the catchment area of that county. Deputy Byrne should wait until the scheme is produced and until an inquiry is held, and he could then come forward on behalf of the people of Wicklow and oppose the scheme, if he thinks fit.
If we accept the amendment, it would really be deciding in advance that Wicklow would not derive any benefit from this scheme. If it does not derive benefit, it would not have to contribute anything, but if it does, it will have to contribute just as the other counties have in proportion to benefit derived.
Why should Wicklow as a county be asked to contribute if there are only four miles of area to be benefited? If we wait until the inquiry is held we would be too late to put down amendments. The people in this area are naturally nervous about special rates. There is an old souvenir from the Grand Jury days of 2s. 2d. in the £ for the upkeep of a so-called tramway, and if there was a further rate now imposed, there would, I am afraid, be a large number of people from Wicklow placed in Mountjoy, as they could not pay further rates.
I was about to submit a proposal in regard to a scheme of drainage for the upper regions of the River Griece to the County Councils of Wicklow and Kildare, but I was advised not to do so until it was found whether the River Griece had been dealt with in connection with the Barrow Drainage. That would show that Wicklow is concerned with this scheme.
If an area of only four miles is affected, the county-at-large charge would be very small. The county would have to contribute in proportion to the lands benefited.
The people interested will have an opportunity of making their protest later in a more effective way than they could do here.
The people of Wicklow are, as I pointed out, in favour of the drainage of the Barrow, but the county council desired an amendment to be put down in view of the fact that they will not derive any benefit from the scheme. Consequently, if they do not benefit they do not want to be asked to pay. If any land is benefited, and if it is not able to meet the demands put upon it, there would be a county-at-large charge.
I oppose the amendment. If the people in the counties which are not going to get any direct benefit are always going to retard progress in regard to a scheme of this kind, which will be of great benefit to the public health as well as to the landowners, there will be no scheme.
We are not objecting to the scheme.
Amendment put and negatived.
The effect of Deputy Davin's amendment which is to delete sub-section (3), an amendment which should really be to Section 2, would be to increase the charge on the State funds, but I think he made his point on the Money Resolution.
Yes, and the Minister is prepared to meet it.
Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 6 (2).
The Commissioners shall publish such notices, receive such objections, and hold such inquiries (if any) in respect of a draft substituted scheme or a draft additional scheme prepared by them under this section as they shall think proper, and shall present such draft additional scheme or draft substituted scheme, when finally settled by them, to the Minister for Finance for confirmation.
I move: "In sub-section (2), page 6, line 10, to delete the words ‘additional scheme or draft substituted' and substitute therefor the words ‘substituted scheme or draft additional.'" This is merely a drafting amendment.
I move:—
In sub-section (4), page 7, to insert immediately before sub-section (4) a new sub-section as follows:—
"(4) When compensation is being assessed in pursuance of this section in respect of an interference with a navigation regard shall be had to any benefit to such navigation resulting or which may result from the deepening of the water of such navigation, the improvement of the supply of water thereto or otherwise by reason of the execution of the works under the scheme."
That amendment is introduced in pursuance of a promise I made to Deputy Davin on Second Reading.
I find it very difficult to understand, especially after the speech of the Minister for Finance, why provision was not made for this amendment in the Bill as originally introduced. We have only heard this evening from the Minister for the first time that the scheme is to be on the Meyer-Peter basis, making provision for the deepening of the river. That being within the knowledge of the Commissioners of the Board of Works, the Parliamentary Secretary, and the Minister, I cannot understand why this provision was not made in the original Bill. Anyone who knows anything about the condition of the river knows that for the last three or four years, at any rate, it has had the effect of reducing the carrying capacity of the boats. Naturally any scheme making provision for the deepening of the river would increase the carrying capacity of the boats, and that should be taken into account when compensation is being assessed. The longer we live the more we learn, and the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary has now introduced this amendment is proof that intervention of this kind and questions, though it may take a long time, will bring out the whole basis upon which the scheme is based. The amendment is a proper one. The people who benefit by the improvement in navigation should contribute their share in proportion to the benefits derived.
I move—
In sub-section (1) (c), page 8, lines 24 and 25, to delete the words "at the date of the confirmation of the scheme" and substitute therefor the words "immediately before the commencement of the works."
I think the meaning of the amendment is pretty obvious. The works have been in progress for some time, and some benefit will follow from the works that have been already carried out.
As regards Section 13, on the question of the constitution of the Barrow Drainage Board, we had an amendment proposed by Deputy Byrne, objecting in advance on behalf of the people of Wicklow to something that may never happen. Supposing the Wicklow people, or any portion of them, are eventually called on to pay any charge for the carrying out of this useful work are we to understand that Wicklow will have representation on the Drainage Board, although there will be no charge as regards them beyond the ordinary taxpayers' charge for the carrying out of the work?
You should not be anticipating.
I think it is a question that ought to be answered. The Barrow Drainage Board will have a very heavy responsibility. If the people of Wicklow are not called upon to bear any portion of the charge I would object to representation being given to Wicklow.
We are advised that Wicklow will derive some benefit, and therefore will be entitled to representation.
In case it does not, and that under the scheme that will be eventually sanctioned by the Minister, Wicklow will not be included or called upon to bear any portion of the charge, are we, under these circumstances, to assume that Wicklow will be given representation on the Board?
We will consider that when it arises, but I do not think it will arise.
I move:—
"In sub-section (2), page 10, line 36, to insert immediately before the word ‘of' the words ‘and 17 and 18.'"
That is to apply to the provision of Sections 17 and 18 of the Local Government Act of 1871 for the audit of the accounts of the Barrow Drainage Board.
I move—
In sub-section (1), page 10, lines 46 and 47, to delete the words "may appoint all such officers and" and substitute therefor the words "shall appoint such and so many officers as the Minister for Local Government and Public Health shall determine and may appoint such."
Under the Bill as drafted the Minister for Local Government had to approve of the appointment of every servant of the Drainage Board, including workmen paid by weekly wages. The amendment restricts that control so that it would not extend to ordinary workmen.
I move—
"In sub-section (1) page 10, line 47, to insert immediately before the word "necessary" the words "to be."
That is a drafting amendment.
I move—
In sub-section (1), page 10, line 47, to insert immediately before the word "necessary" the words "to be."
That is consequential on amendment 8.
I move—
"In sub-section (4), page 11, to delete lines 1 and 2."
That is also consequential on amendment 8.
I move—
"In sub-section (3), page 11, line 38, to delete the words ‘local financial year' and substitute therefor the words ‘of the said thirty-five local financial years.'"
The object of that amendment is to make it clear that the inspection by the Commissioners of the grants from the Government apply to the first thirty-five financial years.
I move—
In sub-section (3), page 11, line 46, to insert immediately before the word "actually" the words "appearing on the audit of the relevant accounts to have been."
That amendment is introduced to make it clear that the money granted by the Government is expended as audited.
I move:—
In sub-section (5), page 11, line 62, to insert immediately before the word "with" the words "(whether before or after the expiration of the said thirty-five local financial years)."
That is to enable the Drainage Board to use at the end of thirty-five years any funds which may have accumulated in their hands during those thirty-five years.
I move—
In sub-section (3), page 13, to delete the words "for that year."
The effect of the amendment is to give the Drainage Board the necessary freedom to use the funds paid in one year for works done in another year.
Sub-section (1) of Section 22 definitely states that the rate is to be on the lands which are to be improved, and, therefore, I take it that if we conclude that land in Wicklow has been improved by the Barrow Drainage Scheme this will not apply to Wicklow.
That is so.
Does that mean that if water flows from the County Wicklow and floods land in Kildare that Kildare will have to pay its share for the draining of the Wicklow waters? I think that is not fair.
The right thing is to make the Wicklow people keep the water.
You cannot do that.
Sections 22, 23, 24 and 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 26, SUB-SECTION (1).
(1) If and in so far as the scheme provides for the diversion, removal, or other interference with a public road or bridge the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) where the execution of the works specified in the scheme involves the closing of the road or bridge to traffic the Commissioners shall construct and shall maintain while such road or bridge is so closed to traffic a temporary road or bridge sufficient to carry traffic of such quantity and character as normally uses such road or bridge;
(b) the Commissioners shall at or before the completion of the works specified in the scheme either restore the road or bridge to its former condition or construct a new permanent road or bridge sufficient to carry the like amount (in quantity and character) of traffic as the original road or bridge was able to carry and not substantially less convenient in gradient and curve than such original road or bridge;
(c) when the Commissioners construct a permanent new bridge and such bridge confers substantially greater advantages on the public of any county or urban district than the original bridge, by affording an improved means of communication or otherwise, the Commissioners shall certify the cost of such new bridge and the Minister for Local Government and Public Health shall certify what part of such cost in his opinion ought reasonably to be borne by the council of such county or urban district, and thereupon a sum equal to the part so certified of such cost shall be raised by such council as part of the expenses of the maintenance of main county or urban roads (as the case may be) and shall be paid by such council to the Commissioners.
I beg to move—
In sub-section (1), page 14, line 37, to add at the end of paragraph (c) the words "and the payment of such sum shall be a purpose for which such council may borrow under the enactments relating to borrowing by such council."
That amendment gives the county council power to borrow any large sum which they might have to pay towards the improvement of a bridge.
I move—
In sub-section (1) (c), page 15, line 8, to delete from the words "or as" to the word "bridge" in line 13.
This is to admit words which were inserted by mistake following the precedent of the previous sub-section. They have no application in this case, because a railway improvement is not held to confer any advantage on a particular county or urban district.
I move—
In sub-sections (2) and (3), page 15, lines 16, 25 and 28, to delete the word "railway" and substitute therefor in each case the word "railways."
That is merely verbal.
I move—
In page 17, paragraph 3, line 52, to delete the word "or" and substitute therefor the word "and."
This is simply a correction of a grammatical error.