Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 5 Jul 1927

Vol. 20 No. 5

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 8—LOCAL LOANS.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £456,000 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1928, chun capital do sholáthar do Chiste na nIasachtaí Aitiúla, agus chun asíoc do dhéanamh le Rialtas na Breataine mar gheall ar iasachtai áitiúla atá gan íoc.

That a sum not exceeding £456,000 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, to provide capital for the Local Loans Fund and to make repayment to the British Government in respect of local loans outstanding.

I think Deputies on the Labour benches complain that the amount under sub-head A is reduced, and that consequently the money available for giving employment is also reduced. The practice in regard to the Local Loans Fund is not to sanction any loan except the money is actually available for the amount of the loan, so that the amount to be voted in any particular year is what will be necessary with the amount already available in the Fund, in order to enable sanction to be given to the loans that will come up during the financial year to which the Estimates relate. This is one of the Estimates difficult to frame because of the factors that have to be considered. You have not merely the amount you actually want to spend in a particular financial year, but you have to consider the amount that is available in the financial year in which the Estimates are being prepared; the amount that is likely to be sanctioned in that year, the amount of any repayments that may come into the Fund, and the amount that will remain at the end of the year. The amount of money sanctioned for loans does not depend on any particular department. It depends on other people. The amount sanctioned in land loans depends on the number of people who apply for such loans; the amount sanctioned for public health loans depends on the number who apply for these loans. The amount asked for this year, together with the amount that was outstanding in the Local Loans Fund at the end of the last financial year, will enable approximately the same amounts, or in some cases greater amounts, to be sanctioned in the coming year as were sanctioned actually during the past financial year.

For instance, it will enable land loans to the amount of £100,000 to be sanctioned. These are loans given for farm buildings, for drainage, and work of that nature. It will enable drainage maintenance loans to be given to the extent of £30,000. The amount is somewhat less than that sanctioned last year. But the work under the Drainage Maintenance Act is drawing to a close and the money will suffice for all that could be done this year. It will enable arterial drainage loans to the extent of £100,000 to be sanctioned. It will enable public health loans to the extent of £175,000 to be sanctioned. The amount of public health loans sanctioned in the previous financial year was £146,000. A new sub-head, sub-head B, has been substituted, because under the annuity agreed to be paid to the British Government of £600,000 it is not possible to distinguish between the amount that will be payable in respect of each of the two previous subheads—Local Loans or Local Loans under the Land Acts.

I did not catch what the Minister said was the total amount of money in hands and the money now sought. Will the Minister add the two together and tell us what they amount to?

£405,000.

The Minister indicated that under the Arterial Drainage Act of 1925 £100,000 is available for the purpose of carrying out drainage. As far as I know, nothing has been done under this Act in any part of the country. From what I know of the problem of drainage for the better administration of the Acts it is essential that the Arterial Drainage Act of 1925 should be amended. The difficulties of administering the present Act are so great that work which might be carried out in one or two years will take perhaps ten years to complete. The present Act places all the responsibility on the Board of Works for the construction of drainage works. I think this question was raised during the election. I am not sure if it was not in the Minister's constituency.

That was a more appropriate place than this, because the Deputy in criticising the Act is out of order. If he criticises the Minister he is in order.

I would like to criticise the Minister. Up to the present he has not stated if he intends to enable County Councils to act under the present Act.

I am afraid that is criticism of the House.

I do not know if I would be in order in asking the Minister's intentions with regard to an amendment of the Act. This is a very important matter. I do not know if the Minister would object to letting the House and the country know his intentions. In every county there are a number of very small schemes which come within the purview of the 1925 Act. These are schemes which could be carried out for £50, £100, and, perhaps, £300. If local authorities, such as county councils, were empowered to do the work it could be done in a year or two. I would like to know from the Minister if there is any intention to introduce, at an early date, any legislation enabling county councils to do constructional work of a small kind, where the amount of money to be spent would be from £30 to £500. I do not know if the Minister will be able to inform the House where the £100,000 is to be spent, and what new drainage works are to be carried out. I am afraid, from the speech that the Minister has made, the constituency I represent will not be able to obtain much of that money during this financial year.

What has been done in the matter of drainage so far has really been done in two or three areas. Sligo has been very well looked after; we are having the Barrow attended to, and there is another river somewhere in the South, in Cork or Kerry, that is being attended to. While no Deputy should urge that the money should be spent unless there was justification for it, at the same time I think the country as a whole should be considered. The money should be spent as far as possible over the country as a whole. If a particular area is not in a position to benefit under the 1925 Drainage Act, you may find that under the Drainage Maintenance Act of 1924 practically nothing has been done in that area. I want to ask the Minister to give consideration to the point of view that, while drainage is very important in practically every part of the Saorstát, it is doubtful if it is justifiable to spend very considerable sums in certain limited areas, whilst drainage problems of the same magnitude are left unattended to in other parts of the country. I would ask that consideration be given to that point of view.

As regards the £30,000 that is to be spent under the 1924 Drainage Maintenance Act, I would ask that the Minister would give an indication as to where it is to be spent during the financial year 1927-1928.

As regards the first question put by the Deputy in reference to legislation, perhaps he would allow me to say that it is the intention to introduce an Act to enable County Councils to deal with any scheme that would cost less than £1,000. We hope that we will be able to introduce the Bill after the summer recess. As regards where the money under the Drainage Maintenance Act will be spent, work is at present in progress in Turloughmore district, Co. Galway—it will cost about £7,400—Hind River, County Roscommon, £4,000; Kilmastulla, County Tipperary, £5,800; Milford, County Cork, £1,530; the River Suck, Galway and Roscommon, £16,000; Lough Mask and River Robe, Mayo and Galway, £1,100. It is not so easy to tell where the money under the Arterial Drainage Act, 1925, will be spent, because here the consent of the owners of the land must be obtained. So far, although we have a number of schemes ready to submit to the occupiers, only two have actually been submitted— Multeen River, Co. Tipperary, and Paddinstown, Co. Westmeath. There seems to be a good deal of local opposition, we are informed, to the carrying out of these schemes. There are other schemes ready to be submitted—Awbeg in County Cork; Carrowreagh, County Roscommon; Tievebrack, Co. Tirconaill; Clonlisk, Co. Offaly; Riverstown, Co. Westmeath, and Akeragh Lough, Co. Kerry. There are some others that are almost at that stage, but it is quite possible that in some of these cases people may say that they are not going to bear the cost that would fall on them. Again, there are other cases where we can only agree to go on if County Councils will agree to some contribution, because without a County Council contribution the schemes would not be economic, and the progress will depend on what is decided on by the County Councils.

We gave £11,000 in the Cork County Council towards the Awbeg scheme, and it has not been started yet.

If with your £11,000 and the Government contribution, the people are willing to pay the remainder, the scheme will be gone on with.

They are willing.

Have they formally expressed their willingness?

I am expressing it for them.

I would like to know from the Minister if he has had full particulars regarding the drainage scheme in Mayo, and how far they have proceeded with that scheme up to the present. I must admit that we have received some particulars—perhaps exhaustive particulars—but it is very difficult to understand the delay that has occurred from the time the scheme was formulated by the County Council down to the present time. We are not prepared to proceed with the scheme in one portion of the county until every portion of the county can receive the same treatment. So far we have not been able to make any progress. It is twelve months since we formulated the scheme. Petitions were lodged and the people concerned have committed themselves to their consent through signing these petitions so far as the lands are concerned.

I am not sure that that matter arises on this Vote. Perhaps it might arise on the Board of Works Vote. At any rate there have been an enormous number of schemes; I do not know how many, but there have been many hundreds. Unless I have notice from the Deputy I cannot answer him as regards the particulars of any special scheme, but the Deputy, I think, will have to make up his mind to be content with having one scheme going on at one time in County Mayo. If we have to get five or six schemes to satisfy every part of the county, it seems to me that the only thing to do would be to leave Mayo till the last, and the Deputy would not like that.

As far as the County Council is concerned, our desire is to have the county dealt with as a whole and that the different applications should be dealt with on the merits. Take the most important ones in order, and get on with them in that way. There are only a few paltry schemes that are proposed to be dealt with.

If the Deputy puts down a question with regard to any scheme in which he is interested he will get a reply. I have only information with regard to schemes that have reached a definite stage.

In every constituency we have Barrows and Awbegs and drainage schemes. In my constituency we could start drainage schemes, but the people would not be in a position to repay their cost for some years. It would be four, five or six years before any benefit would come to the tenants of the places improved, and before they could grow two blades of corn instead of one, or feed two or three cows in a place where they can only feed one now. If they were given half a dozen years in which to repay the cost it would benefit them very much.

Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share