Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Feb 1928

Vol. 22 No. 2

SEANAD EIREANN—CONSTITUTION AND POWERS OF, AND METHODS OF ELECTION. - ARTERIAL DRAINAGE (MINOR SCHEMES) BILL, 1928—SECOND STAGE.

MINISTER for LOCAL GOVERNMENT and PUBLIC HEALTH (General Mulcahy)

I beg to move the Second Reading of the Arterial Drainage (Minor Schemes) Bill, 1928. The effect of this Bill will be to give very extended powers to the county councils to carry out drainage works. Since the passing of the Local Government Act, 1898, the tendency has been to make the county council more and more the body responsible in the country for drainage. Under old Navigation Acts, between 1842 and 1857, certain trustees were set up over drainage, and under Drainage Acts and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Acts, between 1863 and 1892, Drainage Boards were set up. At the time that the Local Government Act of 1898 was passed, it was clear that a big number of these trustees and boards were not carrying out their drainage duties, and the Local Government Act of 1898 gave power, subject to the Local Government Board in Dublin, for the transfer of the functions of these trustees and boards to any particular county council. Subsequent to 1922 two Acts dealing with general drainage were passed here. The first was the Drainage (Maintenance) Act of 1924, and the next was the Arterial Drainage Act of 1925. Both of these Acts tended more to transfer drainage to the county councils. The Land Act of 1925 also gave powers, subject to the consent of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, by which the Land Commission could transfer to the county councils certain drainage powers. By 1924 it was clear that the old boards and trustees were not functioning. As a matter of fact, the total number of bodies of trustees that came into existence altogether was 115. At present only 63 are functioning; twenty-eight are not functioning, and twenty-four, or practically one-fifth, have been transferred to the county councils. Of the number of drainage boards set up between 1863 and 1892, thirty-five are functioning, seven are not, and twenty-one, or one-third, have been transferred to the county councils. Since the passing of the Act of 1924, in all sixteen councils have become involved in the transfer of drainage powers; so that gradually the county councils are shouldering a very big responsibility for drainage and will ultimately be the drainage authorities throughout the country.

The present Bill will enable a body of three rated occupiers, or three persons in respect of whom land is held in trust or for their benefit, to make an appeal to the county council to have a drainage work carried out, and the county council will have power, with the assistance of a Government grant of one-fifth of the total cost—which total must not exceed more than £1,000, or it cannot come under this Bill—to carry out a scheme. The Government will provide a grant of one-fifth of the total cost, and the county council can give a contribution. There will be an arrangement made by which the county councils can borrow for the carrying out of the work and impose the residue of the cost of the scheme by means of a drainage rate on the owners of the benefited land. The procedure under the Bill will be somewhat like this: Persons applying to have a drainage scheme carried out will have to make application to the county council, giving general particulars of the scheme and a statement of the approximate cost. It will be mandatory on the county council to get, through their county surveyor, a general report upon the proposal and a statement as to its approximate cost. When they have the information before them, the county council will decide whether to go on with the scheme or not. If they decide to go on with the scheme, they have to instruct their county surveyor, or should he perhaps not have the necessary qualifications or the necessary time, they will have to empower and instruct an engineer, employed for the purpose, to prepare a full scheme. When the full scheme is prepared, the usual notice to the public will be given that a particular scheme has been prepared, and facilities will be given to all interested for examining it. In fact, all the rated occupiers in the area that the scheme will cover and all persons from whom it may be proposed to acquire land, either compulsorily or by agreement, will be served with a special notice that such land forms part of the scheme. If persons who control half the valuation of the area concerned decide that they do not want the scheme, then it falls, and in so far as there has been cost in connection with the preparation of the scheme, that cost is borne by the county council. Where more than half the valuation of the area is held by persons who desire the scheme to go on, those who have serious objections to it will be given an opportunity of making their case before a county council meeting and of urging their objections to the scheme.

If, after hearing these objections, the county council decides to confirm the scheme, then it is confirmed, and, in order to avoid litigation, a clause is introduced whereby, when a county council confirms a scheme, it shall be regarded as one that is proper to be carried out under the Bill. The county council will be given powers to acquire land compulsorily if necessary, and these are powers with which local bodies are in general familiar, but a special change is made in connection with this Bill. Hitherto, when local bodies desired to acquire land compulsorily, a provisional order has had to be issued by the Minister for Local Government. That takes time and involves inquiry which may be costly. That provision is being dispensed with in this Bill, so that if a county council decides that it wants to acquire land compulsorily, and, having heard objections to that procedure, the council still decides to go on with the scheme, it can acquire land compulsorily without the necessity or delay of having a provisional order issued.

There are general arrangements made by which arbitration can take place in such cases. There are powers in the Bill, however, which enable a county council to enter on land and carry out work there and pay compensation for that entrance, thus relieving in many cases the necessity for acquiring land compulsorily. When a council has confirmed a scheme, there is machinery by which its county surveyor can proceed to carry out the scheme, and when it is carried out the council will employ a land surveyor to examine the work carried out and give a certificate, in the first place, of the completion of the scheme; in the second place, of the total cost, and, in the third place, of the extent to which the different lands may be regarded as having benefited as a result of the improvements carried out. The assessment of the extent to which the lands have benefited will be the basis on which the drainage rate will be assessed on the different occupiers.

The county council will be completely free to carry on the work, and the only way in which the Minister for Local Government will enter into the matter is in cases where there are joint committees of two county councils involved in a scheme and where ordinarily that work would be carried out by a county council or committee. In such cases the work will be carried out by the joint committee, and in case of a dispute between the two councils on any matter connected with the scheme, principally in connection with the allocation of the cost while the scheme is in progress, the Minister for Local Government may come in to arbitrate. The Minister will also come into the matter in giving permission to borrow and also in framing a code which will give particulars of the lines on which the drainage scheme is to be drawn up, and also particulars of the times for hearing appeals by people who object to the scheme, and also in connection with the forms for use respecting general procedure.

With the exception of cases of that particular kind, a county council accepts a scheme, carries it out, and furnishes certification of such scheme without the interference of any central authority here. The object of that is that these schemes, being small, will probably be large in number and could not conveniently be dealt with centrally. There is a desire to simplify processes and to get over the delay that inevitably comes about where a large number of cases have to be dealt with by a central body, so that the county council will have a pretty free hand to go ahead with small drainage works. There is an element of experiment in the proposal and the fixing of £1,000 as the limit of cost of a scheme under this Bill is also experimental. The period for which the Bill is intended to run is five years, mainly for the purpose of enabling us to see what the results under the Bill will be for that period. There are provisions in the Bill by which drainage schemes that are proposed through the county councils to the Board of Works under the Arterial Drainage Act, 1925, may, if their anticipated cost is less than £1,000, be transferred to the operations of this particular Bill and vice versa.

With regard to the finance of the Bill, one other point requires to be stated. When a scheme is made out for a county council, the anticipated total cost of the drainage work will have to be shown, and if, in the actual working out of the scheme, the cost is greater than that, the difference between the anticipated cost as stated in the scheme and the actual cost is called in this Bill the excess liability. Suppose the work is estimated to cost £900 but the actual cost works out at £1,050, the Government grant on the £900 would be £180, leaving, in the event of the county council making no contribution towards the scheme, £720 to be made up by the drainage rate. The occupiers understanding in the beginning that they are only to be responsible for £720, the Bill relieves them of any responsibility of being made liable to pay more in case the cost of the work is more than that anticipated, and the county council itself will be responsible for paying the amount, namely, the excess liability, which is the difference between the proposed cost and the actual cost of the scheme.

If the total cost of the scheme does not go above £1,000 the Government grant of one-fifth will extend to that portion of the excess cost which is less than £1,000. The Bill, as I say, gives very large powers to the county councils. It is experimental in order to see what class of work will be done by the councils. It does not throw any serious burden on the technical officials of the county councils because the county surveyors as well as the assistant county surveyors in many cases will have the necessary qualifications.

Question proposed—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. DE VALERA

It is not our intention to oppose the principle of this Bill. There are, however, certain amendments which I think will be brought in on the Committee Stage, relating particularly to the State contribution towards the cost of drainage schemes, which we consider to be inadequate.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

I am in favour of the general principle of this Bill. Drainage work is work which is of very great national importance. That, I think, will be generally agreed. There is, however, just one point, which I think it is well to raise at this stage in view of what the Minister stated in his opening remarks. He said that the tendency now was to make the county councils responsible generally for drainage work, and that that tendency has grown from the fact that boards and trustees generally had neglected their work and were not carrying out their duties. In principle that seems to be a commendable change, but I wonder what machinery there will be available, or whether it is proposed that there will be any machinery, in case a county council refuses to carry out the work of drainage or neglects to do so? Does the Minister suggest any way of getting a county council to do this work? I am raising this point because the county council of Mayo has had a drainage scheme before it for quite a considerable time under the Arterial Drainage Act, and it has done nothing so far to put the scheme into operation. I understand the scheme has been examined by the council's engineers and approved of by the Board of Works. We have in Mayo a river, the Roe, which is almost as famous as the Barrow or the Owenmore. Although the scheme has been approved, I understand that the county council in Mayo has refused to make any move towards carrying out the work. We have, I believe, six representatives of the council in this House, three on one side and three on the other, and some of them might give the House information on this matter. I would like to know whether it rests entirely with the county council to carry out drainage work under this Bill, and the Arterial Drainage Act.

Mr. DAVIS

I have listened with interest to Deputy O'Connell. He seemed to talk about a matter of which apparently he has no knowledge, because he stated that the county council of Mayo has refused to carry out a drainage scheme, whereas the facts are that the council has, times out of number, tried to get the Board of Works to carry out the drainage scheme in Mayo. If Deputy O'Connell had inquired into this matter and secured the necessary information, I do not think he would have made the statement that he did. I am surprised that the Deputy would not have taken a greater interest in the affairs of his constituents.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

Is the drainage work being carried out?

Mr. DAVIS

Deputy O'Connell stated that Mayo County Council had declined to carry out this scheme. I repeat that the county council has made several appeals to the Board of Works on this matter. The last assurance the council got was secured by me in reply to a wire I sent from Crossmolina when that town was flooded, to the effect that they would let us have a definite statement by the end of the year. The county council has accepted responsibility in this matter, and I regret that Deputy O'Connell has exposed himself to a certain amount of criticism by his own constituents by making a statement which he would not have made if he had acquainted himself of the facts.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

The work has not been carried out, and I hope we will be able to fix the blame on somebody.

Mr. DAVIS

You stated that the Mayo County Council has refused to carry out the scheme. Do you still adhere to that statement?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

This is not a cross-examination.

Mr. DAVIS

I think the proposals under this Bill are satisfactory, inasmuch as the public are afforded every opportunity of protecting themselves at every stage. If they think a scheme is not going to be beneficial they can raise their objection at the proper time and place. That is an admirable provision. I consider the Minister has taken a step in the right direction. It has been suggested that he has been trying to deprive the local bodies of authority in their own affairs. He is trying to relieve them of a certain amount of red tape that they had heretofore. Instead of restricting local bodies he is removing barriers against their doing what they may desire.

Mr. O'KELLY

Like other speakers, I have already discussed this Bill. I am inclined to favour it, although my belief is thot it will not achieve very much, but as an experiment it will probably be useful. The chief fault I would find with it would be that it limits the amount that could be spent on any scheme to the small sum of £1,000. You will not find many county councils anxious to take up schemes of such a small nature. Probably some individuals whose lands are or have been inundated will be anxious for a drainage scheme in one area in a county, and similar people in another area, but none of them will have sufficient influence or weight with the county council to get a scheme carried out. They will be small areas and without sufficient influence to get their schemes adopted. It appears to me that in dealing with these small schemes, or attempting to deal with them, or encouraging county councils to do so, that before the larger question of the drainage of some of the big rivers of the country, and some of those in particular which have within the last few years caused inundations in wide areas, are dealt with, or an attempt, at any rate, made to alleviate the troubles caused by the flooding of these rivers, it will not help if we tackle these smaller areas. If we began at the other end we might have some hope—having rid ourselves of the larger nuisance—that later the county councils, through interested individuals, could be induced to undertake the work of draining the smaller areas. There is not enough inducement in the sum offered—one-fifth of the total expenditure on these schemes—to get the county councils to undertake such work.

That is an opinion which may be proved false, and I hope it will; and I hope that the result of this experiment, which I think is a commendable one, will prove that the county councils are anxious to take up this work at the instance of the people whose lands have suffered from flooding. But I am afraid that it will not turn out so. I think that the Minister is to be commended for taking, as far as he has done so, this work out of the hands of these trustees and drainage boards. It is, I think, a wise and a progressive policy that should be followed in other directions, that is, taking this out of separate departments and giving control to one central body. The county council is the proper body, in my opinion, and if they do not do their work, as Deputy O'Connell has suggested, well, then, the people whose lands suffer have their remedy. They can, when the time for election comes, elect men on their county councils to represent them who will carry out their wishes. I do not at the moment see what other means could be adopted to force the county councils unless in matters that would be of wider importance than these small schemes. I do not know if it is possible at this stage to suggest an amendment to Section 14 of the Bill which fixes the amount of the cost to be contributed from State funds at one-fifth. Perhaps you, A Chinn Comhairle, would inform me if it would be possible to give notice that the sum be two-fifths instead of one-fifth?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy can, of course, take exception to the section of the Bill which fixes the contribution from State funds at one-fifth, but under the Standing Orders no Deputy other than a member of the Executive Council can move for what is called a charge upon the public funds. Similarly, when in Committee on this Bill it will not be possible for a Deputy other than a member of the Executive Council to move to increase the grant as set out under Section 14 of the Bill. When the Bill has received a Second Reading a Money Resolution will be introduced, which I have not seen but which, I presume, will be in the same form as sub-section (1) of Section 14. On that Money Resolution exception can be taken to the amount of the grant, but the Money Resolution having been carried will govern the proceedings in Committee, and it will not be possible for anybody after that to move to increase the amount of the State contribution. The Standing Order on this matter is 101.

Mr. O'KELLY

That being so, we must only wait until that Money Resolution is introduced. In the meantime, I think the Bill might well be let go, as it is, in my opinion at any rate, an important attempt to improve the machinery for carrying out arterial drainage in the country. It will perhaps, simplify matters and help to get over the interminable delay that holds up work of this kind. It is an experiment worth trying, but I am not favourably impressed with the possibilities that it will materially improve the drainage throughout the country within the next five years.

Mr. GEORGE WOLFE

I welcome this Bill, though it is a small Bill. I welcome it as having in it great possibilities of being of great advantage to the country. It is not to be presumed altogether that the entire damage to the land of the country by flooding is done by the overflow of the big rivers. There is an incalculable amount of damage done in the country through the overflow of small rivers. I do not know if there is not more damage done by the small rivers than even by the big rivers. People have been bearing with this damage for years. Anyone who travels, north, south, east or west through the country will see that that is the case. Quite small rivers are doing an infinite amount of damage and people seem to put up with it in an extraordinarily patient way. I do not know why. This Bill will give a great opportunity to ameliorate cases of that kind. There has been a certain amount of drainage done lately in my county of Kildare. I am aware that the Kildare Co. Council have always taken a very great interest in the extension of drainage. When I was a member of it a few years ago they were very anxious about taking advantage of drainage. There is still a great deal to be done in the way of drainage there, and I am sure it is the same in other counties.

Deputy O'Kelly found fault with the amount of money that is available in the way of a contribution from the State. We would all like to have a larger sum of money, but still a great deal can be done with £1,000, and anybody who has had anything to do with drainage works will agree that that is so. I speak from personal experience, because I was troubled by a river that ran through my own place, and a couple of years ago, at a comparatively small cost, I carried out improvements which I consider were very good value. I know that a great many districts not very far from mine would be benefited very much by a small amount of money spent on draining them. I am very anxious to see this work carried out now, as there is a great deal of distress and unemployment. These improvements would certainly give a great deal of employment in every way. Even though the amount is small, yet a great deal can be done for £1,000 in the way of drainage. A thousand pounds spent on one of those small rivers would go a very long way in deepening the rivers, clearing away weeds and so on. I think that altogether we are very fortunate to have this Bill brought before us. There may be sections in it that could be improved, and no doubt they will be improved in Committee. This Bill is one that will have a lasting effect for good on the country through the improvement of land which is in very many places very much needing improvement. In many parts of the country land has been really allowed to go to waste through want of care in the matter of drainage, and very often very little expenditure in the beginning would have put matters right. I am in hopes that from this Bill very great good will result. I am sure if all Parties in the Dáil are unanimous about it, good and satisfactory results will follow its passage through the House.

Mr. GOULDING

I agree with the Deputy that if this Bill is amended in some sections it can be made a very useful one. There are one or two points that I would like to raise if I may. I would like to ask the Minister if the county councils and a city corporation can join together in the carrying out of this Bill. The Bill specifically speaks of two county councils co-operating. May I take it that the Corporation of Waterford would take the place of a county council?

General MULCAHY

County boroughs are excluded under the Bill.

Mr. GOULDING

The reason I raise the point is that near the City of Waterford considerable damage is done by flooded marshes; damage is done to the land and to the county roads. The Corporation of Waterford approached the County Council some time ago with reference to a scheme and the County Council turned the matter down. Now, if the County Council could obtain any advantage under this Act, I think that work would be undertaken, and it is very desirable work. If the Minister could see his way to include corporations it would facilitate county councils very much. The allowance of one-fifth as a State grant is good, but I am afraid that many of the county councils would not consider it adequate. What they are afraid of is the cost of maintenance. The argument used by the county councils is that if they carry out the work they will be charged with the cost of maintenance for all time, and it is very hard to assess a rate to meet such a contingency as that. If some of these points are cleared up the Bill will be all the better for it.

Mr. MATHEWS

I also welcome this Arterial Drainage (Minor Schemes) Bill. There are very many applications under the Arterial Drainage Act of 1925 in my county that would come under this measure; they are small schemes of £400 and £500. It is difficult to assess a rate for the carrying out of the work, because often the land benefited is a good bit away from where the drainage works are carried out. What I mean is, not the adjacent land that would be subject to the area of charge, but the land that is further away and which will also be benefited.

I ask the Minister to consider increasing the State contribution. Under the Arterial Drainage Act of 1925 I think the Minister for Finance in some cases gave 33 per cent. and, as a further inducement to the carrying out of schemes, if county councils would make a contribution of ten per cent. or twelve per cent. the Minister for Finance was prepared to give a further contribution of a like amount. Under the Drainage Act of 1925 the grants amounted to about 60 per cent. of the total cost. If the county councils and the occupiers of the land have to provide four-fifths of the money, I am afraid that the county councils will look upon the schemes as being uneconomic. They are not uneconomic in the strict sense of the word, but the improvement in the value of the land will not appear to justify the expenditure. For that reason I ask the Minister to increase the State contribution.

Mr. M. CONLON

I read through this Bill carefully, and, in my opinion, any person would take it to be a Bill which will be of great benefit to the country. But I must say from experience of the Arterial Drainage Act of 1925, and the manner in which it has been availed of, I am afraid the people in the constituency I represent will not avail of this measure to any great extent, although it is a portion of the country in which a great deal of damage is done through flooding. The County Council of Roscommon was offered 50 per cent. in connection with a particular scheme, and yet that scheme was not carried out. The County Council was offered a free grant of 50 per cent., but they did not consider the scheme was such that they would approve of it and give a grant in aid. Now, if a grant of 20 per cent., which is the maximum amount allowed under this Bill, is offered, I do not believe it will be accepted. If the amount is to be confined to that figure, I think it will be impossible, in the area I represent, to get any drainage work carried out, particularly with regard to small schemes under £1,000.

There are a great many sections in the Bill that require amendment, but they are not of any great importance. This is the most important item in the Bill, and yet it is an item that no ordinary Deputy can have amended. I join with other Deputies in appealing to the Minister to increase the amount to be allowed; he certainly should endeavour to improve that section and leave it open to the Minister for Finance to consider the amount that he will put down in any particular case. Unless that is done it will defeat the object aimed at. That is the only item I desire to lay emphasis on. The Minister should provide a larger sum than 20 per cent. There are other items which can be dealt with by way of amendment when the Bill is again before us.

Mr. CORISH

So far as this scheme goes it is very welcome, and it simplifies to a great extent the difficulties which confront landowners in various parts of the country; but it does not go far enough, especially in view of the fact that drainage in different areas has been neglected for a great number of years, and particularly in later years when the people of the country were engaged doing something else. I agree with the last Deputy that the Government contribution is not adequate. There are acres upon acres of land under water at present. There are particular parts of the country which require to be drained and which would form as big jobs as a great many of the drainage areas which are scheduled within the meaning of the Arterial Drainage Act. It would require a great deal more money than the county councils are able to put up to deal adequately with the demands made in these particular areas. In the constituency I represent I know that representations have been made in at least six cases to the Board of Works this year with a view to a suitable grant being given for drainage.

I join in the appeal made from various parts of the House to the Minister requesting him to consider increasing the grant the Government proposes to give. The Bill certainly simplifies the position from the point of view of the people who require to have their lands drained and also the county councils, but it does not go far enough. There is a good deal of window-dressing in this Bill and I believe we will find that when it becomes an Act it does not do all that is now expected of it.

Mr. HASLETT

I welcome this Bill too. We are ready enough to condemn other measures that have been brought forward, and it is only fair that in this instance we should mark our approval. The Minister has given a very frank statement of this measure which will be welcomed in many parts of the country, especially for the reason that it will tend to make the larger schemes all the better. A great many people when speaking of the larger schemes that are now before the Board of Works ask: "What about the rivers and drains leading up to them?" This scheme, to my mind, will relieve anxiety on that question and will make it possible that many of the smaller schemes can be carried out. I agree with what other speakers have said in regard to the contribution. Those of us who have looked into the reports which have come from the Board of Works in regard to the larger schemes will have seen that but for the State contribution they would not have been an economic proposition, but of course it has to be remembered that the drainage will have more far-reaching effects than that. The drainage will be a benefit and an asset to the State in the future. I would agree with those who have said that a larger contribution than one-fifth of the cost would be helpful. It would encourage such work to be done. In view of the climate that we have developed in recent years and with the appearance of so much land soured and under rushes, a larger contribution than the one-fifth would be a decided inducement to the people of the country to take heart and tackle this drainage work in real earnest. I welcome the Bill. It may not be a perfect Bill, but I think it is one that will stand a good deal of criticism. When it is passed and becomes an Act, as we hope it will, I feel it will prove to be a very useful thing for all who live by the cultivation of the soil.

Mr. T.J. MURPHY

I think all Deputies are agreed on the point that the contribution from the Central Fund to make the schemes proposed under this Bill a success is not as big as is necessary. I feel that a great deal more will have to be done in that respect. The Bill is important in this respect, that the procedure for getting work of this kind done is much simpler under it than the procedure laid down for work of the kind under the Act of 1925. After the Bill of 1925 became an Act it was at once felt, I think, that the procedure under it was cumbersome and involved a great deal of delay. I can see some difficulties, too, in connection with this Bill, and can imagine what is going to happen in a big county like Cork. There we have only two county surveyors. I can see the hopeless confusion that is going to be created with regard to their work. Big demands will be made on them in connection with the schemes under this Bill, and they will also, of course, have to attend to their ordinary duties. I do not know how that difficulty can be got over, but I feel it will present a difficulty as regards making schemes under this Bill a success. We have had much experience of the working of the 1925 Act in the County Cork. As a matter of fact only one scheme has been tackled. While that is so, it is only fair to say that the responsibility for delay in the matter does not rest with the Department or with the people who have provided the machinery to tackle schemes of the kind.

Speaking from my own experience, I would like to say that the work done in restoring existing drainage districts has been very well done. It has given a great deal of satisfaction and has resulted in bringing about an improvement over a very large area of land in different parts of the constituency that I represent. From what I know of the demand that there is for schemes of this kind, I think it would be desirable to have introduced a more comprehensive scheme than the one now before us. An attempt should be made to meet the demands that will undoubtedly be put up for an increase in the contribution from State funds, and for better facilities for a speedier and fuller examination of the schemes submitted than can be provided at the moment by the county councils with the machinery at their disposal. So far as the Bill goes to meet the very urgent demands that will be made for schemes of this kind well and good, but I think it might be amended with good effect. I feel the suggestions that have been put forward towards achieving that end ought to receive very careful consideration.

Mr. LITTLE

There seems to me to be no finance in this Bill at all. The county councils are in difficulties. They are not able to collect the rates and are not in a position to raise loans. This Bill will be a dead letter. It will, however, have served one purpose—it will have relieved the Central Government of the responsibility, and, as I think Deputy Corish said, it will provide a certain amount of window dressing. It will give the Government an excuse for shirking responsibility which they should themselves carry out. The small farmers of the country especially are suffering very much from the want of a proper system of small drainage schemes. These are schemes which should be done by grants direct from the Central Government rather than be schemes carried out under the direction of the county councils. The small farmers have to contribute to the rates. The farming industry is in a very depressed condition at present. So much so that many of the county councils are in debt, and none of them can afford to increase the rates in order to raise the necessary money to pay for drainage schemes. For that reason I think this measure is not going to be a success. In principle it is good in certain matters. There are points in it with which everyone must agree—for instance, the decentralisation and the handing over of administration to the county councils for the carrying out of the work, but so long as the county councils are not in a position to provide the funds to enable them to carry out the work, the Act is really worse than useless and will merely act as window dressing in the eyes of the public. It will leave the real trouble unremedied.

Mr. RUTTLEDGE

I would like to know from the Minister what he means by valuation basis approving these schemes when putting them forward. If my interpretation of the Minister's explanation is correct, it seems to me that one large grazier, a person nonresident with a considerable farm, could keep ten or twelve or more poor dwellers floating around in a hovel. I hope that interpretation is not correct. If it is, it certainly shows a flaw and needs to be remedied. It would be intolerable if valuation basis meant that one person would be able to hold up a whole scheme simply because he happened to be a large land holder in an area and that around him you had a very congested district. If, because of the fact that his valuation was greater than the combined valuations of all the people in that congested area, he was able to hold up a scheme, then I say that should not be allowed. I agree with what has been said by Deputy O'Kelly, and I am glad to say by some Deputies on the other side of the House, namely, that the contribution mentioned is hopelessly insufficient. I hope that the Minister will consider giving a two-fifths contribution instead of the one-fifth as heretofore.

Deputy O'Connell referred to schemes not being put into force in the County Mayo. My recollection is that when this question of drainage was mooted, and before the people had an opportunity of appreciating exactly what the benefits would be under the scheme, they were very enthusiastic, but when they found out the position in regard to the contribution they would receive that enthusiasm became considerably damped, and drainage has not gone ahead. There are, as Deputy Davis has said, other difficulties as well. I think most of the Deputies on those benches would be very anxious to know has the Minister in mind any plans for speeding up the bigger questions of drainage in the country. There are more rivers in urgent need of attention than the Barrow and places like that, that have been fortunate in their representatives or something of that sort. There are rivers like the Moy and the Robe in Mayo where thousands and thousands of acres are flooded and under water. For some time back an inspector has been sounding the depths —I do not know whether he has found the heights yet—and inspecting these places, but what we do not know is when the bigger schemes will be embarked upon. The smaller schemes cannot be a success until the larger schemes are first embarked upon.

General MULCAHY

Bearing in mind that this Ministry deals with public health, I do not want to disparage in any way the benefit to public health which may be brought about by drainage in the country, but as to the money available for public health purposes, I certainly would weigh the matter very carefully if I had the spending of such money before deciding whether it should be spent on drainage or spent in any other direction. We have not yet, as a matter of policy, looked upon arterial drainage from any other point than as a business enterprise. It is not likely that in the discussion of this Bill from the point of view of the State contribution we can depart from that aspect of things. We still, in presenting this Bill, want to regard arterial drainage as a business enterprise. Some of the remarks that have been made, particularly, I think, by Deputy O'Kelly, seem to ignore the fact that the Arterial Drainage Act of 1925 can deal with all the bigger schemes and any minor schemes that the Minister for Finance decides to deal with under that Act.

With the Bill now before us we have a complete drainage code. The Drainage Maintenance Act of 1924 enabled old drainage districts to be entered upon by the Board of Works, improved and handed over to the County Council for maintenance with a suitable drainage rate. The Arterial Drainage Act of 1925 enabled all the big drainage work in the country to be done under that Act. The Minister for Finance is restricted in no way as to the amount of the grant he may give for any particular drainage scheme. This Bill deals with small schemes. Any three occupiers can ask to have a drainage scheme dealt with, and because of the fact that it deals with small schemes, and also because of the fact that the money spent in carrying out these schemes will, to a pretty large extent, go in wages to some of the occupiers or their sons in these particular areas, a grant of one-fifth from central funds to these schemes as a flat grant cannot be regarded as unreasonable, I think. At any rate, we would require much more detailed and systematic representations before we could be forced from that particular point of view. There might be schemes that on the face of them might warrant a little more than one-fifth, or schemes that, on the face of them, would warrant a little less than one-fifth, but the giving of a flat rate gets rid of an examination of the smaller schemes to know whether we should give one-fifth point twenty-seven or one-fifth point twenty-four. I do not know that there is any other way out of it.

It is mandatory on the county council, when a scheme is put up under this Bill, to get a preliminary report from the county surveyor on the merits of the scheme. They can turn down the scheme on his report. Generally there is no intention at the present moment to interfere with the county councils turning down schemes which they consider are not proper schemes to proceed with. If to any very large extent, a county council neglects its statutory duties, there are ample powers under the Local Government Acts of 1923 and 1925, to bring suitable pressure to bear on them to carry out their statutory duties. Power is being given under this Bill to individual occupiers to proceed along particular lines, and power is being given to county councils to help them to proceed along these lines. There is very little use in any of us standing with a stick over the county councils and telling them to get on with this work.

Deputy Goulding raised a question regarding the possibility of a borough co-operating with the county council. I feel that if the scheme Deputy Goulding has in mind were gone into, it would be found that the cost would be more than £1,000. I cannot imagine a drainage scheme involving a borough together with the county council that could be regarded as a minor drainage scheme. The Deputy can further consider the matter with a view to putting in an amendment on the Committee Stage if he thinks there is a possibility of small schemes being prejudiced by borough councils being left out. However, it is considered that if there was a small scheme that involved a borough council and a county council, there is power, even if it were under £1,000, under the Drainage Act of 1925, to go ahead with that scheme, because the present Act introduces a clause that makes it necessary that all schemes under £1,000, if submitted under the 1925 Act, must come back to the county council to be carried out under this Act. If there is any point in it that prevents the county council carrying it out under this Act—such a point would be that a borough council was involved in it—then the scheme would revert back as a scheme for drainage under the Act of 1925, so on consideration I think the point hardly arises.

Mr. GOULDING

Is the State contribution also available under the 1925 Act?

General MULCAHY

Yes. There is no restriction on the Minister for Finance in giving a contribution of any amount. He could give a contribution of the whole of the cost if he thought the circumstances warranted it.

There is no idea of window-dressing in this Bill. If it is not going to be a success it simply means that the cost of drainage under present circumstances is such that drainage is not economically worth while going on with. While there may be some persons and some councils that may look at the matter from that point of view, there is ample evidence that there are others who will be very glad to avail of the provisions of this Bill. Although I have not attempted to suggest in anything I have said that this is a great Bill, I suggest that it is a useful Bill and that it gives people powers to get drainage carried out who have not the powers already. I, personally, have hopes that very good work will be done under the Bill.

Deputy Murphy thinks that the county surveyors may be saddled with too much work under this Bill. If they are, there is power under the Bill to enable county councils to employ outside engineers for the purpose of these schemes. If it is worth while doing it, we expect that county councils will do it. We look forward with some hope to county councils realising the business possibilities of drainage, even from the economic point of view. Deputy Ruttledge raised a point that I will undertake to look into. The Bill as drafted suggests that the aggregate value as stated in the drainage schemes of the lands that are proposed to be improved will be considered, and that if occupiers of more than one-half of that aggregate value oppose the scheme it will be dropped. The case which the Deputy suggested may be purely a hypothetical one, but it is worth some consideration as to whether that is a fair way to leave the matter. If the Deputy on his part will see how a better arrangement may be suggested by an amendment, I will see if from my side I can suggest a better arrangement.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 29th instant.