I move: That the Bill be received for final consideration.
ARTERIAL DRAINAGE (MINOR SCHEMES) BILL, 1928—REPORT.
I wish to raise what is perhaps a formal point and perhaps more in connection with the Bill. It is a point that was discussed on the Committee Stage. According to the title of the Bill, schemes are limited to arterial drainage, but according to the text of the Bill it seems to me that its scope is much wider. Under Section 2 we find that any "three or more persons being occupiers of lands which are liable to be flooded or injured by water or"—I ask the Dáil to note the word "or" there—"which are capable of being improved by drainage" may do so and so. It came out in the discussion on the Bill that it was clearly the intention of the Minister to make the Bill such that schemes carried out under it could only apply to arterial drainage. Many Deputies seemed to think that the Bill was intended to apply to lands such as we all know need drainage, but which could not be called arterial drainage. It seems to me that if the Bill becomes law in this form it will give rise to questions which will be very difficult to settle, such as whether the title is overriding the text or not. I submit the matter ought to be considered between this and the consideration of the Bill by the other House. If it be found that the point I am making is a good one, then it can be made quite clear by amendment what the intention of the Bill is.
On the Committee Stage there was quite clearly a difference of opinion between certain Deputies and the Minister as to what the actual effect of the Bill was. My point in rising now is to give an opportunity to have the matter considered in the interval that will elapse between now and the sending of the Bill to the other House so that it can be settled quite definitely.
Would I be in order in asking that the Minister should agree to defer the Report Stage of this Bill for the present in order that consideration might be given to the insertion of additional amendments making this Bill, which I consider a very important one, applicable to bogs and turbaries? The drainage of bogs and turbaries is a matter of very great importance, but in order to fit work of that kind into this Bill it will be necessary to have, I think, a new section inserted. With the exception of one or two little items, the machinery of the Bill is applicable to bogs. As regards the drainage of bogs, the question of assessment to the benefited land arises. That makes a very big difference. Turf banks and turbaries are held under all sorts of conditions. For the most part they are situate at very long distances from the homes of their holders. There is another point, that a lot of them are not rated at all, at least they are not rated against the people who really get the benefit of them.
If county councils undertake arterial drainage in the vicinity of bogs for the purpose of draining turf banks, they will have to be empowered under some section to make an assessment on the benefited land, but not on the holding of the benefited person, because the benefited land, if I may call it land, is not rated at all. Another point is that the period for repayment of the money advanced would have to be necessarily short where you are dealing with bogs. The reason for that is that bogs are cut out quickly, and after a certain period of years, would have outlived their usefulness. In addition, the county councils would have to be relieved of the responsibility for maintenance because the maintenance of bog drains is a matter which would probably incur very heavy responsibility. Further, an arterial drain made around a bog may in ten or fifteen years have outlived its usefulness, and may simply become a kind of old drain that would really be a source of danger to stock, etc. In a case like that the county council might be responsible. I think that, if the two points I have made, one with regard to assessment and the other the continuing liability for maintenance, were provided for in the Bill, it would really become a very useful measure for the country.
Since I came here I have had more complaints about the drainage of bogs than of anything else. I know myself of cases where people are, so to speak, walking over bogs, getting about half the turf out of them and leaving the rest there, and all because of the want of drainage. I know various bogs in my own locality which could be improved by a small expenditure of sums, say, of £100 or £200. If county councils were to do that they would have to get the power to assess a rate on the holding, not of the benefited land, but of the beneficiary. As the county councils have not that power at present, they could not leave themselves liable for the cost of maintenance. I hope the Minister will meet the points I have made.
In reply to the points raised by Deputy Thrift, the wording of Section 2 in the Bill is exactly the same as the wording of Section 2 in the Arterial Drainage Act of 1925, and I am not aware of any legal difficulty having arisen under that Act because of any person wanting to have thorough drainage carried out. As Deputy Thrift says, the point can be further considered, and, if necessary, can be amended in the Seanad. It is quite possible that we have to be more careful of the wording in the matter of minor schemes under arterial drainage. The reason for taking descriptions from the 1925 Act was to make it perfectly clear that this Bill is simply an adjunct to the 1925 Act, and that it does not involve a difference of principle in what constitutes arterial drainage. In reply to Deputy Brennan, it is possible a bog that might come into the drainage scheme under this particular Bill is not rated, but the question as to whether the land is rated or not does not enter into it. What does enter in is the extent of the annual value by which the land is supposed to be benefited by the scheme. While in most cases the annual valuation and the possible increase in that valuation guide the surveyors in estimating the amount of benefit to the land, they are not confined within the terms of this Bill to that. When a scheme is being made and the estimated benefit is being examined, it may be that the land would be of such a nature that perhaps even a land valuer might assess his benefits on the ratio of area, or some other ratio. He is not bound on the question of valuation.
The only thing that binds the land valuer is that in estimating the benefit the land may be expected to derive from drainage is that he adopts the formula that can in equity apply to the different areas of benefited land he has examined, so that the question of any part of a man's land being a bog and not being valued has not, under the 1925 Act, given rise to difficulties of any kind. Bogs of the kind the Deputy referred to have been drained as part of the drainage schemes under the 1925 Act. It is simply a question for the purpose of the drainage rate of finding the ratio of benefit, so that the completed cost can be divided over the different lands for the purpose of collecting the drainage rate. I do not think it is possible, if a particular piece of bog has been benefited, and a drainage rate is being put on the owner in respect of that bog, that it can be regarded in any way that that drainage rate should apply to a few of his fields or to his holding. He is rated in respect of the bog. If any question arises as to the desirability of having the actual cost of the scheme collected by a drainage rate in a shorter time for a bog than for any other kind of land, I do not think it would be practicable to arrange for that, for there will be very few cases in which land that is simply a bog will be dealt with. If you have a drainage scheme carried out in which you have certain land benefited in an adjacent bog, it would be very difficult to arrange that the drainage rate over the non-bog land would run over a different period to the drainage rate for bog lands. I think the Deputy is raising hypothetical questions.
It is rather news to me that the county council is responsible for the maintenance of an arterial drainage scheme, and that if somebody's cow fell into a river or stream the county council is to be liable for it. I think if a cow fell into a stream that the county council would prosecute the person owning the cow for interfering with the arterial drainage scheme. I suggest that a point like that can receive full consideration between this and the time that the Bill comes on for discussion in the Seanad, and that we can more effectively deal with the matter when the Bill is going through the Seanad than by having a further discussion on it on an adjourned Report Stage. I do not want to press the Final Stages of the Bill to-day, but I think the course I suggested is the most common-sense way of dealing with the matter. We have given the Bill very full consideration, and, as I have explained, it is a month since the Second Reading took place. I do not think that Deputy Professor Thrift was quite right when he said there was rather a difference of opinion on the Committee Stage as to what exactly was involved as regards drainage under this Bill. It was rather the bog question that arose. I am entirely in the hands of the House in this matter, but I think such points as remain after the discussion here, and the two small points that now arise, can be more effectively dealt with if we let the Bill go into the hands of the Seanad and give the Seanad the opportunity of having the Bill before them for some weeks before they begin to consider it after Easter.
Bogs are very peculiar, and the drainage of them is a different matter to ordinary drainage. If you are draining low-lying lands you make your drain in the best place to get a fall for the water. In bogs you may make your drain in a place that is most suitable this year but that would be unsuitable in a few years' time. Repayment with regard to the initial outlay in the drainage of bogs ought to be put on a different basis to that on other lands. Very often the landlord made a drain around or across a bog. He did good and useful work in draining the bog for a number of years, and he gave people the opportunity of opening up the bog. I think it would be a good thing for the county councils to follow the example of the landlords and take steps to get that work done.
That rather suggests that the financial aspect of arterial drainage in connection with bogs is different from the financial aspect where there are no bogs, and that it is going to be very costly.
I would not say so.
If a certain amount of money is spent on a particular place and it is only going to give value for a certain number of years, although you want to have the money collected, if there is no cost for maintenance, then there is going to be no maintenance rate. If there is effective drainage, the full value of the scheme is got out of it. so that the work that is carried out, if the main fall of the water shifts away to another place, is effective and the land is fully and permanently improved.
Mr. KILLANE rose.
I am going to hear Deputy Killane, although as a matter of fact I presumed the Minister was concluding the debate. As to Deputy Brennan's point, that surely should have been raised by way of an amendment on the Committee Stage, rather than now. When you get to the Report Stage of a Bill with no amendment on the Paper, really you are precluded from discussing anything but what is in the Bill, and Deputy Brennan wants to make a substantial alteration without having any amendment down.
Really, what I wanted to know was whether I would be in order in asking to have the consideration of the Bill adjourned, as this is a very valuable point and it would be a great loss if it were not included in the Bill.
The Deputy wants to put something into the Bill, and it is rather late for that on the Report Stage. I do not think it would be in order to move, in the case of a Bill that has been a reasonable time before the House, to postpone it for the purpose of putting in an amendment about which, after hearing the matter, I have some doubt whether it could be put into this particular Bill, although I am not deciding that now.
There is a great deal in what Deputy Brennan has said. No money spent on drainage will give as good a return as money spent on bog drainage. Where bogs are not drained an immense amount of waste occurs. Deputies who do not know anything about bogs do not know that, and often-times Deputies who know something about bogs do not see that, or take it into consideration. Everything possible should be done to facilitate the drainage of bogs. They are a national asset in connection with the supply of fuel. The full value cannot be got out of many bogs owing to the want of drainage. The bottom portion of the bog is the best portion, and that is often destroyed by working a bog which has not been drained. If it is possible to have a scheme for the drainage of bogs it should be proceeded with, and now is the time to do it in connection with this Bill, rather than having to introduce an entirely new Bill. When the House realises the waste that takes place in connection with the working of bogs they will regret that the drainage of bogs was not undertaken before this.
Might I say a word in explanation? I did not raise this question to delay the Bill or prevent its passing to the Seanad, but merely to draw attention to what might be the meaning and effect of words in the Bill—"or lands which are capable of being improved by drainage." I hope the Bill will pass this House to-day, but the Minister should consider that point further before the Bill goes to the Seanad, because I do not think it is a sufficient answer to say that the words occur in the Act which refers to major schemes. The point is most unlikely to arise in connection with major schemes. It might arise in connection with minor schemes.
Question put and agreed to.