Vol. 25 No. 6
I move:
"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendment:—Section 2. sub-section (1). After the word ‘drainage,' in line 28, the words ‘other than thorough drainage' be inserted."
The purpose of the amendment is to make it explicit in the Bill that ordinary thorough drainage is not included in the term "arterial drainage."
Does thorough drainage mean drainage where the land of only one person is concerned? I do not see the object of the amendment.
Thorough drainage is that type of drainage which a farmer will carry out in his own fields for the purpose of allowing water to drain off, and it is not arterial drainage in any way. It was explained when the Bill was before the Dáil that it was not intended to cover that class of drainage. To make the matter more definite this amendment is put in to show that thorough drainage is not included and that a farmer who carries out thorough drainage on his own land will not be assisted by this Bill.
I move:— That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendments—
Section 5, sub-section (4). The words "the execution of any drainage works in" deleted in line 19 and the words of "any interference with the works of "substituted therefor.
Section 5, sub-section 4. The words "which proposes any interference" deleted in line 23.
These are really drafting amendments.
I would like if the Minister would explain the object of the change in phrasing and why the words "any interference with the works of" are included?
The Bill originally dealt with cases in which the execution of drainage works in another district was proposed and some Senators considered that there might be cases where, without the execution of works actually being done in existing drainage areas, there might be interference with that area without the actual carrying out of works in it. I think it is reasonable to meet them to that extent.
Perhaps the Minister would explain why both phrases could not be included, and why it was necessary to delete the phrase "the execution of any drainage works in"? Would it not be wiser to leave both phrases in?
The execution of any drainage works in any drainage district is included in "any interference with the works of."
It is not calculated to interfere with an old drainage works?
If there is execution of any new drainage works in an old drainage area that would be interference.
What is to happen if interference is necessary for the proper doing of new works?
That is provided for.
Is it not somewhat contradictory if interference is prohibited and yet is provided for?
The Deputy should read the section. The areas mentioned in the section are areas the full drainage of which has been vested in a particular body, and so long as that body is charged with the responsibility it would not be reasonable for another authority to enter into that drainage area and carry out drainage which, while improving one particular area, might interfere with the drainage for which this particular body is responsible. This provides that no existing drainage work will be interfered with by an outside body. If there is a deadlock between a body charged with a particular drainage district now and a county council which wishes to carry out a new drainage scheme the deadlock would rest there. The body charged with the responsibility at present will not have that responsibility interfered with.
How does the Minister propose to overcome that deadlock?
If a deadlock of that kind occurs, it will not be the responsibility of the Minister for Local Government to overcome it, because the Board of Works would be the body that would be responsible for the existing drainage bodies. Where a dispute in that particular matter arose, it would be a matter for the Board of Works to deal with it, and not for the Minister for Local Government, who simply wants to stand outside these schemes entirely and leave them, in so far as they are minor schemes, to the responsibility of the local authority. When they become more than minor schemes, or when they become schemes which cannot be carried out without interference in these districts, the matter automatically becomes one for the Board of Works, and if a dispute arises it would be for the Board of Works to settle it.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendment:—
Section 8. The word "rated" deleted in line 15. This amendment has reference to what is being proposed in amendment No. 12. Under amendment No. 12 we propose to deal with the position of people who have turbary rights and the value of whose turbary rights is improved by the fact that drainage is carried out. Where there are rated occupiers it is necessary to give them certain rights of notice and certain rights of appeal. Throughout the Bill these people, in so far as the Bill is drafted at the moment, are styled "rated occupiers." It is proposed in certain of these amendments to delete the word "rated" so that the word "occupiers" alone will stand.
Section 8, sub-section (c) reads:
"Within the prescribed time after the completion of the preparations of the drainage scheme the county council or Joint Committee charged with the preparation thereof shall...
(c) serve in the prescribed manner on all rated occupiers," etc.
The proposal is to drop the word "rated" and to say "serve in the prescribed manner on all occupiers." That will include persons who are occupiers of turbary rights. We will deal with what is further involved when we come to amendment No. 12.
resumed the Chair.
I move also that the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendments:
5. Section 8. The word "rated" deleted in line 26.
6. Section 9, sub-section (1). The word "rated" deleted in line 52.
7. Section 12, sub-section (3). The word "rated" deleted in line 42.
8. Section 16, sub-section (1). The word "rated" deleted in line 48.
Is it clear that the deletion of the word "rated" will not alter the Bill as it originally stood and will not alter the position for ordinary rated occupiers?
A rated occupier is an occupier.
So that there will be no change whatever?
No change.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in the following amendment:—
Section 16. A new sub-section added at the end of the section as follows:—
"(3) Where a person assessed to a drainage rate under this Act in respect of land occupied by him is the occupier of other land forming part of or comprised in the same holding, farm, or tenement as the land in respect of which he is so assessed to such drainage rate, any sum so assessed on him in respect of such drainage rate may be collected and recovered from him in like manner as if such sum were assessed on and payable by him in respect of his occupation of the whole of such holding, farm or tenement."
This amendment proposes to deal with the case of a person who has, say, a holding of thirty acres, ten of which come in under the drainage assessment because of the ten acres having been improved as a result of carrying out the drainage scheme. If a person does not in the ordinary way pay his drainage rates and if it is necessary to take the usual legal action for the recovery of the rates, this amendment prevents the occupier from clearing out his stock from the ten acres that have been improved on to the other twenty acres, thereby preventing a seizure, so that if a person has ten acres on a thirty acre holding, improved by drainage, the drainage rate is not assessable on the ten acres but on the total holding of which the ten acres is part.
Would not the phrase "occupier of other lands" mean lands which he was holding on the eleven months system?
He would not be an occupier in that case.
Does it mean that the rate will be assessed on the entire holding, not on the ten acres alone?
Yes. It is a section which is also included in the Arterial Drainage Act of 1925. It prevents sharp practice by which a person having part of his holding improved simply holds that part in such a way in so far as stock or seizable goods are concerned, that the drainage rates could not be recovered.
Deputy Goulding seems to have misunderstood the difference between assessable and collectable.
In so far as the amount of the assessment is concerned he is only assessed on that portion of the land improved, that is ten acres. If ten acres of a thirty acres holding are improved the occupier is not going to be assessed for the improvement of the whole thirty acres, but the drainage rates will be chargeable against the whole holding.
Will the number of acres improved by drainage be re-valued?
There is no question of re-valuation.
The old valuation stands.
At any rate, if a holding is improved there is no immediate re-valuation. When the time for re-valuation comes it may be that the valuation will be raised, but after a scheme is carried out there is no provision for immediate re-valuation. There is provision for the striking of a drainage rate to cover the cost.
That is an important point, because I have in my mind a scheme under the 1925 Act under which lands were re-valued and a heavy charge put on the owners. It is also useful to refer to this, that the people on whose land this valuation was made were not consulted at all about the drainage, and they have been heavily mulcted in consequence. It is rather important to see that this does not happen and that land will not be unduly valued in this connection.
I cannot understand an occupier whose holding was improved as a result of the carrying out of a drainage scheme not having been informed of the notice sent out to people likely to be involved in the drainage scheme. If it means that certain lands were improved as a result of carrying out a drainage scheme, or it was subsequently shown that they were and that there should be a drainage rate, they were lucky.
Unfortunately, the lands were not improved.
That is always said.
Under the general scheme they were re-valued for improvements which did not take place at all.
We must only take it in the ordinary process of re-valuation that the increased valuation was attributed to those lands.
Does the Deputy refer to the re-conditioning of an old scheme or of an entirely new scheme?
This was an entirely new scheme. Theoretically the lands were improved, but practically they were not improved at all.
I would like to ask the Minister if there is any provision for dealing with the circumstances Deputy Goulding referred to. Is there any check by which these supposed improvements will be re-valued in the interests of the occupier, and what right will the occupier have in the matter of the re-valuation? Is it to be entirely arbitrary? Can the situation arise that he will be told that a definite improvement has been made, whereas in reality it has not been made? Is there any provision to deal with that situation?
Where a drainage scheme has been carried out to improve particular lands it is carried out on the application of a certain number of the occupiers and must be a scheme that has not been opposed by those occupiers who own more than 50 per cent. of the aggregate value of those lands, so that generally speaking it can be taken that the occupiers are the prime movers in the matter of having those smaller schemes carried out. When we pass on to valuation, the Valuation Office has its own particular duties to discharge, and no one can come in and interfere with it in any way, so that the question of the valuation of lands is one that is entirely outside what we are dealing with here. For the purpose of assessing a drainage rate to the different people whose lands have been improved, the scheme originally makes a statement of the lands that are likely to be improved and a statement of the approximate amount of improvement. When the scheme is carried out there is a definite report by the land valuer to the county council stating finally what lands have been improved, the extent to which they have been improved, and suggesting lines upon which the cost of the scheme ought to be allocated because of the improvements over the different lands. That need not necessarily have anything to do with the ordinary valuation of the land for the purposes of discriminating between the amount of improvement to the lands. Valuers may take the ordinary land valuation or may take other standard of value for lands—for instance, what they call the ordinary values. That is the technical work of the valuer, and, as I say, he may base his work on the ordinary valuation of the land or on some other standard of valuation. Any possible increase in the purposes for which the land is given a valuation is a matter over which we have no control. It is for the Valuation Office itself.
Is there any appeal from that valuation?
There is to the County Court.
Is it not evident that there should be some arrangements by which no new valuation may be put on until the drainage rate is paid off, and it is usually fairly high?
That is the great point. If the farmers whose lands are drained under these schemes are to bear the cost, it is very unfair to increase their valuation afterwards.
When the final award is being made with regard to the assessment of benefit, have the people who are supposed to be benefited any right of appeal against the award of the assessor?
Certainly. They can come before the county council when the county council has made its scheme. There is a special meeting held, of which seven days' notice is given, at which the award is going to be made; they can come before the county council and can plead their case before it, but beyond going before the county council to plead their case before a final award on it is made they can have no further appeal.
Are those people whose lands would be affected by the drainage to receive written notification beforehand that they will be liable for the cost of improving that drainage district? I have in mind the drainage of an area in County Limerick, Ballinacourty, and the occupiers stated they never heard anything about that drainage scheme being undertaken. It was under the Drainage Act of 1923. Some individual made an appeal to have the drainage district restored, but the occupiers were not notified by the Department who carried out the scheme. Some of these who had only a valuation of sixpence in turbary found that the drainage rate put on them was 2s. 9d. for the half-year.
I would like to know if it is maintained that these people are notified beforehand that they will be liable for the drainage carried out in the district in this particular area. The restoration of the drainage district cost over £300. It was being done and done as well I was informed for £6 10s. a year by the occupiers themselves. I would like to know if that is the case that these people are not involved that the county council would be informed and the county council would not inform those people that the drainage would go ahead.
I think what the Deputy refers to is not affected by this Bill or the Act of 1925. He was correct in saying that it referred to the Act of 1924, the short title of which I think is The Drainage Maintenance Act of 1924. That is the reason I was surprised that Deputy Goulding said there were schemes on which money was awarded and levied under the Drainage Act. There have been schemes under which reconditioning has been undertaken. That is a bold scheme. Under the existing Acts as they were before and, say, after the year 1924, the Drainage Maintenance Acts, all the occupiers were liable if the Drainage Maintenance Schemes were neglected. In fact most of the drainage schemes throughout the country had been grossly neglected and schemes on which many thousands of pounds had been spent had been allowed to go back, as far as drainage was concerned, to their original condition.
In that particular case the Board of Works had a right to go in. If there was evidence of gross neglect of that kind they could bring the work to a proper condition again and spend a certain amount of money on it. They were very chary in doing so. So far as I know they never did it unless there was a very good case made, or their inspector was satisfied that there had been neglect of that kind. I think in nearly every case of that kind all the money was not demanded from the occupiers in question. There was generally a free grant given as well. The point the Deputy has raised does not arise at all in this particular case, because in the case of the Bill we are now discussing, as in the case of the Drainage Act of 1926, we are dealing with new schemes altogether and therefore the actual consent has to be got. The case referred to by the Deputy was the case of an old scheme where a legal obligation was already created by existing Acts. I would be very much surprised if the case referred to by Deputy Goulding is not of that particular type. Does he refer to the river which is near Dungarvan?
Yes.
I thought so. That was under the Drainage Maintenance Act of 1924 and not under the Drainage Act of 1926. In that case the occupiers need not be consulted if there was an obvious case where improvement could be effected. That is altogether on a different footing from the Act we are now discussing. In the case of the Act we are now discussing prior consent of the majority of the owners is necessary. In the case of bringing back a river, which the Deputy referred to, such consultation was not necessary. It would mean that work would not be done, or at least, that there would be considerable delay. I know there were many cases in which rivers had been allowed to get back to their original state and the Board of Works had to interfere.
Why assess an extortionate rate?
It is the universal experience in connection with drainage. Before the work is done we hear it will improve the land by £1 per acre, and after the work is done every farmer says that his land has been ruined by the drainage. That is the universal experience—it may be quite justified, but it always happens.
I know that these people have suffered severely, and that they are at present paying a rate which is entirely out of proportion to any benefits they have received. I have seen the land. I believe they derived no benefit whatever from it. I do not think it comes within the category of any of the Acts stated, because it was an old drainage.
That is my contention.
I doubt if the Board of Works have power to assess people without acquainting them.
I want to point out——
We are taking the Minister for Local Government far away from his responsibilities.
I would like to say that Sections 8 and 9 make full provision that anyone likely to be involved in the scheme gets full notice of the proposed consideration of the scheme by the county council. They can be heard if they are involved in the scheme, and they have power of voting against it based on the value of their land, and they can be heard by the county council in so far as they have any objections against the scheme before it is actually gone on with. If their land is improved under Sub-section 2, Section 12, they can be heard by the county council or the Joint Committee before they issue their certificates settling the drainage rates.
I would like to ask the Minister where is the appeal to the county court against the land valuer's assessment provided for?
I am speaking of the Valuation Office and its work. In so far as this Bill is concerned, it is a Minor Drainage Scheme Bill, putting the county council in complete charge of the situation. The county council can deal with applications from local people to have their land drained, and there is no interference by any Minister. They are promised a certain amount of money towards the carrying out of the scheme to simplify matters and to enable the minor drainage schemes to be expedited without any great overhead costs.
Can the Minister say whether under this Bill old schemes which have proved to be defective, such as the scheme referred to by Deputy Goulding, can be reconditioned and the whole burthen of the charge readjusted and further work carried out so as to complete the scheme?
In so far as the old drainage schemes are concerned they are not minor schemes, and the Office of Public Works is responsible for them. If the maintenance is not being properly carried out the Board of Works can, under the Drainage Maintenance Act of 1924, dissolve the old body and carry out whatever work is necessary. They can then hand over that area to the county council, charging the people responsible under the old scheme for the maintenance and for the cost of carrying it out.
In reply to the Deputy's question, if there is an old scheme that can be made to operate with the new scheme then there will be a readjustment charge; but, as the Minister has pointed out, this Bill has nothing to do with the particular scheme in question.
I have in mind a scheme that cost something like £4,000 last year and a third of the people concerned are under the impression that they derived no benefit from it. This drainage has been carried out by the Board of Works without consulting the Drainage Board.
Is that Kilnastula?
Yes.
It is an old scheme and has nothing to do with this Bill.
They derived no benefits from it.
We are discussing a Seanad amendment to a Bill that is concerned with the county councils and not with the Board of Works.
I move to disagree with the Seanad in the following amendments:—
10. Section 17, sub-section (1). The word "maintain" deleted in line 1 and the words "be responsible for the maintenance of" substituted therefor.
11. Section 17, sub-section (2). Before the sub-section a new sub-section inserted as follows:—
"(2) For the purpose of discharging the responsibility for the maintenance of a drainage works, the county council or joint committee by which the drainage scheme has been carried out may, subject to the approval of the Minister, make agreements with the rated occupiers, or some of them, of the lands drained or improved by the drainage scheme, for the execution of the necessary maintenance work to the satisfaction of the said county council or joint committee, and such agreements may include provision for abatement of the drainage rate assessed on each rated occupiers, and for the recovery of the cost of maintenance work executed by the said county council or joint committee, in default of compliance with the terms of such agreements."
13. Section 18, sub-section (2). After the word "with" in line 2 the words "responsibility for" inserted.
14. Section 18, sub-section (2). After the word "committee" in line 4 the following words inserted:—"or any person or persons carrying out maintenance work in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 (2) of this Act."
15. Section 19, sub-section (1). The word "maintaining" deleted in line 26 and the words "responsible for the maintenance of" substituted therefor.
Amendment 11 proposes that the county council shall be able to make agreements with the occupiers of lands to be drained or any of them, to have these occupiers carry out drainage maintenance and reduce the cost in that particular way. My objection to this amendment is, in the first place, we are making the county councils responsible for the maintenance. There is nothing restricting the county council in any way to make contracts with anyone they like, to have maintenance properly carried out.
May I ask where is that provided for?
They are made responsible for carrying out the drainage maintenance and there is no restriction on them in any way as to how they may carry it out.
What is the objection then?
The objection, in the first place, suggests a particular type of contract to the exclusion of all other suggestions, which is undesirable. Particularly it makes the making of such contracts subject to the approval of the Minister. I have emphasised, all through the passage of this Bill, that there is one thing that is fundamental in the Bill and that is responsibility is being put completely into the hands of the county council to carry out their works and they are not threatened or will not have the delay or the interference that would arise out of getting consent. I want the House to accept that the Bill as it stands at present gives the county council complete responsibility for the carrying out of the drainage maintenance. It puts no restriction on them, in any way, as to whether they will have it carried out by direct labour of some nature, by their own workers or by entering into contract with people other than the occupiers or contracting with the occupiers or some of the occupiers. I oppose very much the introduction of the Minister for Local Government in this way, requiring the approval of the Minister for any type of contract.
Are we to take it that the amendment would be acceptable to the Minister if it were not for the insertion of these words, because it is possible to delete the words "subject to the approval of the Minister"?
No, it would not be acceptable to me, for this reason: the county council is entirely unrestricted under the Act to carry out this work in any way possible. We do not want to make pure suggestions of any kind in legislation. To a certain extent these suggestions would have the semblance of restriction about them. I have no desire to point out to the county council in what kind of way they can make contracts or in what kind of ways they can carry out their responsibilities for drainage. I want to leave it entirely to the county council to fit its method to its own machinery or its own absence of machinery to the particular type of drainage problem it has. As it is, no purpose would be served by making any suggestion in this Bill as to how the responsibility should go.
Regarding the question of responsibility for maintenance, does that mean that the county council will be obliged to maintain and will be responsible for any losses if they do not maintain drainage? If that is so, I do not think you will be able to apply that in the case of drainage of turbary. If a county council undertakes to open up turbary by running a drain round it, after three or four years that drain will not be of any use, because the bog will be sinking and you will be cutting under it. If the county council could be held responsible in law for the cleaning up of that drain, and if they had not done so, they might be sued for any loss of turf.
If it is quite clear that the maintenance of drainage is not necessary because of changed circumstances, who is going to step in to force them to have it carried out? The only body that can step in to enforce the proper maintenance of a drainage area is the Office of Public Works, and they are not going to do that if, because of changed circumstances, the maintenance is no longer necessary.
Suppose the people who use the bog lose their turf and take the county council to Court because they have not cleaned up drainage, would they have any case in law under the wording of this section?
Can the county council direct their own engineer to inspect this work?
Instead of dealing with the amendment, Deputies are catechising different matters contained in the Bill that they would be quite clear about if they had read it recently, and a number of unnecessary questions have been asked. Under Section 3 (5) a county council or any combination of county councils may, in lieu of referring such petition to the County Surveyor, refer such petition to some other qualified engineer. They can refer the petition to the County Surveyor to have the beginnings of the scheme prepared, and can direct the County Surveyor to have the work carried on under him if they consider it proper, but the county council must be made responsible for maintenance. The county council cannot expect to get a State grant towards the carrying out of the scheme if they do not undertake that it will be properly maintained, so that the benefits for which State money is being lent will be continued to the owners of property and so that we will not have the state of affairs that made it necessary to introduce the Drainage (Maintenance) Act of 1924 and to saddle the occupiers with arrears of neglected responsibility.
If a provision could be inserted in the Bill that the county council would be entitled, on the advice of the County Surveyor or engineer, to say that certain works were not of any further public utility, and that they would not have to maintain them any further, that would meet the point. A couple of hundred pounds worth of turf in a bog might be destroyed in a wet year, and that might easily be put down to the neglect of the county council, who may not be responsible at all. If the law holds the county council responsible for the maintenance of a drain or a river, which is of no use, there should be some way out. I do not want to rid the county council of responsibility for maintaining what is useful, but I would not like that they should be mulcted for damages where the work would not be of any use.
I gave a good lot of consideration to the question as to whether a section like that should be put in, but I considered that it would be undesirable to suggest in any way that, having got State money to carry out a scheme, the county council, by passing a resolution, could rid themselves of responsibility for maintenance. On the other hand, I do not want to bring the Office of Public Works into the matter to the extent even that the county council could refer a resolution like that to the Office of Public Works for sanction, but that the matter should be left so that the county council is responsible for maintenance, and that the Office of Public Works should judge as to whether maintenance was being properly carried out.
Who is responsible for striking the rate charged on the occupier for the scheme? Is it the county council or the Local Government Department?
The county council.
I think the county council should be responsible for it. Otherwise, it might result in what the Minister for Education pointed out as happening, where the drainage was entirely neglected. The result was that it meant a very heavy additional burden on the people. What is everybody's business is nobody's business, and if the county council is not responsible, I am afraid the same thing would happen.
Amendments 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 are about the same matter. The Minister is moving that the Committee do not agree with the Seanad in these amendments. I propose to take a decision on amendment 10, and that decision will cover the others.
We believe there is a lot to be said for the suggested Amendment 11, that there should be a definite recommendation to the council to have this work carried out in the most inexpensive way possible. The Minister has said that he cannot see any reason why there should be what seems to him a definite recommendation to have the maintenance work carried out by the occupiers in this way, through an arrangement with the county council. He has not suggested why that method might not be as good as the other method, of letting it out by contract, or having it done by the county council staff. If we take it that the work will ultimately be supervised by the county surveyor and that he will be responsible for seeing it is properly done, the real question for the local ratepayers, to which they want us to pay particular attention, is to reduce the expenditure on maintenance as much as possible. There is no doubt that other ways, while they will still be open to the council, will involve heavier rates.
We are of opinion that this amendment should be allowed to stand. It simply means, while it does not debar them from maintenance works in other ways, that the council can arrange with the occupiers to maintain them, and the whole argument in favour of it is that it will be less expensive in the long run. The Minister has said that he does not want to make allowance in the Bill for exceptional cases. He takes it that every scheme is going to be a perfectly good scheme and perfectly successful. He is going to make the county council responsible therefore. Under Section 16 he is making them responsible for the expenses. If they are to be responsible for initiating a scheme and carrying it out, and paying the expenses afterwards, why should we not give them this permission, as it is stated here definitely? So long as we are not debarring them from undertaking maintenance work in other ways, why should we prevent them from taking what seems to them the cheapest way?
We are not preventing them.
Why not leave the thing in?
I would like to know whether it is on purely theoretical grounds that the Minister objects to this amendment. Does he see any practical objection in the working out of the scheme if the amendment were accepted?
I foresee great practical objections to a county council entering into a contract with a number of occupiers of lands that have been drained—I foresee practical difficulties. I do not say that these difficulties may not be overcome, but I do not want to suggest, above all other ways, that the county council might carry out its drainage maintenance in this particular way. I also would have very great fears that, in the average case in which a scheme like this was entered into, the drainage maintenance work would not be carried out. There is, however, nothing in the Bill that will prevent the county council getting its work done in this way, but I do not want to father the Bill this single suggestion, out of all the suggestions which might be made. I do not believe that it would be either efficient or cheap to do it in this way.
I am sure the Minister will admit that it can be the ideal way of getting maintenance done, if you get the ideal man, as you will occasionally. In a group of five or six, you may get a very ideal person to contract for keeping drainage, a very conscientious person, and, I am sure, no cheaper method could be found than to get a contract with such a person to have it done in that way. I can imagine that there would be jealousy between different people affected by the scheme. They do not always get on too well, and if there were two or three looking for such a contract, and if it were given to one, I can see the others putting difficulties in his way. It is very hard to make up one's mind on the matter, but I think that the reasons the Minister first gave were rather academic. No council would resent the suggestion, even in a Bill, because the idea contained in the suggestion might not occur to themselves. If in the average case it was the most efficient way of getting the work done, I think the Minister's objections should not weigh with us in allowing the amendment to stand.
If you take this amendment and set it over against the Bill, it will be found that what the Deputy asks us to do is to say after the Bill: "P.S.—By the way, an ideal way of drainage would be so-and-so." But in fact we know the ideal way is the way that has brought about the situation that Deputy Goulding and other Deputies have complained of, where the occupiers have to pay for neglected years of drainage maintenance.
Are we quite clear there is nothing to prevent the county council from carrying out these schemes or in adopting the particular suggestion contained in the amendment?
I said again and again there is nothing to prevent them from doing so.
Then if they can adopt this ideal way of doing this thing economically and efficiently and there is nothing to prevent them, what more is there to be said?
That covers amendment 11 as well.
I move: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment 12."
New section. Before Section 18 a new section inserted as follows:—
"18. Whenever the lands proposed in a drainage scheme to be drained or improved include any bog land from which turf is at the preparation of such scheme being or capable of being obtained or from which turf will as a result of the execution of such scheme be capable of being obtained the following provisions shall apply, that is to say:
(a) for the purposes of any statement contained in the scheme of the value of such bog land or of any increase of such value, the value of such bog land shall be taken exclusive of and subject to any rights (in this section referred to as turbary rights) of cutting and removing turf from such bog land whether generally or for a particular purpose and whether in virtue of ownership of such bog land or of ownership of other lands or otherwise;
(b) the value of the several turbary rights over or in respect of such bog land shall be stated in the scheme and the increase in such value expected to arise from the carrying out of the scheme shall also be so stated;
(c) the like notices shall be served on all persons having turbary rights over or in respect of such bog land as are by this Act required to be served on occupiers of lands proposed in the scheme to be drained or improved and every person having such turbary rights shall have the like rights of making objections to and of expressing assent to or dissent from the scheme as are conferred on such occupiers by virtue of this Act;
(d) for the purpose of determining whether the number of dissents from the scheme is or is not sufficient to prevent the confirmation of the scheme, but for no other purpose, turbary rights shall be deemed to be lands proposed in the scheme to be drained or improved and to be in the occupation of the persons entitled thereto.
(e) the report to be made under this Act to the county council or joint committee charged with the carrying out of the scheme as to the amounts by which the respective annual values of lands have been increased by the carrying out of the scheme shall not include in such amounts any benefit to the owners of turbary rights in respect of such rights but shall contain particulars of the manner in and extent to which such owners have been benefited in respect of such turbary rights by the carrying out of the scheme and shall also contain recommendations as to the contributions (in this section referred to as the turbary assessments) towards the cost of the carrying out of the scheme and the maintenance of the drainage works constructed pursuant thereto to be assessed on such owners in respect of such benefit;
(f) no person shall be assessed to a drainage rate in respect of a turbary right;
(g) the county council or joint committee charged under this Act with the carrying out of a drainage scheme shall, when fixing the drainage assessments in respect of such scheme, also fix the turbary assessments to be assessed on and paid by the respective owners of turbary rights benefited in respect of such rights by the carrying out of the scheme and shall fix such assessments in all respects as appears to them to be just and equitable having regard to the manner in and extent to which such owners are so benefited by the carrying out of the scheme and in particular may fix any such assessment as a lump sum payable in one instalment or in two or more instalments over a period of months or years or as an annual or a half-yearly sum of fixed or variable amount payable over a number of years:
(h) the certificate of such county council or joint committee certifying the respective amounts by which the respective annual values of lands have been increased by the carrying out of the scheme shall also certify the amounts of the several turbary assessments and the time and manner of payment thereof by the respective owners of turbary rights, and such assessment shall be payable by such owners to such county council or joint committee accordingly and shall be collected and recovered in the like manner and by the like persons and means in all respects as the drainage rate is collectable and recoverable and, for the purposes of such recovery, every turbary assessment shall be deemed to be assessed and leviable on all land which is in the occupation of the owner of the turbary rights to which the assessment relates and is either the land on which such rights are exercisable or the land to which such rights are appendant or appurtenant.
(i) where a scheme has been carried out by a joint committee, every turbary assessment in respect thereof shall be collected by the county council in whose county is situate the land over which the turbary rights to which the turbary assessment relates are exercisable and every such turbary assessment when collected by such county council shall be paid to such joint committee.
(j) all moneys received on foot of turbary assessments in respect of a drainage scheme by the county council or joint committee charged under this Act with the carrying out of such scheme shall be applied by such county council or joint committee in reduction of the moneys to be raised by such council or for such committee by means of the drainage rate and shall be so applied either towards repayment of the expenses incurred in carrying out the scheme or towards the maintenance of the drainage works executed in pursuance of the scheme or partly in the one way and partly in the other way as such council or committee shall think fit and shall be so applied at the discretion of such council either as and when received or by accumulating and resorting to the accumulations or partly in the one way and partly in the other way."
This amendment proposes to deal with the matter raised here by Deputy Brennan on the Fifth Stage of this Bill before it left this House—that is, the position of turbary owners. The position with regard to the rights of turbary owners up to the present is that they have not been leviable in any way for improvements that have affected them beneficially in their capacity as owners of turbary rights. The owners of the bog land over which these turbary rights exist were made responsible for the drainage rates. Now this amendment provides that where drainage is carried out and where the value of the turbary rights are improved as a result of the drainage, those who have their rights improved should pay a suitable proportion of the cost of the carrying out of the work and a suitable proportion of the drainage maintenance cost. It takes cognisance of the fact that, while the land can be permanently improved by drainage the increase in the value of the turbary rights as the result of the drainage is not permanent. It throws a certain amount of additional turf free for collection by the owner; and that is used, all that is collected in a certain limited number of years. The amendment that is before us here proposes that a parallel system will be set up for turbary right owners in the same way as a system is set up through the Bill for ordinary landowners. They will have the same rights of objecting to the carrying out of the scheme based on the value of their turbary rights that the owner of the land will have, so that without their voices being raised they cannot have a drainage rate thrown on them. They will therefore get a like notice and will be able to make the same appeal that the occupiers of the land can make before a scheme can be carried out. When the scheme is carried out and a report made by the land valuer shall show separately the extent to which the land has been improved and the extent to which there is an increase in the turbary right values created, so that the cost of the scheme may be allocated in reasonable proportions on the land that has been improved and on the turbary rights that have been improved. It makes provision that the amount of money that is set aside and the cost of the scheme and the cost of maintenance against turbary rights shall not be included in the drainage rates; that there shall be a drainage assessment as a result of which a drainage rate is struck, based on the improvement of the land, and there shall be a turbary assessment based on the improvement that has been brought about in turbary rights. It makes provision that the turbary right owners can be assessed in respect of the turbary assessment by the amount, payable monthly or two-monthly or annually or six-monthly for a definite period of time, the period of time being based on the extent of time that it appears likely that the increased value will have been collected by the turbary right owners.
So that as far as possible the amount of money that will be paid in respect of drainage maintenance and the cost of carrying out the work will be paid by the owner of the turbary rights for that period that he is directly benefiting by the increased value of the turbary that is made available to him; and the amendment under section (3) opens an arrangement whereby the county council can use that money in whatever way it seems best to themselves in paying off the cost of the scheme and reducing the cost of the drainage rate in general.
I raised this matter here before, and I think that the Minister deserves to be complimented on the manner in which he has met all the points. I think he has covered all the points, and certainly it was no easy matter, and this is a solution of the difficulty.
I am speaking on the section or sub-head (b) "the value of the several turbary rights shall be stated on this scheme and the increase in such values shall also be stated." In (a) it says that "the value of such bog lands shall be taken exclusive of and subject to any such rights." Why are we dealing with the value of the bog lands in (a) and the turbary rights in (b)?
Because there is in fact bog land—land that would be available for reclamation when the turf is removed. In considering your scheme you have to take into consideration, in the first place, the ordinary good land, and, in the second place, the turf which is there. In the third you have to take into account the land underlying that turf. We will say that there is only a small amount of turf there, and that only three or four feet of turf was being added as an improved turbary right to the owner, and then when you get down to the land there might be a certain amount of drainage rates properly leviable on the bogland that remains after the turf had been taken away. But you cannot ignore when dealing with the turf the valuer may have in his scheme to take cognisance of the bog land that underlies that.
Did the Minister differentiate a moment ago between a rated occupier and an occupier? I would like to have that cleared up.
If you take Section 9 (1) you will find that it reads:—
If the aggregate value as stated in the drainage scheme of so much of the lands proposed by the scheme to be drained or improved as are in the rated occupation of persons who have duly informed the county council or the joint committee (as the case may be) that they dissent from the scheme exceeds one-half of the total value as stated in the scheme of the lands so proposed to be drained or improved the county council or joint committee shall refuse to confirm the scheme but if the said aggregate value does not exceed one-half of the said total value the county council or joint committee (as the case may be) after considering the objections (if any) to the drainage scheme duly sent to them under this Act and hearing such (if any) persons as they are required by this section to hear, shall at their discretion either confirm the scheme without alteration or confirm the scheme with such alteration (whether by way of variation, addition, or omission) as they may think proper to make therein or refuse to confirm the scheme.
If that exceeds half, the scheme cannot be gone on with. If "rated" remained there the turbary right owner could not come in as one of the dissenting parties if he considered that the scheme was going prejudically to affect him, and consequently the word "rated" has been dropped in the first place because really it was not necessary. The occupier is the occupier. In the second case it was dropped because they left in a class of people we are proposing to deal with. These would have no means of having their voices heard and being considered after the publication of the scheme or when the certificate was given that the scheme was fully carried out. For no other reason than that, the word "rated" has been taken out.
Would the Minister say with regard to new Section 18 (a) what is the meaning of the words beginning with the three last lines "whether in virtue of ownership of such bog land"? These words cannot possibly be necessary I think. It cannot matter in taking the value of such bog land whether it is in virtue of the ownership of such bog land or not.
The section reads:—
For the purposes of any statement contained in the scheme of the value of such bog land or of any increase of such value, the value of such bog land shall be taken exclusive of and subject to any rights (in this section referred to as turbary rights) of cutting and removing turf from such bog land whether generally or for a particular purpose and whether in virtue of ownership of such bog land or of ownership of other lands or otherwise.
Let us say, you may have the case of a man A who owns bog land. He owns the turf on the top of it. He would be assessed to the turbary rate in respect of any improvement to his turbary rights. But he would be assessed to his drainage rate in respect of his bog lands. You might have it in the case of a man B, who had turbary rights on bog land of a man C, and who held these turbary rights appurtenant to some other farm that he held. That is why the phraseology is brought in here. It shall be taken exclusively on turbary rights whether these turbary rights were by virtue of ownership of the bog land or because they were appurtenant to some other holding——
The reference is to the value of such bog lands.
No. It is to the turbary. Take it like this. A is a man who has a good farm. There is no bog land on it. There is no turbary. B is a man who owns bog lands upon which C has turbary rights. If for any reason the bog land of B is to be mentioned in the scheme as likely to be improved, it shall be mentioned in the scheme on its own merits, and there shall not be included in it any of the value of the turbary rights that C has.
The Committee does not agree with Amendments 13, 14 and 15. These are consequential upon Amendment 10. They fall with it.
Yes, strictly speaking they fall with 11.
The decision was taken on 10.
Yes.
Amendments ordered to be reported.
