Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 May 1929

Vol. 30 No. 4

Private Deputies' Business. - Arterial Drainage (Amendment) Bill, 1929—Second Stage.

I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. The object of the present Bill is to remedy an oversight in the Arterial Drainage Act of 1925 in omitting to specifically include county borough councils equally with county councils in its definition. Though this is a very small Bill, still it is of immense importance and urgency to the City of Waterford, and possibly, too, there may be other Irish cities to which this Act in the future may apply. I know that the Government were very anxious to do something about the matter that I will discuss later on in the Bill, but owing to very pressing work unhappily they were not able to go ahead as speedily as I would have wished. My colleague, Deputy O'Connell, and I have taken the bull by the horns, as it were, and have introduced this Bill. Now, apparently in drafting the 1925 Act, it did not occur to the draftsman that a drainage scheme could have any application to a county borough, and that if, in an exceptional case, it did so apply, the definition in the 1925 Act would be comprehensive enough to embrace a county borough. By Section 1 of the Arterial Drainage Act, 1925, all expressions to which special meanings are assigned by the Local Government Act of 1898 have the special meanings so assigned to them respectively. I am not going to weary Deputies with the 1898 Act, as they can take it for granted that when I quote any Act here it is a fact. The Local Government Act of 1898, in Section 21, sub-sections (1) and (2), sets out that each county borough, that is, Dublin, Limerick, Waterford and Cork, shall be an administrative county in itself, and be called a county borough, whatever borough it is, and that it shall have the powers and duties of a county-council under the Local Government Act.

As a matter of fact, everyone connected with the administration of the Arterial Drainage Act, 1925, assumed that the county boroughs were embraced in the provisions of that Act, and a joint scheme was promoted between the County Council of Waterford and the Corporation of Waterford for the purpose of draining the Kilbarry marshes. I might add that these Kilbarry marshes are partly within the precincts of the City of Waterford, but the greater part of them are outside the city boundaries. The necessary petition was filed and the ordinary procedure was gone through. The Board of Works, a very excellent body, speedily sent down their staff who took levels and surveyed the area to be drained. When the officials in the Board of Works had progressed a very considerable distance with their work, it was discovered at headquarters that it was doubtful if a borough council came within the strict interpretation of the Arterial Drainage Act, 1925, and the work had to stop. It was pointed out that, by Section 3 of the 1925 Act, every council to which "a petition is presented by the landholders in the area requiring drainage under the Act shall refer such petitions to the county surveyor for his report on the general merits of the proposals contained in the petition." From this it was argued that, as there was no corresponding or alternative reference to a borough surveyor in any part of the Act, the Act as worded could not be made to apply to a borough council unless and until amended. Well, after much discussion and correspondence the point was submitted to the Attorney-General who decided that the Act, as worded, could not be applied to corporations or to borough councils. This decision necessitated the introduction of this Bill.

The area that is proposed to be drained by this amending Bill comprises about 350 acres. About fifty acres lie within the borough boundary of the City of Waterford and three hundred acres in the county. The key position in this Arterial Drainage Amending Bill scheme lies in the fact that the lands which would be best suited for the erection of a tidal flood gate lie within the corporation bounds. Therefore, without the co-operation of the County Council and the Corporation the work could not go on. Apart altogether from the benefits which this scheme would confer on the landholders within the drainage area, the carrying out of the work will incidentally remedy or minimise the frequent floodings of two main roads. One of these main roads goes to the populous and popular seaside resort at Tramore, seven miles from Waterford City. The other goes to Cork, and whenever you have bad weather, especially in the winter time, these two trunk roads are flooded and you cannot travel on them, and of course that is a serious handicap to Waterford City. Furthermore, the county surveyor, Mr. Bowen, assured me there are only about four feet of a crust forming the surface of the road and under that you have mud.

I do not know if many members of the Dáil have been down to Tramore. If they have been they will have noticed that we have plying to Tramore one of the finest and most up-to-date services of motor buses to be found anywhere in Ireland. Some of these buses are very heavy, and it is quite possible if the weather continues inclement that they may go through the surface of the road. That, of course, would be a very serious thing, and might entail possibly a loss of life. That is one of the chief reasons why Deputy O'Connell and myself are very anxious that this Bill should become law as speedily as possible. I might also add that it is not desirable to have a huge bog, such as Kilbarry, in the precincts of the fifth largest city in Ireland. That bog, just like any other bog in Ireland, or in any country in the world, is composed of a lot of decaying vegetable matter. There is no doubt whatever that the proximity of this marsh is not conducive to the good health of the citizens of Waterford. The drainage of Kilbarry, apart altogether from doing a service to the road, would also be doing a service to the health of the people of Waterford, and, in addition, will give much-needed employment. As everybody knows, as far as works of reclamation or drainage are concerned, the summer is the best and, in fact, the only, time for the successful carrying out of these works. That, again, is one of the chief reasons why my sparring partner and myself are so anxious to have this Bill become law at an early date. The various medical officers—I do not say this off my own bat—from time to time have advised the drainage of the Kilbarry marshes.

I might say, and of course it might not have been any great loss to the city, that some forty years ago the English would not make Waterford their headquarters because of the fact that the death rate in Waterford then was very high, and I believe it is unduly high at present. I merely mention these facts to try and bring vividly before the minds of the members of the Dáil the importance of this scheme. As I have said, I hope the scheme will also apply to other Irish cities. We are not a bit jealous in Waterford. There may be some areas in other cities circumstanced in the same way as we are. I do not think there is anything controversial in this Bill. I trust I have not wearied the Dáil by being too long. What I did say I tried to condense in tabloid from as well as I could. I trust that this Bill will meet with the unanimous support of the various Parties in the Dáil.

The motion is: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I have not very much to add to what Deputy White has said in connection with this Bill. Both Deputy White and myself are very much interested in it, inasmuch as it affects Waterford city and county. Deputy White has pointed out the difficulties the County Council experienced some years ago in connection with the drainage of the Kilbarry marshes. The County Council found it impossible to cooperate with the Corporation of Waterford owing to a defect in the Drainage Act. If the Bill succeeds in remedying that it would be very welcome as the drainage of the Kilbarry marshes is badly needed, not alone from the point of view of saving the roads in the vicinity, but it will certainly improve the health of the city, and it will undoubtedly do for Waterford city and county what is very much desired.

I would like to know could the Deputies from Waterford say is there any chance of getting Waterford Corporation and the County Council, if we pass this Bill, to co-operate in putting it into force? Is it not a fact that there has been more than one effort made to get the two bodies to co-operate? Has Deputy White any guarantee that if the powers asked for in this Bill are given they will be put into operation?

I cannot give Deputy O'Kelly an absolute guarantee, but, as far as I know, both the members of the County Council and the members of the Waterford Corporation are willing to co-operate.

I understand that efforts have been made before to bring about co-operation. Of course, I know there was a flaw in the law, but I take it from what I have heard from more than one source, that the County Council, or some influential members of it, were rather glad that that flaw was found and that they had not to bear their share of the burden in carrying out that drainage scheme in co-operation with the Borough Council of Waterford. I would be glad, and so would anybody interested, and we all probably are, in the public health of the country to see a scheme of that kind carried through. If, as Deputy White has told us, the Kilbarry marshes do injuriously affect the health of the area, and the city of Waterford in particular, one would like to see a scheme of that kind put through, but when it comes to a question of bearing the cost of the scheme I would like to see the County Council fairly well tied up in advance, so that they would back up whatever scheme was put forward to them by the engineers of both bodies. I do not know if very much use will be made of the powers sought for. I am not satisfied that use will be made of them by the the County Council of Waterford, or that the Borough Council will avail of them, and, therefore, I do not think the powers such as will be granted under this Bill will be of any great value to them, but if they are of any value, even in the one case cited here, they should be given, especially if there is any promise that the powers will be put into operation.

Question put and agreed to.

I move:—"That the Arterial Drainage (Amendment) Bill, 1929, be referred to a Special Committee consisting of eleven Deputies to be nominated by the Committee of Selection; that the first meeting of the Special Committee be held on 12th June; and that the quorum of the Committee be five."

Can a motion of that kind be moved now without notice?

I do not wish to oppose or delay this Bill, but it seems to me that it raises rather an important question of order or procedure. Does not this Bill involve the expenditure of money, inasmuch as, I take it, it involves a cost to the State, and that cost to the State would not come under the 1925 Act? Can a Bill of this kind, if it involves expenditure of money, be brought forward by a private member and come to completion in a private member's hands? From the little knowledge that I have of the Arterial Drainage Act of 1925, I think that this would not come under the Money Resolution which applied to that Act, and I should like you to rule upon the point.

The Second Reading of the Bill having been carried, so far as I know, it will be a question to examine the Money Resolution passed in connection with the original Act, and of seeing whether a separate Money Resolution is required for this Bill or not. If it is required, then it will be the business of the Minister for Finance, now that consent has been given to the matter, and if the Government have no objection to the measure, to bring forward a Money Resolution. Whether the bringing forward of that Money Resolution will prevent the Bill going to a committee or not, I do not know, but I do not think it will. All that is required, I think, is that if a Money Resolution is necessary, that Money Resolution should be passed before the Bill goes to a special committee.

I should say that the question as to whether a Money Resolution is or is not necessary is a matter not for decision by the Chair at the moment. I take it, however, that if such a Resolution is necessary, the motion will be moved by a member of the Government before the Committee Stage of the Bill is taken.

The question I put is not exactly as you state it. It was this: If a Money Resolution for a Bill is necessary, can that Bill proceed to its final stages in the hands of a private member, or must it be taken up by the Government and go forward as a Government measure? The point of order about which I am in doubt is two-fold: (1) whether a Money Resolution is necessary, and I rather think it is; and (2) if a separate Money Resolution is necessary, whether the Bill can pass through its final stages in a private member's hands.

I would like to have notice of that question.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share