Vol. 37 No. 6
I beg to move amendment 1:—
In sub-section (4) (a), line 47, after the word "provision" to insert "or improvement."
I put this amendment down because it is not quite clear from the terms of the Bill whether improvement is understood here. Is it the opinion of the Minister that improvement, say, of a water supply will come under the facilities provided by this Bill, whereas the improvement, for example, of a sewer or of the method of disposal of sewage will not come within its provisions?
This section was drafted explicitly because of the difference between sewers and sewage disposal on the one hand, and the supply of water on the other. I am advised that the Bill, as at present drafted, fulfils the necessary requirements and that there is no improvement of sewers or sewage disposal that would not come within its provisions. Where you deal with the provision or the improvement of a water supply you are dealing with a different thing. I am advised that the additional wording is not necessary, but if the Deputy thinks that it would tend to make the position safer than it is I have no objection.
I think it would be necessary.
Very necessary.
It is difficult for the lay mind to see the full implications of this measure; it is difficult to see why, if you extend a water supply or a sewerage system and make improvements of various sorts, there should be a difference between the one and the other. It seems to me that the inclusion of these words is advisable if the Minister has no special purpose in excluding the improvement of existing schemes. I do not know much, I am sorry to say, about this particular type of work, but it is conceivable that a new system of sewage disposal or an improvement in existing systems could be got. If there was an existing system and an improvement was anticipated, the work necessary in that respect should come under the facilities of this measure. If there is any question about the matter why not make it clear here? I would be better satisfied if the change were made so as to make it quite clear that improvements in the ordinary acceptation of the word could be made under this measure, just as well as new works.
Is the Minister accepting the amendment?
I am emphasising that when Deputy de Valera speaks of the lay mind being satisfied, I am prepared to satisfy the lay mind. From the technical and the engineering point of view, and from the point of view of the draftsman, they say there is a difference between a water supply and a sewer.
I think this amendment is absolutely necessary. You might have the position where there is what is termed a built sewer and certain members of a county council might say that that sewer fulfils requirements in the event of a particular locality advocating a pipe sewer in its place; they might regard the pipe sewer as a new sewer, whereas it would really be only an improvement.
I put in the amendment because if there is a doubt it is very much better that that doubt should be removed. I do not think there would be any harm in doing that. I say that it is very difficult to the lay mind to understand why you can improve a water supply and you cannot improve methods of disposal of sewage or you cannot improve a sewerage system. I would be quite satisfied if the Minister got his draftsman to draft this amendment in such a way that the ordinary lay mind would understand the matter.
I am prepared to accept the amendment.
It is not expert people who will be always reading these Bills.
I merely put down the amendment to indicate the word required.
Some people believe that an improvement in the matter of a sewerage system can be brought about by remedying neglected maintenance.
I beg to move amendment 2:—
In sub-section (4) (b), page 3, line 1, delete the words "the capital cost of the work" and substitute the words "there is involved only such portion of the capital cost of the work as."
This is more or less of the same character as the first amendment. It is intended also to satisfy the lay mind. There seems to be a difference of opinion amongst legal men— at least they are not quite certain— that capital cost here would cover what the amendment is intended to cover, namely, "such portion of the capital cost of the work as..." The section would then read: "...only such portion of the capital cost of the work as is defrayed out of borrowed moneys..." Suppose a grant is made by the Minister for certain works, the facilities under the Act ought to be made available for such portion of it as would not be met by the grant. The Minister probably sees the point.
I do, but I do not think the amendment, as set down here, would make the matter clear.
There is, I think, some mistake in this, because the whole thing is governed by the unfortunate phrase that introduces the section. I had to try to work the amendment in with the phrase that introduces the section: "This section applies only to works complying with both the following conditions, that is to say"—and then follow paragraphs (a) and (b). You will have to take the amendment in conjunction with the introductory words of the section.
Here again I am advised that the section completely covers what is intended and what, no doubt, arises even where a relief grant is given. If it is necessary to make the matter more clear perhaps the Deputy would like something like this: "that the capital cost of the work to be defrayed by the Board of Health is so defrayed out of borrowed moneys."
The question is whether the board of health would not be defraying the whole lot. It would get money from two sources, from a grant and borrowed moneys under the facilities in this Act. I do not mind how the Minister drafts it so long as he brings out the idea that the facilities of this Act are available for whatever portion of the capital cost of the work has to be met out of borrowed moneys. If that is done I am quite satisfied. The introductory words make it difficult to get in any suitable amendment.
Perhaps the Deputy would not move his amendment now, but would rather put it down for the Report Stage.
I am quite satisfied if the Minister accepts the principle of the amendment.
I accept the principle if putting in something here will not make obscure something which, to those responsible, is quite clear in this section. However, if the Deputy will put down the amendment for to-morrow I will agree to look into the matter. I may say I would like to get the Bill through to-morrow. I will see in the meantime if I cannot get another form of words which will clear up satisfactorily the point the Deputy has in mind.
I will do as the Minister suggests, but I want to be quite certain the Minister understands what I am trying to get at.
I do.
To-morrow I will ask to have the Fifth Stage of the Bill taken as I am anxious to have the Bill completed at the earliest possible moment.
