At the adjournment we were discussing the drainage side of the Vote. Deputy Bennett raised a question which I think interested a good many people in relation to drainage, and that is the degree in which the local drainage boards could be more closely associated with that work. The suggestion is that small drainage could be done locally at considerably less cost than it could be done through the Board of Works; the suggestion being apparently that there is a good deal of overhead charges of one kind or another which would not accrue in the case of local authorities. We think there is a considerable amount of truth in that, but certainly not truth to the degree in which it is generally believed. The general belief is that it it costs the Board of Works £10,000 to do something which other people could do for £400 or £500. There is no truth in that, but we feel that in a figure considerably higher than £1,000, which was the limit of small schemes previously done by local authorities, some economy could be effected by doing the work through local boards. Deputy Bennett referred to the Camoge drainage scheme in which he alleged, I believe quite sincerely, that for a very small sum of money work had been done that would cost the Board of Works five or six times the amount involved. I have not been able to find evidence of that. We have, as a matter of fact, carried out a couple of schemes through local authorities and where we checked up their output in relation to small schemes we feel there is room for an extension of their activities in that matter.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 11—Public Works and Buildings (Resumed).
In allocating the amounts under the 1925 Act has there been any change in the ratios recently? Are they the same as they were a couple of years ago? If the Parliamentary Secretary examines some drainage schemes I think he will find that a lot of what might be called economic schemes were done before, and that the very most that can be done by the Board of Works now, under what I might call the practice that prevails, would be the reconditioning of a number of these schemes. Seeing that a great deal of money has been spent on relief works or otherwise, I was wondering whether the step might not be taken of revising the rates and to recognise that there are many schemes the performance of which would mean a real increase of wealth to the country, at considerable cost, I admit. It would not pay local farmers to put up, say, fifty per cent. or twenty-five per cent. of the cost of such schemes. I know that certain schemes have been carried out where only two per cent. was provided. I think that was so in the Aughabeg scheme. At one period I do not know if it went beyond that.
There is a scheme where one hundred per cent. is being given.
Anyone interested in the Drainage Act of 1925 and in the small one that followed would be disappointed if there were not more schemes. There are no economic schemes—I mean reasonably economic schemes. None are economic from the point of view of bearing the whole cost. I wonder whether it would not be possible to undertake large works by facing up to the situation that more than fifty per cent. of the cost may have to be borne by the Central authority. I am afraid that raises other problems when it comes to collecting. I was anxious to put that view before the Parliamentary Secretary, so that he might give it his consideration and approach the whole question with an open mind. I may be able to develop the point more fully when dealing with relief works.
The Deputy would be quite entitled to develop the point to any extent he wishes. If he prefers to do so when dealing with relief works we will deal with it then.
When the Dáil adjourned I was referring to a matter on which I asked information. It was a case where four or five years elapsed before a charging order was made, during which certain interest is being charged to the parties concerned. My desire at present is to point out that there is a large scheme towards which Roscommon Co. Council has agreed to make a substantial contribution. I want some assurance from the Board of Works that something like what happened before will not happen again, and that when the scheme is complete the charging order will be made, and that four or five years will not elapse and accumulated interest have to be paid as well as the original charge. If that is the policy of the Board of Works I should like to know it.
What I had in mind was to see if there could be some variety, something rather than what was done by putting up £ for £ to a limit of 50 per cent. by the Government for every contribution given elsewhere. There are large numbers of big schemes such as rivers which are exceedingly difficult to deal with. I admit that the whole question of drainage is very often difficult. I also realise that upon the Board of Works no criticism should be made if occasionally the estimates are wrong. From the very nature of the case it is inevitable sometimes that estimates should be exceeded. I admit that the money is spent and paid out by the Government, but there is at least the advantage that it is not like a lot of other work done at a time of crisis, where the main purpose is that of paying out money and where the return is a secondary consideration. There are any number of rivers—for instance, take the Cashen River in North Kerry or the Robe in Mayo —which flood large areas. Looking at that problem from the purely economic point of view of how much it means to the individual farmer, it will not pay him to approve of a scheme which will put a fairly considerable tax on him year after year for perhaps 35 or 40 years. In the present straitened circumstances of local finance the local bodies will not be prepared to come forward. If the work is to be done, therefore, it seems to me that the money must be provided by the central authority. There will at least be this consolation for the central authority in this particular class of work, that though to the farmer the return for that amount spent may not be an economic balance, there will be a net gain to the country as a whole. All the money stays in the country, and, therefore, from that point of view, it can be put on a level with any other kind of relief work. I think that there are very few types of work in which so much of the money goes into labour as in the drainage of a river, or possibly the making of roads. In the case of roads the money spent makes the roads better, and adds to the amenities of the district, but it is not productive. I think in the case of drainage, though the return may not be so much, it is productive. You do get a real balance to the country in regard to adding to its permanent wealth. There are certain types of roads which are productive. Tourist roads are productive, while bog roads may also be useful. Money spent on drainage work can be productive, and that is the reason why I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary to devote attention to seeing whether it would be possible to revise the scale of Government grants in that particular respect.
There are just a few matters to which I want to refer before the Parliamentary Secretary replies. I should like to know what is his intention regarding the drainage of the River Robe in Mayo. In 1911 there was a scheme under the Congested Districts Board for the drainage of that river. Then the War came along and there was no possibility of going ahead with it. The scheme was shelved. In 1923 when the Cumann na nGaedheal Government got into power they found that they could not very well tackle a job of that kind until the Arterial Drainage Act of 1925 was passed. They promised that the drainage of that particular river would be one of the first works done under that Act. The work was shelved, time and time again, and now it is up to the Parliamentary Secretary to see what can be done. The Mayo County Council was asked several years ago to give a guarantee for. I think, about one-fourth of the entire cost of drainage. After some time they gave that guarantee. As far as I understand, the cost of the drainage of that river amounted to about £45,000. The county council guarantee is £13,000. The Government, I understand, has given 50 per cent. of the costs. The remainder will be put on the benefiting area. There was an inquiry held about a year ago, and by an overwhelming majority the people of that area agreed to bear the cost which they were supposed to bear. Now I see that the Parliamentary Secretary has only £10,000 down for the drainage, although £45,000 was the estimated cost. I hope he will let us know when it is intended to start the work.
There is now no obstacle in so far as preparing schemes is concerned. The Congested Districts Boards prepared a scheme; the Board of Works prepared three or four schemes; the Land Commission prepared schemes. I think it has been a happy hunting ground for engineers down there for the last ten years. It has already cost about £3,000. The cost of those surveys, inquiries and so forth has amounted to that figure. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not again shelve the matter. Crossboyne Church down in that area was flooded by that river three years ago. The Minister for Industry and Commerce went down at that time and promised the people that when he got into power—which was a few months afterwards—he would see the drainage of that river carried out in the following summer. Three years have elapsed and nothing has been done so far. I hope the Minister will speed up the Board of Works and see that they will go on with the work. The county council has given the guarantee, and the people in the district are all in favour of the work. I do not need to stress the loss sustained by the farmers in the district through the flooding that occurred there, not only in winter, but even in July and August when there are heavy rainfalls. The whole area from Ballinrobe to Crossboyne and from there to Ballyhaunis has been flooded, and the damage to crops has been considerable. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will speed up the work, even if only £10,000 is available for it.
The Parliamentary Secretary to conclude.
On the question raised by Deputy Brennan, he may have an assurance that at the earliest possible date after the completion of a scheme the charging order will be issued. He may take that for granted. We have no object whatever in holding it up. The State loses by holding it up, and he may take it that there will be no delay.
Would I be right in asking that there will be no charge of interest between the finishing of the work and the issuing of the charging order? I think that is manifestly unfair.
The Deputy may think it manifestly unfair. What he does not recognise is that every word he has said—I am not stating this in any sense of controversy—has been an attack upon the actual provisions of the Act as it existed.
I do not want to save the Act.
In other words, what the Deputy wants is another Act.
What I want is equity and fair play to the people who have been charged. That is all I want. I think it was manifestly unfair that when work was done four or five years elapsed before the charging order was made out, and that then, due to accruing interest, it was 34 per cent. higher than the people were given to understand it was.
The Deputy uses phrases like equity and fairness. If equity and fairness are to be reached in relation to an Act it depends upon the precise provisions of the Act. Unless the Deputy says that the original Act was dishonest, unfair and unjust in its actual provisions, there is nothing in his case, because nothing has happened which was not in the Act.
Did the Act provide that the charging order would not be made out until 1932—four or five years after the work was completed? In 1928 the particular work was completed, and the charging order was made out in 1932.
The Act simply provided certain machinery by which the cost could be ascertained. That machinery was utilised, and the Deputy may take it that no charge which was not definitely accruing under the Act has been put on.
I agree. My point is that there was undue delay.
There is this agreement between the Deputy, myself and everybody interested in arterial drainage, that whatever happened before this administration came in, while this administration is in every effort will be made to reduce to the lowest possible limit the time between the completing of a work and the issuing of a charging order.
That is all I want to know.
Deputy O'Sullivan raised a question as to whether there had been any change in the arrangement in relation to the 1925 Act. As the Deputy is aware, there was no definite limitation laid down in that particular Act.
There was a practice.
The practice has been that only 50 per cent. could be given. There has been no case, to my knowledge, in which that has been exceeded and the Deputy, who lived with this job for some time and who knows these difficulties, will know that immediately a limitation of that kind takes place, and is altered at all in practice, the floodgates are opened almost to 100 per cent. Quite naturally, we are very unwilling to open difficulties of that kind. As against that, however, there is undoubtedly the fact that a great deal of the delay and a considerable amount of the subsequent cost in relation to the schemes is due to the very small proportion of money that is eventually put up by the farmers actually benefited. The fact that certain formalities have to be proceeded with and that certain inquiries have to be made undoubtedly adds to the cost of the work, out of all proportion to the amount which is contributed by the people themselves. However, vague statements, such as the schemes "being productive" and "leaving definite assets to the State when they are finished," do not carry us very far, as the Deputy is very well aware. When the Deputy states that certain schemes, which have gone through, have been 100 per cent. economic, it means that there is no ascertained benefit residual to the land when there is put against that residual benefit the bare cost of maintaining the works when they are completed, and the mere fact that the State has passed schemes, as the Deputy said, up to 98 per cent. uneconomic in certain places, is a very strong argument against any suggestion of niggardliness in such schemes.
I am amazed—frankly amazed—and I think that the Deputy himself would be amazed if he went back over all the schemes put through— to see the schemes that have been put through. I certainly think that he would not put it down to any hesitancy in issuing money for arterial drainage. We are merely trying to find out the truth. The main schemes—that is, schemes dealing with the main arteries of the rivers—while essential to the efficiency of any up-river schemes, are nearly all more than 100 per cent. economic. It is a question of clearing the main channels so as to have a way of draining the tributaries. These main river schemes are very costly and, there is only a negligible amount of land which would benefit directly by the clearing of the main river. If there were to be any increase of national or central contribution, as distinct from local contribution, towards those schemes, the best course, undoubtedly, would be to apply it in connection with the main rivers. The Deputy's difficulty is that works upon the main rivers have practically no value from the point of view of relief works such as he spoke of. Practically all of such schemes will have to be carried out by machinery, and actually the proportion of labour involved in such schemes is very low. The proportion of local labour involved in such schemes is very small because it is necessary to bring in special machinery and skilled crews to work the machines — men trained and experienced in the work. As a result, in most cases it is not possible to recruit labour on the site from the local unemployment point of view. I am only mentioning that so that the Deputy may see that in anything we do, or in anything we refrain from doing in relation to drainage, we are doing it with a balanced consideration of all the factors in the case.
I am putting it broadly, of course, but where you are dealing with up-river and tributary drainage you are dealing with schemes which do help the people in the neighbourhood, and I feel that a considerable proportion of that cost should fall upon them. Where, however, you are dealing with main river drainage you are dealing with a work to which there is very little direct local labour benefit accruing, and there is also the necessity for spending more money on the main rivers than on the tributaries.
The Deputy also raised the question of estimates for schemes. All I can say is that it is a matter which is receiving the very closest and most careful attention in the Department at the present moment. We are inquiring into the methods of the Department with regard to the basis on which these estimates were founded in the past and we hope that we will be able in the future to estimate more closely than in the past.
Deputy Nally raised the question of the Robe. The actual position is that the inspector's report, which is a very long and technical report, and which has to be read and considered technically, is in hand and being considered at the moment. I am not making any promise, because I do not want Deputy Nally to come back here and sue me for breach of promise on another occasion, but I hope that the work will take place this year. Complaint has been made of the cost of preparing this and other schemes. What happened in the past was that enough money was not spent before a scheme was started, with the result that more than enough money had to be spent after the scheme started.