Last night I was referring to a statement made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce with regard to this amendment in which he said that the principle which they were adopting was the same principle as they had adopted in the case of the Shannon scheme. I might say that the position has changed somewhat now from what it was when the Shannon scheme was under consideration. I can go further and say that it has entirely changed. After all, when the then Government were embarking on the Shannon scheme it was a very big venture, a venture that received very great criticism up and down the country, but now, notwithstanding the wild statements of the Minister for Finance, when he described the scheme as a white elephant, we have it on record that the scheme is paying interest on the principal and, in addition to that, it is paying a certain amount towards the sinking fund. I would say, therefore, that it is hardly fair to ask the ratepayers of Wicklow to bear the burden that is going to be imposed upon them as a result of the Electricity Supply Board being relieved of rates on the land that is being taken over for the purposes of the Liffey scheme. I shall go further and say that the Dublin Corporation, which is also a party to promoting the scheme for the purpose of providing water for the people of Dublin, are naturally going to benefit by it, and I think it is only fair that they should be asked to bear their share of the burden of the rates. I do not think there is any necessity to say anything more, but I would ask the Minister to reconsider the position with regard to this amendment and to try to relieve the ratepayers of Wicklow who are going to lose as a result of this scheme.
Liffey Reservoir Bill, 1936—Committee (Resumed).
Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
I should like to ask the Minister, as this section deals with the question of rates on property to be acquired and in the hands of the Electricity Supply Board, if he would tell us what the position exactly is. I understand that the Electricity Supply Board are required to pay some annual sum in respect of any lands in their possession which are exempt from rates.
All property of the Electricity Supply Board that is used for the generation, transmission or distribution of electricity is exempt from rates. Other property is not exempt. Property used for these purposes is exempt from rates by the Act of 1930.
I should like the Minister to look into this question because the matter has been brought to my attention and has given rise to what must be considered an anomaly. Under some Acts, some type of property which the Electricity Supply Board hold or acquire from some municipally owned undertakings, automatically becomes exempt when the property comes into the possession of the board if it is used for the generation of electricity but it does become subject to the payment of some annual sum to the local authority. If, in the process of reconstituting the area for power distribution purposes, the Electricity Supply Board determine to dispose of this piece of property which they got from the municipal undertaking when they were taking it over, and they sell it to a private individual, the situation then appears to be that the private individual who purchases the land purchases it charged with this annual payment which was originally put on in lieu of rates, and, in addition to that, has to pay rates on that land because it has come into the hands of a private proprietor. I think that set of circumstances was never foreseen when the principal Acts were going through, and, if it is proposed to extend the principal Acts to the land that may be acquired by this new undertaking, then I think that situation ought to be recognised in relation to electricity enterprises in the country in the future.
I cannot give the Deputy any information as to the circumstances which arise when the Electricity Supply Board disposes of property. If the Deputy is anxious to go into that matter he might address a Parliamentary Question to the Minister for Local Government. At the moment we are merely concerned with the electricity works of the Electricity Supply Board and their exemption from local rates, and all this Bill proposes to do is to grant in respect of the Liffey works the same exemption that at present operates in respect of other generating stations of the board's system.
Could the Minister say if the Vartry reservoir is free from rates?
I cannot answer that question straight away. So far as this section is concerned we are not exempting anything from rates except the Liffey works as defined, that is the reservoir and the transmission system of the Electricity Supply Board.
Is the reservoir exempt?
Yes, but the section does not apply, for example, to any works constructed by the corporation in connection with the supply of water apart from that.
Will the reservoir, in so far as it is a water supply, be liable for assessment?
No. The reservoir comes within the definition of "Liffey works" and is exempt from rates.
Is the reservoir at Roundwood exempt?
I cannot say, but I will make inquiries.
There are 5,000 acres involved in this case. You exempt the whole of that?
The question was discussed yesterday as to whether there was likely to be any hardship on the local authority. I advanced first the contention that the construction of the reservoir at Poulaphouca is likely to lead also to the erection of a considerable amount of rateable property there. I think that, apart from anything else, the local authority stands to gain on that account. It is also the fact, of course, that the agricultural grant to the county will not be reduced in the aggregate, and consequently the amount of relief that will be given to individuals will be increased by the submergence of this 5,000 acres.
There is just one point which I should like to mention in connection with this section. I will not delay the Minister very long. The county council is not mentioned in this section at all. It is by the Minister for Local Government, I presume, that representations on behalf of the county council would be received in that connection?
What section is the Deputy referring to?
Section 15, sub-section (2). The district concerned is a very poor one. There is no need for roads, bridges and all the rest of it in the particular district, and I expect that, before a final decision will be taken, representations on behalf of the county council would be received.
What we are doing there is setting up the Minister for Local Government as the arbitrator between the board and the local authority.
I do not think the local authority is mentioned in it.
Oh, yes; that is the main purpose. New roads will be constructed, and there is the question of allocating the cost and so forth. If any question arises, therefore, it is the Minister for Local Government who will determine the question as between the local authority and the Electricity Supply Board.
Perhaps the Minister will look into it to see whether he will put in the words "local authority."
Amendment No. 12 seems to be related to Nos. 1 and 9.
Does the Minister wish to take them as consequential?
I take it that what the Deputy is really suggesting is an alternative to Section 16. I think the present Section 16 is preferable. It provides that if, in the opinion of the Minister for Fisheries, any works should be constructed in order to protect the fisheries from damage, those works will be constructed, unless they should prove to be unduly costly or interfere unduly with the operation of the Liffey works. I can assure the Deputy that so far as the Electricity Supply Board and myself are concerned we will be only too glad to cooperate in carrying out any works which the Minister for Fisheries may suggest in order to preserve the fisheries, subject to the conditions I have stated. It is not anticipated that any damage will be done to the fisheries, but if any minor works of one kind or another will obviate that possibility they must be constructed by the board.
As the Minister has stated that he is going to look after the fisheries, I ask leave to withdraw my amendment.
I move amendment No. 13:—
In page 11, line 34, to delete the figures "1933" and substitute the figures "1935".
This is only a drafting amendment.
I move amendment No. 14:—
In sub-section (2), page 12, before paragraph (b) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
(b) the expression "water mains" where it occurs in Section 64 of the said Act shall be construed as including aqueducts, conduits, culverts, and tunnels for conveying water for the purposes of a water supply.
It is necessary, I think, to have this definition inserted here. The Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, provides that a sanitary authority supplying water within their district shall have the same power and be subject to the same restrictions for carrying water mains within and without their district as they have with regard to sewers within and without their district. The sanitary authority has the right of laying sewers and watermains through or in any lands whatever, after giving reasonable notice in writing to the owner or occupier, and compensation must of course be paid for any damage done.
The sanitary authority is not bound to purchase any land belonging to a private person in which to lay a sewer or watermain. The sanitary authority acquires the right of subjacent support the moment a sewer or watermain is laid. The meaning of a watermain is generally regarded as a pipe for conveying water. In the Liffey scheme portion of the pipe line may consist of an aqueduct, conduit, culvert or tunnel, and the amendment which I am moving will make it clear that the powers of the sanitary authority for the laying of a watermain would include the laying of aqueducts, conduits, culverts and tunnels. In the case of any portion of the pipe line laid as an open aqueduct, the sanitary authority would have to acquire the land through which such portion of the conduit would be laid.
I move amendment No. 15:—
In sub-section (2) (c), page 12, line 14, after the word "Minister" to insert the words "for Local Government and Public Health," and before the word "Minister" in lines 18, 21 and 26, to insert the word "said."
This amendment is to make it clear that the Minister referred to is the Minister for Local Government.
I move amendment No. 16:—
In sub-section (2) to delete paragraph (d) and substitute a new paragraph as follows:—
(d) so much of the proviso to paragraph (5) of the said Section 203 as relates to the months in which the notices mentioned in the said Section 203 may be served and to the period within which the inquiry mentioned in the said Section 203 may be held shall not apply.
The proviso referred to asks that any notice or order required to be served by the sanitary authority under the Act of 1878—Section 203 of that Act— on a number of persons having any right over or on lands in common may be served on any three or more of such persons on behalf of all such persons. It is considered desirable to retain this power, and the amendment was designed accordingly.
I move amendment No. 17:—
In page 12, line 45, to delete the figures "59" and substitute the figures "58".
This is a drafting amendment.
I should like to make a point in connection with Section 19, which, I think, the Minister would do well to take into consideration. This section gives the corporation power to take possession of land on the giving of one month's notice—or, at least, it makes provision for a month's notice. I should like to know would it be possible to anticipate that by giving the people concerned some information, earlier than the month prescribed, that the place was going to be acquired. Were that not done, it might lead, in certain cases, to hardship. Take, for example, the month of May, where a man has sheep or other live stock. That man might not be able to get suitable alternative land at such short notice, and if he were informed by the corporation or the Electricity Supply Board, a month or two beforehand that his land was going to be acquired, it would facilitate him very much. I think it would be a good idea to give notice to cattle owners or sheep owners, or others of that kind of farmers, some time beforehand, and I should like to know if the Minister would take into consideration that fact.
There would be no difficulty in that respect. In fact, we have already Deputies from Wicklow interesting themselves on behalf of people likely to be affected on the site of the reservoir, and we have had representations from the Electricity Supply Board that, in the great majority of cases, they would give, at least, a year's notice to such people; the only exception being in a few cases where the land would have to be acquired almost immediately. In similar cases in so far as the corporation is concerned, they should be able to give quite a long notice of the intention to acquire because the works they will be doing there will be of such a nature that the land would not have to be acquired almost immediately, and, therefore, they would be able to give adequate notice to the people concerned. The only cases in which there would be short notice would be the cases of certain properties on the actual site of the reservoir, but in all other cases there would be quite a long notice. This particular section relates to the powers of the corporation.
Well, there is just one other point which, probably, is not quite relevant to this section, but which I should like to mention. What I mean is that, in a case of this sort, where notice is given, whether long or short notice, of the intention to acquire land, and where the land is to be acquired, it will take a considerable time before the actual compensation will be paid to the person from whom the land is acquired. I should like to know whether, in such a case, it would not be possible for a man to get some advance on the compensation to be given—that he should be given some moiety of the amount.
Well, yes, I shall have that suggestion considered.
I move amendment No. 18:—
At the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) Where anything lawfully done or intended to be done by the corporation under this Act is liable to cause injury to the fisheries of the River Liffey, the corporation may execute such works as shall be agreed upon with the Board of Conservators of Fisheries for the Dublin District and approved by the Minister for Agriculture, with a view to preventing or remedying such injury.
This amendment deals with the same point.
Well, it is the same point, but the Minister seems to be relying on Section 16 for his powers, and that, apparently, is the only board under the Minister for Agriculture. I should like to suggest to the Minister that it is not quite clear that he can make the corporation carry out any works that are necessary. Of course, perhaps the Minister has an answer to that.
In so far as the works affecting the Liffey are concerned, they will affect the board and be under the control of the board, and I think that Section 16 is adequate to protect the interests of the fisheries. The only thing here is the circumstance of an unduly dry season, and the agreement requires that, in such circumstance, a minimum flow of water will be maintained in the river in any event. The section sets out what may happen in the circumstances of an unusual drought, and in so far as that is so, it has been accepted by the corporation and the Electricity Supply Board.
I quite agree, but I am sure the Minister can imagine some subsidiary works which might be carried out by the board or the corporation as a result of which very great damage might be done to the fisheries, and where the Minister might have no control over the corporation. I should like to point out to the Minister that it would be desirable for him to have that power in case such a situation arose. Perhaps the Minister will look into that question.
In every case where damage might be done to interests that involve compensation, the corporation will have power, under this part of the Bill, to make the compensation. Section 16, however, is designed to deal with the major problem in connection with the construction of the reservoir, and in that connection fears have been voiced in relation to the fisheries, and it will be necessary to see that these fears are removed.
Has the Minister powers over the corporation in such a case as I have mentioned?
No, not in so far as the powers of the corporation and the control the Bill exercises over them are concerned.
But under the Bill, can the Minister not take power to control the corporation if such a situation should arise? However, I do not want to press this, if the Minister says he has the power.
The Bill brings in the Minister for Local Government and Public Health in connection with the Local Government Department, and what the section says is that where damage is caused, or likely to be caused, in respect of anything lawfully done or intended to be done by the corporation, in respect of which a person is entitled, actually or prospectively, to compensation, the corporation may, with the sanction of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, execute for the benefit of such person such works as the corporation, with the sanction of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, thinks proper. In other words, instead of paying compensation, the corporation can carry out whatever works are necessary to avert the prospective damage to the person concerned, to remedy the damage if it has occurred, or avoid the possibility of its recurring, provided that the person concerned agrees to accept that in satisfaction or partial satisfaction of his claim for such compensation.
I move amendment No. 19:—
In sub-section (2), page 13, line 50, before the word "that" to insert the words "that the corporation have begun to take and draw water from the reservoir to be constructed by the board in pursuance of the scheduled agreement and".
It is not intended that this section should become operative until the Liffey scheme should commence to operate, and the amendment is designed to make that clear.
On the section, Sir. Section 23 says that the Minister for Local Government and Public Health may, if he so thinks fit, on the application of the sanitary authority of a sanitary district in the County of Dublin or the County of Kildare, by order require the corporation to supply water to such sanitary authority. I wonder if the Minister would have any objection, in the Report Stage, to including Wicklow in that section. I think it was referred to yesterday that a considerable portion of the water main which supplies Blessington will be submerged, and I think it would be rather a peculiar thing if it transpired that this vast amount of water, available close to Blessington should not be available for Wicklow, and that the people in Wicklow should, perhaps, be put to considerable expense in order to create a new water supply for themselves. I think the Minister ought to take that matter into consideration in the interval between now and the Report Stage.
As far as I am aware, it would not be practicable for the corporation to do so. I do not think the supply of the corporation will pass through Wicklow at all, and, as a matter of fact, I think that at present the corporation is under obligation to supply water to Wicklow from Roundwood adjacent to the pipe-line. However, I shall look into the matter, but it is a matter primarily for the corporation and the Department of Local Government and Public Health. There may be certain difficulties in supplying water from Poulaphouca for County Wicklow.
It would be impossible to bring it from Roundwood to Wicklow.
Have you not a separate water scheme?
You are going to deprive us of the benefits of Roundwood.
Question agreed to.
SECTION 24.
I wonder would the Minister explain this section. It is proposed in the second portion of the section to exclude from the indebtedness of the corporation money borrowed by the corporation for any works in connection with these waterworks. That has already been done in connection with housing. I would assume that the supply of water, sewage works, etc., would be reckoned as part of the debt to the corporation. Would the Minister explain the reason for the second part of this section? It is possible that this section may defeat the purpose the Minister has in view. The sum involved is not so very large, possibly £500,000.
It might be more.
Assuming it was, why should it not be regarded as part of the debt of the corporation? Is not this a departure from the usual procedure? One of the advantages which the corporation has in its finances is that it has not gone to the limit of its borrowing powers. In this case water is one of the utilities that the local authority should be called upon to supply and borrow money upon the work. Housing has already been excluded from the sums that should be included in limiting the borrowing powers of the corporation. This body some time recently found some difficulty in borrowing money. I take it they would find it easier to borrow money now. If this principle is followed the credit would be reduced. Obviously, the interest upon the principal and the rest of it will have to be paid and that is the reason why the limit is fixed upon the borrowing powers of a local authority at £x. If that is not the case £x might as well not be there. The main desire of the corporation is to have their credit stand well so as to enable them to borrow money for housing. If investors take note, the harm that will be done by this sub-section will more than counterbalance the advantages got by showing a lower debt. Would the Minister give the reason for this?
I am not sure if the Deputy has accurately stated the principle upon which the limitation of the borrowing power of the corporation is based. It is not that the resources of the corporation do not permit it to borrow beyond the limit but it is to provide that that limit should not be exceeded without express statutory authority. That statutory authority was sought and obtained for the construction of the Roundwood reservoir. If the corporation were promoting a Private Bill for this work they would seek these powers and get them. It is necessary that they should be authorised to exceed the limits stated in the Public Health Acts, 1878 to 1931. For the purpose of this particular operation the resources of the corporation would be adequate to meet the loan charges involved. We are giving this extension of their borrowing powers at their request. They required it for the purpose of the Roundwood reservoir and it is proposed to give it to them in this case. The actual cost will be between £800,000 and £900,000. That is to say, that will be their share of the cost of the construction of the reservoir, plus the cost of the construction of their own works, that is, their conduit or pipe-line from Poulaphouca to the city. To enable them to finance these works it is necessary that they should have this extension.
It has escaped my recollection that they had to look for these powers for the Roundwood works. I know that the corporation got seriously into debt from 1922 to 1930 when carrying out housing work.
As a matter of fact this limit does not apply to housing work.
Might I remind the Minister that I stated that at the very start? I stated that money required for housing is excluded from the indebtedness of the corporation.
The wealth and resources of the city have increased in the past few years.
Yes, other breweries as well as Guinness have been started and several tobacco factories have been started. Will the Minister tell us how much the city has gone up in valuation?
Oh, illimitable.
I think I could place as much reliance on the Minister's optimism now as on his pessimism seven or eight years ago.
I move amendment No. 20:—
In page 15, line 12, to delete the word "public" and substitute the word "local".
This is to make it clear that the right of examining a rate book or other similar document should apply only to the documents of the local authority.
I move amendment No. 21:—
In sub-section (2), page 15, line 48, to delete the figures "233" and substitute the figures "223".
This is a drafting amendment only.
I move amendment No. 22:—
In paragraph (a), page 16, line 30, after the word "shall" to insert the words "if the Minister for Local Government and Public Health so directs".
In some cases it may be necessary to close a road only for a short period. Where the traffic could be suitably diverted to another road it would be unfair to impose on the corporation the construction and maintenance of a temporary road or bridge. The amendment is inserted in order that the public interest may be safeguarded.
I take it that this Schedule sets out the terms of the agreement under which certain properties will be acquired by the Electricity Supply Board and corporation. I desire to direct the Minister's attention to a situation which I mentioned earlier and of which I can give him particulars now. Certain of these properties on acquisition by the Electricity Supply Board will become subject to the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act of 1930. Section 11 (2) of that Act provides that where the Electricity Board acquires land from a local authority, that after it becomes exempted from rates, then in order to prevent the local authority suffering loss of rates, the Electricity Supply Board will thereafter pay to the local authority a certain sum. The words of the section are "pay a perpetual annuity to every local authority by whom rates were assessed in respect of such premises ... for the year ending on the 31st March prior to the date," of acquisition. If the board subsequently decides to divest itself of that piece of property the statutory obligation to pay the annuity in respect of it remains. The situation then is that the board continues to pay the statutory annuity and the transferee of the land pays the rates to the local authority.
My suggestion to the Minister is that that is an undesirable situation, because it must tend to encourage the Electricity Supply Board to retain land which it really does not require for the purpose of supplying electricity. If retained, the board could lease it and reserve the head rent, which will compensate it for the statutory annuity it is required to pay, whereas if it sold, it might find it difficult, owing to the uneven character of small pieces of land that fall into its hands, to get a sum which capitalised would be sufficient to pay the annuity it is charged with in Section 11 of the Act of 1930. It is highly undesirable that land should be left in mortmain which could, if in the possession of anybody else, be productively used. Therefore, the purpose of the Oireachtas is to see that where the Electricity Supply Board do not require land it should facilitate giving it to a farmer, or builder or to somebody who will use it productively. My suggestion to remedy that situation is that a provision should be made in regard to land acquired in connection with the Liffey scheme, and if the Electricity Supply Board is assessed under Section 11 (2) of the Act of 1930 on an annuity on any land in its possession, that the land will be released from that annuity in the event of sale in fee simple to a third party. I do not suggest that the Minister will be in a position to deal with that question finally now but, it is one into which he might profitably look.
The matter does not come into this Bill at all. Section 11, to which the Deputy referred, deals with the rating of the board in respect of acquired undertakings. There is no question of acquiring any electricity undertakings under this Bill. The board will acquire certain land from owners in County Wicklow. I do not know what the Deputy has in mind but I will look into Section 11 if he desires, to see if there is any necessary alteration in view of the argument he advanced. I want to make it clear that it does not affect the provisions of this Bill in the least. We are not proposing to acquire any electricity undertakings in County Wicklow.
In so far as it is proposed to exact the total rate I suggest that the board should be relieved of its share of it.