asked the Minister for Finance whether the Government has yet found time to consider the report of the Arterial Drainage Commission, and, if so, what has been the outcome, if any, of that consideration; whether any advance has been made in dealing with the problem presented by the Brick and Cashen; what steps, if any, have been taken to implement the recommendations of the commission in respect of these two rivers.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Drainage Commission Report.
As the Deputy was informed in reply to a question on the 25th June last, the report of the Drainage Commission has been considered by the Government. As a result of that consideration the Government have decided to adopt in principle the recommendations of the commission in regard to the setting up of a central drainage authority, with the functions indicated in the commission's report, the carrying out of a comprehensive scheme of arterial drainage and the treatment of the cost of future drainage construction works as a national charge. The framing of the heads of the necessary legislation has been put in hands.
As regards the Brick-Cashen, a survey of this area was made about 1926 from which it is clear that the district is unsuitable for operations under the Arterial Drainage Act, 1925, and it would, therefore, be necessary to await the further legislation now contemplated before any progress can be made. At the moment, records of river discharges, tidal levels, and rainfall, in the area are being collected; but a thorough engineering survey in much greater detail than that previously carried out will be required before any works can be undertaken, or, indeed, before a sound opinion can be formed as to the feasibility of dealing in any satisfactory manner with the outfall problem, which is particularly difficult in this district. I am aware that the Drainage Commission mentioned the district specially as one of two areas for which priority of treatment is recommended, but I think it proper to say that the engineering difficulties inherent in the scheme give rise to grave doubt as to whether it would be desirable to select it for the initiation of a new drainage programme.
Is the Minister aware of the recent extensive damage done in the areas in North Kerry which are connected with the Cashen, and is he also aware that even still more extensive damage was escaped only because the recent floods did not coincide with the spring tide? In view of the amount of loss now suffered, does he not think it well to revise the opinion already put forward by the Government that even preventive works cannot be undertaken before the whole scheme is thoroughly examined for final adoption; and whether it is not in the long run cheaper to go in for these preventive works, even partial works, now than to allow things to get worse and the cost to mount season by season? Am I right, finally, in assuming from the Minister's statement that in ordinary words this Brick and Cashen scheme that was approved of by different Departments several years ago is now to be put on the long finger, and that in this particular respect the report of the Drainage Commission, appointed by the Government, is being simply put on the shelf? Does the Minister not recognise what despair it must cause to the sufferers there when they read the Minister's answer?
I think the first part of the Deputy's assumption is correct. His second assumption is not correct. The report is not being put on the shelf.
The Minister will excuse me, I did not say that the report was being put on the shelf, but only that portion dealing with priority for this area. I said that the Brick and Cashen portion of it was being put on the long finger.
I said that assumption is correct.
I thought the Minister was referring to the first portion of my somewhat brief question.
It was very hard to know which was the first portion and which the second.
Does the Minister not realise that every season that passes increases the cost, and does he not recognise that this year furnishes him with an outstanding example of that?
I understand that this is a very difficult engineering problem. My information is that tinkering with it will be of no help. If tackled at all, it will have to be done in a big way. There is no legislation at present to enable the problem to be tackled in that big way. At present a Bill is being drafted, and orders have been given to speed the drafting of it with a view to dealing with this and other problems when the legislation is completed.
May I point out to the Minister that what I suggested was preventive work? May I put this point to him, since he speaks of the absence of legislation, that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance has to deal with unemployment on the one hand and with drainage on the other? Could he not bring the two lobes of the Parliamentary Secretary's brain together and combine them to deal with this particular problem?