Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 Feb 1944

Vol. 92 No. 10

Committee on Finance. - Arterial Drainage Bill, 1943—Second Stage.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Since the circulation of the proposals for legislation dealing with arterial drainage, Deputies in this House who have been presenting Parliamentary Questions to the Minister for Finance since the publication of the Report of the Drainage Commission in 1941 will, I hope, have realised that the delay in bringing forward this legislation, giving effect to the Government's decision to implement that report, was occasioned by the fact that this problem of arterial drainage is a highly complicated one indeed.

I think that will be admitted by any Deputy in this House or any individual outside the House who takes up the Bill, which is made up of 57 sections, and sees for himself all the interests that are affected—the Electricity Supply Board, fisheries, navigation, mill rights, and a number of other rights. I think it will also be admitted that it was necessary for those responsible for the formation of those proposals to devote an enormous amount of time and an enormous amount of discussion as between all the different interests concerned before reaching the stage where those proposals could be circulated. I make those remarks by way of defence, or by way of meeting any charge which may have been lurking at the back of any person's mind that there was undue delay on the part of those who were charged with that responsibility.

Those members of the House who have read and studied the report of the Drainage Commission, published in 1941, will be able to bring to their minds the proposals or the methods suggested in that report by which this problem of arterial drainage should be tackled. The Government has accepted that report almost in detail. The commission suggested a central drainage authority which would be responsible for the initiation of all future drainage schemes. The commission suggested also that that central authority should set up a maintenance organisation. The proposals here follow closely along those lines. The commission suggested, too, the method by which maintenance work in future was to be financed. In fact, it is only in that important respect that the proposals here depart from the main features of the recommendations. Deputies will recall that that commission felt that those whose lands were benefited as a result of the carrying out of arterial drainage should be called upon to make some contribution towards the maintenance of the works provided for the relief from flooding of the lands which they owned. The Government decided to depart from that recommendation, and I would say that, in doing so, they made a very wise decision, for the reason that our experience and the experience of all those who have been associated with the work of arterial drainage has been that there have been numerous delays as well as a considerable number of other objections associated with this whole question of the separate drainage rate paid by each individual as recommended in the report to which I have referred.

Now in the report of that commission from whatever information they had, largely information that was placed at their disposal by the Office of Public Works, they arrived at a figure as to what an arterial drainage scheme would cost and the figure which they suggested from the rough calculation which they were able to make and from the figures to which I have referred was a sum of £7,000,000. There was nothing firm about that figure, as anyone can see by perusing the report. The members of the commission safeguarded themselves perfectly on that matter. A good many changes have taken place since then, short as the period has been. If one were asked to make a shot at what these proposals, if implemented, would cost, I would imagine that you would be likely to get a much more substantial figure than that which is given in the commission's report.

The report refers to another matter which I think it would be well that Deputies should know, and not only Deputies but the outside public who have been keenly interested over a very long period in this whole matter of drainage. When Deputies go down to their constituencies, following the introduction of a measure of this kind where figures so enormous as the figures mentioned here appear, they will be met by people whose lands have been flooded for a number of years, and merely because proposals such as these have been introduced these people will get it into their heads that relief will be brought to their doors in a very short time, and when I use the expression "brought to their doors" I mean brought to the lands which are affected and which are owned by them. I think, therefore, that it would be well for Deputies, if they have not already done so, to look up that part of the report which refers to the rate at which the sum mentioned as the gross sum necessary can be spent and see what the commission had to say as to the rate at which that sum would be expended. They mentioned a sum of, roughly, £250,000 per annum. That commission was composed of men who had a practical knowledge of this subject, and also of men who have considerable engineering ability.

These men gave it as their opinion that the maximum sum that the central drainage authority was likely to be able to expend in any one year would be £250,000, and they conditioned that statement by saying that it would take at least a period of five years before the organisation necessary could be built up so as to enable that central drainage authority to expend that sum. I am referring to that in order to refresh the minds of those who represent constituencies in which the flooding of land is a problem and in order that people outside whose lands are affected will not be deceived or disappointed because of the fact that even though we may get, in the course of a few weeks' time, this machinery into existence, that relief will not be brought to them as quickly as they would like or as quickly as those who will be responsible for the operation of this measure would like. If the sum of £7,000,000, which as I said was a very rough estimate, should prove to be a correct estimate of the total cost of the work that is envisaged in the proposals now before the House, and if the commission should be correct in stating that the maximum that we can expend would be £250,000 per annum, it is not very difficult to find out how long it would take that drainage authority to get to the last scheme and to the last district.

The Government pressed very strongly since 1941, following the publication of this report and its acceptance by them in principle, for the production of these proposals now before the House. They are equally anxious to-day to make a start on the work as soon as these proposals become law. With that end in view, for some time past whatever machinery and equipment we happen to have in our possession has been in the course of being reconditioned to the best of our ability. As Deputies are aware, it is not possible now to purchase that particular type of plant and, therefore, until such time as a change comes over the world, we will have to do with what we have. As I say, the Government were anxious to have these proposals introduced. They are anxious now that the work should start as soon as possible on a scheme. I have indicated to you the steps that we have taken, which are the only steps that we could possibly take in the circumstancese, in order that we may be able at least to start work on one scheme as soon as possible after this Bill becomes an Act.

When these proposals were circulated Deputies got with them an explanatory memorandum, and the fact that that explanatory memorandum has been issued more or less relieves me of the necessity of taking up these proposals and giving an analysis section by section of these 57 sections. I do not think that any such analysis is necessary. I propose to touch upon the main features and outlines of this Bill, and to do it in Parts rather than in sections. There are eight Parts in it altogether.

Deputies who have had any contacts with local bodies and experience of the operation of the arterial Drainage Act of 1925 will realise and understand immediately why, largely, that and previous Acts were not entirely successful. Under the 1925 Act—and, in fact, under the whole drainage code as it existed for the last 100 years— the initiative for the institution of a drainage scheme depended upon the local landowners. We are not so much concerned with what the Acts prior to 1925—the Acts of 1842 and 1863— contain, but the Act of 1925 provided that it was necessary for six landowners to petition the county council with a view to having an arterial drainage scheme instituted. The county council concerned had to pass a resolution approving of the petition and, following the taking of those steps, the resolution and the petition were forwarded to the Board of Works, who in turn proceeded to make the necessary examinations of the district, and so on. It will easily be seen that that procedure was not likely to produce the sort of methodical approach to a solution of this drainage problem that is needed, inasmuch as it almost certainly meant that the schemes to be carried out would be in areas where the best results were likely to be obtained. They depended. too, on the submission of the scheme to the land owners who, if 51 per cent. of them voted against it, could reject it. It enabled landowners, on tributaries to the river proposed to be drained, to object to the inclusion of certain tributaries and in every way it gave to a number of people a right to interfere and impede, which was bound to militate against the successful working of drainage under that Act.

Coming, then, to compare the approach made to this question under the 1925 Act and the suggestions or proposals contained in the Drainage Commission's Report, I may say that what is contained in this Bill is very substantially different. In Part I of this measure, there are three sections which are of no vital importance and to none of which do I propose to refer. In Part II, Section 4 gives to the drainage authority to be set up the power and the right to initiate a drainage scheme themselves without request from anybody. I think that is one of the most important aspects of this Bill. That procedure will, we hope, result in a much more satisfactory approach to a solution of the problems associated with the flooding of lands. Section 4 gives a number of other directions which are not of great importance. When you compare the procedure laid down in Section 4 with the procedure provided for in previous Arterial Drainage Acts, you appreciate at once the important departure contained in this measure. The next section to which I propose to refer is Section 12, where power is taken, where the drainage authority finds that it has not acquired all the land or included all the things that it should have included in the published scheme, to enable the central authority to amend and extend. These are the two sections that, at this stage of our examination of the measure, appear to me to be important.

Part III of the Bill is one that I believe will make a general appeal, especially to those who already own lands in drainage districts. Sections 21, 22 and those following, provide for the fixation of an appointed day, as and from which all existing drainage districts, all trustees and all drainage boards will disappear, and the districts for which they were responsible will transfer for maintenance purposes to the local authorities in which those districts are situated.

Will that apply to schemes such as the Owenmore which were carried out under a special Act?

It will. We realise that, on the decision of the Government to abolish the drainage rates payable by benefited owners, there is bound to be, on the part of owners of land and of drainage ratepayers in the different places, a strong campaign to have the appointed day fixed as soon as possible. The proposal here is that the drainage authority—the Commissioners of Public Works—will, on the passing of this measure into law, proceed to have all existing drainage districts which it is proposed to transfer to county councils inspected. That will not be the meticulous inspection that would be necessary in the event of undertaking a drainage scheme. We are proposing this inspection for the protection of the local authorities to whom these drainage districts will be transferred. The inspection will be carried out within about a year after the passing of this Bill into law, and when it has been completed the appointed day can be fixed. The districts can then be transferred and the drainage rates previously paid by individual occupiers will be abolished. In order to maintain the districts in at least as good a state of repair as they were in when handed over, the local authority concerned will collect the funds necessary to do that by means of a county at large rate. The inspection to which I have referred will, as I have said, be made for the purpose of protecting the local authorities from being taken into court by people whose lands might be flooded and who might be able to get damages because of the condition of the drainage district, although the local authorities concerned would not have been responsible for that. It, however, will ensure that if such proceedings are taken against any local authority the certificate of the drainage authority given in court will be accepted as evidence that the local authority has, in fact, maintained the district from the date of its transfer to it in at least as good a state as it was in when handed over.

In order to damp the enthusiasm of Deputies, I gave early on a clear indication of the time it will take before the full effects of this measure will be felt. I am now dealing with Part III of the Bill, and have explained the procedure proposed in relation to the maintenance of existing drainage districts, and the steps that we are taking to ensure that the local authorities will not be penalised following the transfer to them of these districts. Even though we are providing that a local authority need only maintain a district in at least as good a state of repair as it was in when transferred, it does not follow from that that a local authority, or a number of local authorities, could not by striking a higher rate give considerable relief by carrying out maintenance work to a much higher degree than has been done by the trustees or boards under the existing system. Deputies will realise that it may take some time before much-needed relief can be brought to all affected areas. Many Deputies are members of local authorities, and they know that much damage is often caused by the butt of an old tree being allowed to remain in a river. The result very often is that the flood rises and that hay is swept from the adjoining land. It gets stuck in the butt of the tree, silt gets around it, and, finally, the main artery is choked. Local authorities, without the expenditure of the large sum of money that, for example, would be needed for the execution of an arterial drainage scheme in an area, could maintain these drainage districts to a much higher degree of efficiency than was the case before the districts were transferred to them under this Bill. They could, by making a comparatively small addition to the rate, carry out maintenance work to such a degree that substantial relief would be brought to many of those who otherwise would have to wait a very long period before they could hope to get the real relief that will be provided for them by the operation of the measure we are now discussing.

In Part III the principal sections are those which make provision for the fixation of the appointed day, the transfer of these districts to local authorities, and the abolition of the drainage rate, to be substituted by the county-at-large rate for all maintenance purposes. I do not think there is any section there that needs any reference from me.

Part IV deals with embankments. On the question of embankments, the commission had quite a lot to say. They recommended the procedure to be followed, just as in the case of drainage schemes. There are, as far as I can remember, 381 embankments in the country. We propose to deal with these embankments along the following lines: Of the 381, there are, roughly, 155 that will ultimately be absorbed in drainage schemes proper. The balance of these embankments we propose to take over by degrees. We propose to take them over as our maintenance organisation, which is visualised here, grows up, and, to the extent that the embankments require reconditioning, we propose to recondition them at full State expense. Just the same as we propose to reconstruct the drainage works, so too will we reconstruct, where necessary, these embankments; and, after they have been reconstructed at State expense, we propose to have them maintained on the same basis as drainage works proper, by way of county-at-large charges.

In Section 36 we visualise that there might be some lands that have not yet been disposed of by the Land Commission, and in respect of which the Land Commission might in the ordinary way deduct certain moneys from the purchase price in respect of embankments. We are making provision so that, even though we may have taken over these embankments, the Land Commission will still have the right to retain whatever portion of the purchase price is equitable for the purpose.

In connection with the embankments, where heretofore embankments were maintained by the Land Commission, there are many instances where they are still so maintained. Under this measure, do you suggest that such embankments will not be maintained by the Land Commission, but will be taken over and ultimately given back to the local authorities to be maintained by them?

I am not to be taken as objecting now, but it is not a usual thing to interrupt when one is making his Second Reading speech.

I am sorry.

To-day I had some Supplementaries to handle, and I felt that certain Deputies here—they are absent now—were giving me a good deal of trouble, and at the time I had worries enough of my own.

It was only when the Parliamentary Secretary was on that point of embankments that I thought it well to intervene.

I am not raising any objection.

The Deputy will have ample opportunity to intervene on this stage or on the Committee Stage.

I should like to answer the Deputy now. Any embankments that are the responsibility of the Land Commission at the present time will continue to be the responsibility of the Land Commission until we decide to take them over, and after that the procedure I have outlined will apply. In Part V there is really nothing to which I need refer. It deals with maintenance by the Board of Works. Section 37 deals with the manner in which works are to be maintained by the central drainage authority, the Board of Works, and the following section gives the power necessary for entry into land, and all the other powers necessary to give effect to the intentions of the section.

Part VI consists of three sections. It gives to the central drainage authority power to carry out additional works, where necessary. It may not be necessary to use the powers provided for here very often, but it is as well to have them there, if it should occur that additional works were required. Even technical men, engineers and others, do not always make provision for everything; they can make mistakes the same as other men. The powers in this part of the Bill are intended to enable the drainage authority to amend a scheme or amend an award.

Part VII consists of one section, and deals with the appointment of arbitrators. The only departure made there is that in previous Acts arbitrators when appointed were not free to engage in private practice. It is proposed now, in certain cases, to give arbitrators the right to engage in private practice. The last part of this measure contains many sections dealing with all kinds of problems. Sections 42 deals with the right, if and when necessary, to appoint contractors. I do not know if anybody could give much information as to the probability of contractors being appointed by the central drainage authority when the Act is in operation. As in the case of some other matters to which I referred, we thought it desirable to take power, if and when it was thought fitting to do so, to select contractors to whom we could transfer the right of entry upon lands, etc. Section 46 concerns the control of weirs. Deputy Blowick had two questions addressed to the Minister for Finance on the Order Paper to-day dealing with weirs on rivers in his constituency. As was indicated in the reply, nothing could be done there because of the legal background. In this section we give certain powers to the central drainage authority to direct owners and others responsible for weirs on rivers as to the manner in which they are to be worked. Should they refuse or fail to carry out these directions, we are taking the necessary power to compel them to do so, or we can put somebody there to do whatever work is necessary.

Will power be given to remove weirs?

That is a technical matter and I would not like to say anything on it. Section 48 is a section which I should like farmer Deputies, and all who are associated with land and drainage problems, to examine carefully. It has been the experience that much damage can be done by the neglect of owners, through whose land rivers and streams flow, to relieve flooding in areas adjacent to drainage districts. It is conceivable that in many cases owners of land, by neglecting the proper maintenance of drains, could impede drainage and injure neighbours' land by flooding. I do not know to what extent it will be necessary to use this section, but it is designed for the purpose of enabling the drainage authority to deal with that type of problem, if it should arise.

A very necessary section.

Section 49 provides that no local authority, no canal company, no railway company or other industrial concern may erect, without the approval of the drainage authority, any bridge over a drainage artery. If a county council proceeded to erect a bridge which would meet its own requirements, regard will have to be had as to whether it would meet the requirements of the drainage authority when they came to deal with that particular river. We take power in this section to compel all concerned not to erect any bridges without consultation and without approval of the type of structure it was proposed to erect. The last section in that group, Section 56, happens to concern my own district more particularly than any other part of the country, because it refers to districts extending into or mainly situate in Northern Ireland. One is the Lough and River Erne, and the other the Ballinamore and Ballyconnell. This section is designed to bring to drainage ratepayers in districts situate only partly under our jurisdiction the same relief that is being given to drainage ratepayers in other districts. That relief is being brought to them in a more roundabout way but, as long as it is given, that is the main thing. When this Bill was being circulated an explanatory memorandum was issued to Deputies. As it happens, the circulation of such a memorandum makes it awkward for the person charged with the responsibility of conducting a measure of this kind through the House, because one does not want to cover ground that has been already covered. I had accordingly to adopt new procedure on this stage. I stated at the outset that I think the memorandum justifies the time that was necessary, as well as the consultations that had to take place, before this measure saw the light of day in its present form. I want to assure the House that a good deal of work, effort and thought have been given to its provisions.

Those who are responsible for the measure as it stands believe that it is as near being perfect and as near to meeting all the problems that have to be solved in arterial drainage as it possibly could. No effort has been spared to ensure that everything would be provided for but notwithstanding that, we are not foolish enough to imagine that the Bill is not capable of being amended and improved in the further stages which it must pass in this and the other House. As the person who will have some of the responsibility for taking the measure through its further stages in this House, I can only say that I shall try to be as helpful as possible to Deputies in the way of giving them any further information on the various sections that they might desire. I hope that they will be able to give the House the benefit of their opinions on the value or the shortcomings of the different sections which the Bill contains. I can assure the House that I shall try to meet Deputies in any suggestions that appear to be wise and useful inside the financial structure of the proposals contained in the Bill. I think that there can be scarcely any amendment or widening of the financial structure of the measure but subject to that condition, I want to assure Deputies that I shall be glad to hear everything they have to say about the measure on this and other stages. Should they desire any further information in my possession, they will have it on request.

In dealing with this very important and comprehensive measure, there appeared to me to be one extraordinary omission from the Parliamentary Secretary's speech and that was regarding the financing of these proposals. He referred the House to the estimate made by the Commission set up in 1938, a rough estimate of £7,000,000. I was amazed that the Parliamentary Secretary made no reference as to how the moneys were to be provided. The Bill says that all the work is to be financed by moneys voted by the Oireachtas. The Parliamentary Secretary gave the House no information, good, bad or indifferent, as to how the moneys will be provided, whether they will be provided by loan. whether the House will vote a bulk sum to be paid into a fund controlled by the Parliamentary Secretary himself or whether the House will be asked periodically to vote a sum for various schemes.

Now that we hear that the Government is providing some £8,000,000 for development of national transport, that the Minister for Local Government is talking about spending £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 on developing national highways, and having regard to the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary himself suggested that the estimate for this work was made prewar, and that if it were to be carried out under present conditions the cost would be considerably higher, it appears to me that it was an extraordinary omission or oversight that the House was supplied with no information concerning the very substantial sum of money involved in this scheme. However, I may say that as far as this Party is concerned, we feel that the Bill is long overdue and the House is pleased, I am sure, that the Government has wakened up at last to a sense of its responsibility and has decided to bring in a Bill to deal with what is a very big national problem.

Mr. Hanna, in his minority report, questions the wisdom of expending a sum of this magnitude on this problem. Purely from the economic standpoint, the cost of arterial drainage in this country could scarcely be defended, but we here believe that it is in the national interests and that it must be done for many reasons. There are large areas in this country which it might be economic to drain and the drainage of which might bring a very substantial acreage into production and into useful pasturage to carry live stock, but even in other areas to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred, there are social reasons why it is essential that a scheme of arterial drainage be carried out because there are large numbers of families living under wretched conditions on wet, sodden, waterlogged land. Then the large number of lakes and bogs we have in this country undoubtedly affect the rainfall. The configuration of the country generally—the huge flat plain we have in the centre of Ireland with little or no outfall—constitutes a very costly problem and is the cause of the slow-flowing, sluggish rivers which we find in this country. That again reacts on the economic condition of the country generally. The Parliamentary Secretary had much to say about flood water. I suggest that, from the purely agricultural point of view, this scheme will not be a success if it merely gets rid of flood water. A very important aspect of arterial drainage is the lowering of the water table, and if we do not succeed in lowering the water table, this scheme will be a disastrous failure from an economic point of view.

I think it unfortunate that there has been such a long delay in dealing with this matter, considering that this commission was set up in 1938, that it reported in 1940, that we had the problem of providing useful employment for hundreds and thousands of our people, and that it was an urgent problem all along. Obviously it was a very attractive scheme to put into operation at the inception of the war to try to keep many of the thousands of young men who have been forced to leave this country to seek work abroad and to use them as the national asset that they should be here instead of sending them out of the country. The Parliamentary Secretary has not satisfied me, and I do not believe he has satisfied the House, in trying to offer an excuse for not making a much earlier attempt on this problem.

There are two striking aspects about this Bill and about the way in which it has been presented. I have already commented on the fact that we have got no information about the financial aspects of it and little or no information on the position of the large areas that are in a flooded and waterlogged condition. There has been no attempt at a national survey. If this measure had been handled in a constructive way, if it were to be presented in a businesslike manner to this Parliament, which is responsible for making a very substantial provision of money for this important matter, surely the Parliamentary Secretary would have given us some information regarding the magnitude of the problem, some estimate of the improvement that it would mean economically and how it would eventually affect the national income. No effort has been made to classify into various categories the types of land that it is proposed to tackle, the type of scheme that is economic or almost economic and the type of scheme that is absolutely uneconomic. One would expect some attempt at classification of that sort. One would expect that, when this report reached the Government, the necessary preliminary work in the way of national survey would have been made in order to provide the necessary information to which this House is entitled.

The Parliamentary Secretary has referred the House many times to the terms of the Report of the Drainage Commission. In paragraph 330 of that report the commission say:—

"If our recommendations are accepted, the promotion of the necessary legislation may occupy a considerable time. We suggest that it might be desirable, pending such legislation, to undertake the necessary preliminary survey work in catchment areas selected for prior treatment so that the actual works could be launched with the least possible delay."

Some of the technical experts who sat on the commission recommended, at page 125:—

"... having specially examined this question, and having discussed it with the Meteorological Section of the Department of Industry and Commerce... that 150 river discharge gauges and 200 additional rainfall gauges should be immediately installed throughout the country."

They go on to say:—

"We estimate that the cost of installing 150 river discharge gauges would be £1,300 and the cost of collecting the readings £1,350 per annum. We estimate the cost of installing 200 rainfall gauges at £350, and that the cost of collecting the readings would be negligible. The total estimated initial cost would be, therefore, £1,650, and the annual cost £1,350.

We recommend that the selection of sites and the installation and the reading of these gauges should be undertaken by the Commissioners of Public Works."

One would expect that we should get some information on that. One would expect that, if we were really sincere in our efforts to deal with this huge problem of drainage, a very substantial amount of preliminary work would have been carried out prior to the introduction of this measure. So far as I am concerned, and so far as the House is concerned, there appears to have been no preparatory work, not even that small amount recommended in the paragraph I have just read and which I consider would not be nearly sufficient. I have no hesitation in severely criticising the Department for which the Parliamentary Secretary is responsible for their failure to complete that preparatory work in the years that have elapsed from the time the report reached the Government and the introduction of this measure. I think the House is at a very grave disadvantage in not having information available on those matters.

In view of the lack of such information, one is entitled to ask whether or not the Government are really sincere in their proposals to go ahead in a vigorous manner with this measure. One may ask whether the scheme is a drainage scheme or an employment scheme. If it is a drainage scheme, all that preliminary work should have been carried out. The House is told that, according to the report, the scheme will cost well over £7,000,000. What we are asked to do is simply to provide that sum of money, to give a blank cheque to the Parliamentary Secretary to carry out these proposals. I do not think the House should be prepared to do that.

In paragraph 121 of the Drainage Commission Report, we are informed:

"Of the 586,200 acres which we estimate as the area of direct benefit, 326,836 acres have already been dealt with under previous Drainage Acts, and 259,364 acres represent new drainage areas. As far as the 326,836 acres in existing drainage districts are concerned, it must not be concluded that the comprehensive scheme provides merely for the repair and restoration of the districts. In many of these districts the original works were admittedly inadequate or faulty in design or construction. Mechanical plant was not available when much of the work was done, local finance was limited and Government assistance was not always forthcoming, with the result that reconstruction to higher standards is required.

122. If the comprehensive scheme is carried out, the new drainage area of 259,364 acres, added to the existing drainage area of 470,318 acres, will make a total of 729,682 acres of improved land in all drainage districts.

123. Our estimate of £7,035,000, if apportioned between new drainage and old drainage areas, works out at £4,271,700 for the new areas and £2,763,300 for the old areas."

I think we are entitled to ask the Parliamentary Secretary—no reference has been made to it—is the House to take it that that amount of land— 729,682 acres—will be completely drained when this work is finished? I do not think for a moment that that is true. We will have arterial drains to local farms. The farming community of this country ought clearly to understand that—that it means merely opening up a drain to take away the water and that the farmer will be expected to do the rest. I suggest that field drainage will cost very nearly as much again. No reference, good, bad or indifferent, has been made by the Parliamentary Secretary to that aspect of the problem. This matter of field drainage is an immense problem Is the State going to spend a substantial sum of money on arterial drainge and neglect field drainage? If it is, I do not think it will be dealing with this problem in an efficient and effective way. I feel that some detailed reference should have been made to the problem of completing the work once the arteries are laid down. We should have been told how field drainage would be dealt with and the estimated cost. We here should have been told whether the State was prepared to give the agricultural community financial assistance of any sort; whether the farm improvements scheme, for instance, would be augmented to a very great extent; whether the farmer would be encouraged to avail of that scheme to complete national drainage in this country. I regret the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary has not seen fit to deal with this question, that he did not think it worth his while to refer to it. I do not know whether he has examined the real details or not. It is the details in a scheme such as this that make the scheme a success or failure. We cannot merely deal with the big problems and ignore the details.

The second important aspect of this Bill—it is an amazing aspect—is that we are asked to hand over absolute and complete control to the civil servants in the Board of Works. If this measure passes through the Oireachtas in its present form, we shall have no control in respect of it. All we shall have to do is provide the money. We are not told whether or not we shall be asked to vote a bulk sum which will be fed in to the Board of Works over a long period. Is that to be the case or are we to get an opportunity of voting the sum necessary for each scheme? The Minister for Supplies, in defending the democratic system a few nights ago in this city, criticised people who suggested that we were in any way suffering from bureaucratic government here.

We have an outstanding example of bureaucratic control in this Bill. I take very strong objection, as a representative of the people, to this attempt at bureaucratic administration. I leave it to the wisdom of the House to decide whether we should give carte blanche to the Board of Works in this way. The Parliamentary Secretary has explained how a scheme is to be prepared. When completed, it is to be circulated among the people whose land is to be compulsorily acquired and amongst the county councils concerned. The local authority can make certain recommendations, and we are asked to empower the Board of Works to accept or reject those recommendations. Having gone through that process, the Minister can certify the scheme. Once that certificate is issued, that is the end of the matter. There will be no opportunity for any representative of the people or any representative board to question the decision of the bureaucrats of the Board of Works. We suggest that, before that certificate is finally issued, the scheme should be submited to this House for examination and ratification. If we are to preserve democratic control, such a provision is absolutely essential. This Party proposes to put down an amendment to that effect.

Let us consider the position of the local authority in regard to this right to question the proposals. It is almost inevitable that there will be a difference of view between the Board of Works and some of the county councils. Once an Order is made, and the appointed day fixed, the trustees or drainage board go out, and the liability is taken over by the local authority. Later on, by a transfer Order, the maintenance of these works is undertaken by the commissioners. An annual estimate is to be submitted to the local authority, which must strike a rate for the maintenance costs. If these be more or less than the estimate, the difference is to be adjusted the following year. A county council may in its wisdom question the cost of maintenance. It may raise a question as to whether or not the county council is getting value for its money. But the county council has no redress. That is the position, notwithstanding that the Drainage Commission, in its report, recommended the establishment of an appeal board. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us, when replying, why he omitted to implement that recommendation by the Drainage Commission. The recommendation is as follows:—

"We recommend that a standing appeal board, consisting of three members, should be established for the settlement of disputes that may arise between the central drainage authority and the local authorities, and which the Minister may see fit to refer to the board. One member should be nominated by the central drainage authority, one by the County Councils' General Council, and the chairman by the Minister for Finance. The board should include a person with technical qualifications and practical experience and also an experienced and practical farmer. The decision of the appeal board on any matter submitted to it should not be subject to review by any court."

That is an essential provision. Some council may question whether it is fair to saddle them with the sum demanded for maintenance of drainage schemes. Under the Bill, they have no redress. There is no court of appeal. Does not the House consider that a safeguard of this sort is not only desirable but essential if we are to preserve any semblance of democracy? If the plain people of the country and this House, which is representative of them, are to retain authority and control some such provision must, of necessity, be inserted. I do not want to minimise the difficulty of the problems with which the Government has to contend as regards supplies but we have had some idea of what absolute bureaucratic control might be if we had here an all-powerful bureaucracy. The local authority can merely make recommendations during the formulation of a scheme and, in these circumstances, surely an appeal board of the type suggested is essential?

There is another vital matter to which I desire to draw attention. That is as regards the line of demarcation between an arterial and a field drain. How far should an arterial drain go? We are to leave that question to the civil servants to decide. The initiators of a scheme—the drainage authority— may simply turn down the representations of the local authority and there may be, as a result, a local grievance, meriting consideration. A drain running up to a particular farm might be considered an arterial drain by the drainage board. The farmer would get an opportunity of draining his farm into that arterial drain. He is serviced under this Act, and he pays in the ordinary way by a county-at-large charge. If it so happens that an engineer decides that there is a drain on a site which is not an arterial drain, that farmer does not get the same service. If that engineer, or one of the engineers from the Board of Works, decides that it does not come up to the farm, he does not get the benefit of that arterial drain and he has no means of appeal against the decision of the engineer. There is no court of appeal to which he can apply, and he is deprived of his rights in the matter.

Surely, this Parliament should see that autocratic decisions of that sort should not be final, and that the individual or the local authority, or the people concerned generally, under the scheme, must have the right of appeal to someone else. That is the reason I say that even if we do not provide an appeal board, in this matter of demarcation as between arterial drainage and local field drainage, before the scheme is certified by the responsible Minister the Order must be submitted to this House for examination, so that if an individual, or a local group, feels that there is a grievance, the case can be brought forward here in the Dáil. Let us have it examined here, because that will give the Minister an opportunity of telling us why such-and-such a drain has not been opened up to such-and-such a distance.

Now, there is the question of the liabilities of the old boards. There are two stages in handing over final control to the Board of Works. First of all, so far as the old boards and trustees appointed under the old Acts are concerned, their assets and liabilities are handed over to the local authorities, and the maintenance of works that were originally under their control will be subject to a county-at-large charge. The liabilities also remain, for which they are responsible under this provision, and, later on, when the maintenance is handed over to the Board of Works, the liability of the local authority still remains. I wonder would the Parliamentary Secretary consider the question of taking over the liability as well.

I cannot follow exactly what the Deputy means.

I am referring to the liability of a drainage district that has been maintained by a drainage board and which on the appointed day has been taken over by the county council. They take over the assets and liabilities—the property—of that drainage board, and are responsible for maintenance from the appointed day. Later on, you have provision for a maintenance Order, but that is taken over.

It might not be for ten or 15 years afterwards, and surely the liabilities would have been discharged by that time.

Oh, yes, I see; you are hoping that the county council would have discharged the liabilities in the meantime. You have no intention of taking over the liabilities.

We are providing that they will discharge them.

I think that this matter is dealt with in Section 28 of the Bill. Paragraph (a) of sub-section (2) says that "the responsible council or the responsible councils of any such existing drainage district may, in their discretion, remit wholly or in part any arrears of drainage rate or drainage charge," and so on. In connection with the remission of arrears you are leaving it to the discretion of the local authority as to whether they are to remit the arrears or not. I think you should not leave any discretion there at all, and that you should simply wipe them out. Take the case of the Barrow drainage; there are years of arrears there at the present time, amounting to a very substantial sum, and the problem that has existed there for some years back will not be solved in this way. We had a motion dealing with this matter in the House a couple of years ago, and there have also been many Parliamentary Questions in connection with it. I suggest that if you are going to take it over at all, you should take over the whole lot. I think it is unfair to leave the matter in the present position, because it is going to be a difficult problem for the local authority to decide whether the arrears should be taken over or not. What will happen is that one local authority will decide to wipe out the arrears altogether, another local authority will decide not to wipe them out, and another local authority will decide to wipe out a portion of the arrears. The position will be rather invidious and we will get into a lot of trouble and have many Parliamentary Questions as to what the Minister is going to do about this or about that, and why one rule should obtain in one county and a different rule obtain in another county. You should not make it an open question. The decision here ought to be a decisive decision, and whatever rule obtains in one county should obtain in another county. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should consider that matter.

In the matter of liabilities, also, I think that in the taking over of any liabilities by the county council, some effort should be made to have these liabilities discharged from central funds. I am making that suggestion quite definitely on this stage of the Bill, because the Parliamentary Secretary knows that an amendment along those lines will not be accepted on the Committee Stage. He knows that if any Deputy puts down an amendment suggesting that such a liability should be discharged out of central or State funds, it would be ruled out of order. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will have that matter examined. So far as the Barrow drainage is concerned, the annual sum is reduced from £21,751 to £7,154, but the State contribution for maintenance, which was £3,250, was dropped. Now, I think that when you went so far——

We did very well.

—you might wipe out the annual sum altogether. It is a big matter. The Barrow drainage is a scheme apart from anything else, and has features that are peculiar to it, because you are draining a big flat plain there. You are attempting to drain a large area where erosion has been occurring for hundreds of years. The position there is different from the other famous drainage schemes that we have heard about on the Continent, such as the Pontine Marshes in Rome or the Zuyder Zee in Holland. In these cases large alluvial deposits occurred on the lower stretches of the rivers, and the result of the type of drainage that was done there was the creation of a fine type of fertile soil. In the case of the Barrow, the position is completely reversed, because you have had erosion occurring there for hundreds of years, and the land is washed-out land. It is incapable of producing decent vegetation, and even such vegetation as is produced has no nutritive value whatever. The value of that land is very low. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary, possibly, has examined some aspects of that problem, and I suggest to him that in this matter of the Barrow drainage, he should consider the problem as apart from any other scheme, because of the peculiarities that exist there, and that he might consider dropping the annual sum completely. If maintenance is to be thrown back on the local authorities there, it is going to mean a very big charge for these local authorities. The Parliamentary Secretary's predecessor explained to this House, when we were discussing this problem before, that the contribution made by the State was more than the maintenance; that although the local authority was making a substantial contribution as well, the contribution made by the State, both indirectly to the annual sum and directly for maintenance, was a sum which, in the aggregate, was more than the cost of maintenance, so that by this proposal the position will be actually worsened.

I should say that, under Section 4, the question of priority arises. Under this again, we are going to leave it absolutely to the Board of Works to decide what scheme should get priority and what scheme should be put back. The House will find it impossible to make up its mind unless we have the comprehensive survey which I suggest. We should have a detailed report on the general drainage condition of the whole country, so that we can make up our minds as to how it has affected types of land, how it will affect the annual value and what it is worth from the economic aspect. Possibly the House may decide that, from the financial point of view, it might be well to go on with more economic schemes first and to bring fairly substantial tracts of land into production. When we look across the Irish Sea and see the amount of reclamation which has taken place in Great Britain during the war, it sets one thinking why we have not vigorously pursued the same type of work in this country, especially, as I suggest, in respect of land on which it would be economic and immediately bring a substantial acreage into production and make it available for the carrying of live stock.

In this respect again, the Board of Works engineer will look at the whole problem purely as a draining engineer and may not be concerned with the economic and agricultural aspects. I suggest that if we leave it absolutely in the hands of a board of that kind, the wisest decisions may not be made. I cannot for the life of me see why we cannot make more use of keen and practical agriculturists in making decisions as to what schemes should get priority and what schemes, from the national and financial standpoints, are the more economic.

With regard to the period for completing national drainage, judging by the story the Parliamentary Secretary has told the House, for a great many people in this country, it is a matter of "Live horse and you will get grass." Many of them will be dead before any attempt is made to relieve the position, if we are to be as slow as the Parliamentary Secretary suggested we ought to be.

I did not suggest that.

Surely the problem is not so immense that we cannot expedite it and lay plans for a more vigorous attack upon it. In the postwar period, we shall have many people thrown back to us and we shall be releasing many men from the Army. There will be a big problem in relation to the provision of work for a very substantial number. Now is the time to lay plans for providing these people with work of a productive character and work which will help to increase the national income.

The Parliamentary Secretary gave us some information with regard to the transfer of drainage boards. The transfer will take place as soon as it is possible to make provision for handing over to the local authorities the control of all drainage works in the respective counties. With regard to Section 37, the Parliamentary Secretary has told us that in the case of a dispute between a local authority and an individual or individuals, with regard to maintenance, a certificate from the Board of Works would be final and irrebuttable evidence of the local authority doing its duty, so far as the provisions of the law go; but when that work is finally handed over by the local authority to the commissioners, and it is then the responsibility of the commissioners to carry out maintenance work under the section, if anyone questions the efficiency of the maintenance work, or the discharge by the commissioners of their responsibilities in this respect, a similar certificate holds good.

If an individual attempts to bring the Board of Works into court, a certificate from the men who that individual believes have not done their duty clears them of all responsibility. Surely that is a stupid and unjust proposal, that is, from the farmers' point of view. From the point of view of the Board of Works, it is eminently satisfactory. If an individual feels that he has a legitimate grievance and that benefits to which he is entitled in law are not being given to him, surely it is an invidious position to put him in to say that a certificate from the Board of Works, stating that the work is well done, must be accepted as irrebuttable evidence. As a matter of fact, in a case such as that, the work of the Board of Works could not be questioned because there would be no use in doing so if the Board of Works can certify that the work has been well done and if that is to be the end of it.

The Parliamentary Secretary very specially directed the attention of the House to Section 48, and I suppose that farmer Deputies will agree that it is a necessary provision and that the principle is sound. We have all had experience from time to time of the position of people who were anxious to carry out local drainage of their own. If there was one intervening man between their premises and the main stream who refused to do his part, who would not clean or maintain his drain, the whole work was held up. There was no law to compel that man to do his part. This provides that he must do it, but again I suggest there must be some safeguard for the individual. The principle embodied in the section is sound, but the House ought to provide reasonable safeguards for the individual.

If a man feels that he is being done an injustice by being asked to do something, if he feels that he suffers a grave injustice because he is asked to open up a drainage work and maintain it under the section—there may be peculiarities with regard to his case—surely it is right and proper that we should make provision for some court of appeal for such a man. Under the section, once the decision is made by the Board of Works it is final and binding, so far as the individual is concerned. That is not the type of law which this House should sponsor and not the type of provision which we should be asked to sponsor. I call the attention of Deputies to that provision. I think we will all agree that the principle is sound enough, but safeguards must be provided to ensure that people will not be harshly or unjustly treated at any time.

There is another question that the Parliamentary Secretary might think about, and that is the question of the county-at-large charge. This provision is revolutionary. It is a new departure. The basic principle in the past was that, where an improvement was effected, the individual should make some contribution. That provision is now departed from. We feel that, if we want to tackle national drainage that provision must stand. It may appear to be hard on certain individuals who are living on very dry land, and may find that during a particularly dry summer they have a problem which no one can solve, to be asked to provide drainage for people whom, perhaps, they envy during that dry season. It may happen in certain parts of the country where you have dry areas perhaps on one side of the river, and wet areas on the other side of the river, that a certain amount of irrigation work could be carried out. I think we should not overlook that matter—the problem of doing some irrigation on land which lends itself to irrigation. It may be done by gravitation, or it may not, but in the postwar period it is quite possible that we could provide the necessary current to do the pumping in the off-hours when the current is going waste. Some continental countries have found it cheaper, in tackling drainage problems, to use mechanical means of lifting and pumping water, and that may also be possible here, especially in the central plain where there is no outfall. It may appear a small matter but I think it should not be overlooked.

This is mainly a Committee Bill. It is a very comprehensive and involved measure, and I think it will require a good deal of attention on the Committee Stage. Again, I want to emphasise that the tendency in recent legislation, and in the Emergency Powers Orders, is to hand over to the Civil Service complete and absolute control, thus enabling bureaucracy to reign supreme. If the House tolerates this type of legislation, and surrenders its absolute authority, it will have failed as a democratic Assembly, and, in my opinion, it will have proved itself unworthy of the trust that was imposed in it by the people. If that were to occur generally in legislation, a situation would develop here which would prove intolerable. I have sufficient confidence in the wisdom of this House to hope that that is not going to happen.

It would almost be possible to give an unqualified benediction to this measure were it not for the rather depressing features that were introduced by the Parliamentary Secretary in connection with the proposals for the development of this measure in the fullest sense. Though perhaps it is to a large extent inevitable, it seems hard to understand why all works in connection with drainage involve the almost endless delays of which we have had experience during the lifetime of Parliament in this country, and prior to that period the position seems to have been somewhat the same. In this very interesting and valuable memorandum circulated with this Bill, we are given an idea of the whole drainage code as applied to this country over 100 years, and I think the impression of many people will be that, when one thinks of drainage, one has to think of almost endless and unduly irritating delays. However, it is at least a commendable fact that, 20 years after this House was set up, we are trying to tackle this problem in the big way in which it must be tackled if it is to be faced up to fully. Any little reservations I may have as to certain sweeping powers sought in this Bill are outweighed by my appreciation of the fact that those powers are being sought for the purpose of obviating to some extent a recurrence of the delays that have been so extremely difficult and distressing in the past. It is true that, under legislation of a rather minor character passed before the Drainage Act of 1925 was enacted, certain restoration work was done, but the results have been very far from satisfactory.

That brings me to one of the matters on which I have some little reservations. The Parliamentary Secretary proposes in this measure that the certificate of the Office of Public Works should be regarded as the last word as to the conditions of a certain drainage scheme. I think the Parliamentary Secretary would find in the records of his own Department—with which, generally, I have no quarrel whatever; I have had a good deal of satisfactory dealings and rather happy relations with them over a long period—that occasionally, perhaps I might say frequently, there has been a very definite conflict between the engineering point of view as expressed by the officers of his Department and, say, by the county surveyors in particular counties. I think the Parliamentary Secretary would find that, in County Cork some time ago, in connection with the actual value which accrued to land owners under a drainage scheme for which the county council was then responsible, and for which they sought to collect a rate, there was a very outstanding conflict between the engineering viewpoint of the Department and the engineering viewpoint of the county surveyor. That is a matter which can be discussed further at another stage of this Bill, and it is rather a detail in the whole problem. It is satisfactory that rather wide powers for getting rid of the legacy of difficulties in many parts of the country are sought in this Bill. I think the arguments in favour of the wider area charge, taking into account the national character of the scheme, must hold the field in this particular matter.

I do regret that in the introduction of legislation recently, valuable measures are accompanied by rather depressing statements. While the Parliamentary Secretary acquitted himself quite well here this evening, I felt that he rather damped the whole position very considerably by prophesying such protracted delays. It may be that there is no way out of that difficulty, but, when one thinks of five years' delay before the preliminary work is over and 28 years' delay before the programme set out in this measure is finally achieved, we can make up our minds that, as far as many of us here are concerned, we will never see the work finished or even perhaps half way through. That was inclined to introduce a feeling of depression all over the House, and I regret that the Parliamentary Secretary introduced it.

It was not my intention to give rise to any such thoughts.

At any rate, the period is a very long one, and it does seem to me—an ignoramus in the matter of engineering procedure—that there ought to be some happier solution. I think the engineering ingenuity of the Office of Works and the political wisdom of this House ought to be able to find some better arrangement than that. Surely that is a very long time. It will induce very depressing thoughts down the country amongst people who for many years made fruitless efforts to have work of this kind undertaken. I realise that work of this kind is naturally of a slower character than other work. But I certainly hope that the last word has not been said on this matter and that the Parliamentary Secretary put it at its very highest maximum in the figures which he gave this evening.

Generally speaking, this Bill is a welcome one. It is evidence of confidence and faith in the future, and I think all sections of the people will welcome it accordingly. I think it will satisfy claims which have been long advanced in this country that a great deal of arable wealth has been wasted by the failure to undertake the solving of this problem in the broad national way in which it deserves to be tackled. After the few observations that I have made and the few qualifications and doubts I have expressed I content myself with saying that, in the main, I regard the proposals contained in this measure as tending to serve a very useful purpose in that many of the delays that we have experienced in the past in regard to such work will be obviated. I hope that any delays that the Parliamentary Secretary fears in regard to the proposals will be very considerably shortened.

I do not think that there is any justification for the floods of depression that this drainage measure has introduced into this House and the speeches which have been made. I think it is a measure that is long overdue and one that will be welcomed not only by all Parties in this House but by the country generally. It is due, I think, from this House that some tribute should be paid to the work of the Drainage Commission. Deputy Hughes spoke about the neglect in making a national survey. He is perfectly right in that, but to a great extent the Drainage Commission did carry out a national survey on that question of drainage. They had a very difficult task to perform and they had to do it slowly and with meticulous care and the report on which this Bill is based is a report such as we have never had before in this country, and one which was necessary before any legislation could be introduced to tackle this question of drainage on a national scale. To the work of that commission is mainly due, I think, the credit for the introduction of this measure. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary is to be congratulated as a member of a minority Government, with all the difficulties there are to be faced at the moment in this country, on having the courage to introduce a measure of this kind.

Past drainage legislation was patchy and bad from the present point of view. The measure which was passed in 1924, I think, was an excellent attempt at the time. I think the intention of the sponsors of that measure was that drainage on a large scale would be carried out. But co-operation was not given by county councils and individuals in having drainage carried out on a bigger scale under that measure. It is only through having the Drainage Commission's report that we can see to the full extent the mistakes, if we can call them mistakes, that were made in connection with the introduction of that measure. But certain facts were not before the sponsors of that measure, and they could not be expected to introduce a more complete Bill than was introduced. This measure is remedying to some extent some of the mistakes then made. I do not mean that in any blameworthy way. One of the welcome proposals in this Bill is that to abolish drainage rates that came into operation as a result of drainage work carried out in the past. That proposal will be very welcome in my county, where very substantial drainage schemes were carried out and where the rate levied afterwards was very heavy on all sections, and particularly heavy on some farmers who did not in any way benefit by the drainage work carried out. Owing to the difficulty of fixing rating areas, some people had to contribute who did not in any way benefit. That imposition on local farmers is now being wiped out, and it will be a welcome proposal so far as many landowners in my county are concerned.

I hope, too, that the powers which are being taken in this measure in regard to the acquisition of land and the compensating of people who will have claims will be rigorously enforced. In connection with drainage works carried out in Mayo up to the present, I found that one of the biggest obstacles the Office of Works were up against was the fabulous claims that were made by owners of derelict mills for interference with so-called mill-races long out of use, so-called eel-weirs which were not being used, and with fishery rights. Fabulous claims of that kind hampered the work in the past, and I hope that under the powers which are now being taken such claims will be rigidly but at the same time fairly dealt with. I think that past estimates for drainage will be considerably reduced if the fantastic claims made by people of that kind are estimated at their real value. I think the cost will be reduced to a large extent.

I hope also that the powers being taken in connection with maintenance work on rivers are complete enough. You are bound to have conflict between different county councils which are affected by the same main artery, conflict as to the amount that each council has to bear for maintenance work. In the past a large amount of work has been held up because you could not get co-operation between county councils. The powers taken may be complete enough, but I am somewhat doubtful as to whether the drainage board will have sufficient power to compel councils to contribute to and co-operate in the carrying out of maintenance work.

Section 48, which was objected to to some extent by Deputy Hughes, contains a very important proposal, and that is, that farmers will be compelled to maintain drains on their land so that once a main artery is completed an individual farmer will not be able to destroy the effects of the whole scheme and the good effects to his neighbour's land by failing to keep a drain going through his land in good condition. I do not see anything whatever wrong with that. Deputy Hughes strongly objects to it. I think that principle is already embodied in the Noxious Weeds Act. A farmer may destroy his neighbour's field by allowing noxious weeds to flourish in his own. He is taken into court and has no redress. If the weeds are there he is prosecuted and fined, and rightly so. Progressive farmers do not object to that; good farmers do not object to it; it is only the waster, or somebody who lacks knowledge or who lacks interest for the time being, who falls into error in not clearing his land of noxious weeds. It is the same principle which is embodied in this section, which will compel a farmer to remove a noxious drain, if it may be called that, and allow the benefits of the drainage scheme which has been carried out to pass on to his neighbours. That is one of the best sections in the Bill.

I believe that the farming community will co-operate in seeing that that is done and that, once the main work is done, the farmers will be only too glad to keep their land in condition, by carrying out the small improvements year by year which may be necessary at the end of their own holdings. At the present time, there is no incentive to farmers to keep their drains clean, because the main artery is not done and they will only flood the water into their neighbour's field, as it cannot go anywhere else. Despite Deputy Hughes's objections, I think this is a very helpful section and that the requirements will be carried out by the farming community in general. I do not see any hardship whatever on the farming community under that section and I believe they will co-operate in every possible way.

There may be something in the suggestion by Deputy Hughes about an appeal court. If there is a vital objection by a county council to a certain rate, or to the way in which a certain scheme has been carried out, there may be something in the scheme suggested by Deputy Hughes of a court of appeal, but it may cause a great deal of delay to have an appeal of that kind brought up. The Parliamentary Secretary might consider, before the Committee Stage, whether such an appeal board could be arranged, to deal with exceptional cases. There may be hardship—there is bound to be hardship and some individuals will not be pleased—but the general community will benefit, and that is the main thing. Where there are certain big issues at stake in a county, there could be some board of appeal.

On Deputy Hughes's point about giving over to a commission the putting into operation of this measure, I do not see that there is anything like bureaucratic control being imposed. It is fantastic of the Deputy to suggest that, when a scheme is prepared and is to be operated, it should be submitted to this House to get the opinion of the House on it. I do not believe that Deputy Hughes or his Party can be serious in that. I do not think it would improve the measure one bit to have Deputies from different counties arguing about a scheme which has been prepared by qualified men to be carried out in the County Mayo. I fail to see the benefit of a discussion in this House on that. I cannot see any justification for not giving full and complete authority to the Board of Works—or the drainage board, as it might be called—to carry out the schemes under this Bill.

The whole House was unanimous in giving absolute power to the Land Commission to acquire and divide land. Many of us, from time to time, are displeased with the methods of the Land Commission, but when the Bill was introduced here, we could not suggest a better system or anything to replace the Land Commission having complete control in the acquisition and division of land. This is on a par with that. I do not see that there is any committee which could replace the Board of Works and, with greater knowledge and wisdom, operate this measure. It is not just, I suggest, to state that giving it over to such a body means surrendering to bureaucratic control and throwing to the winds the rights of democracy. It means putting the measure into their hands to operate, and it is for us now to make that measure one that will place them in a position to operate it for the benefit of the people as a whole.

As far as the county-at-large charge for maintenance is concerned, there is bound to be opposition in various counties, but I cannot see any other way out of it. There are areas in a county which never will benefit by the actual drainage, and the people in those areas will object to paying any drainage rate for maintenance work, even though they may benefit by the employment given on the carrying out of the drain or on the maintenance work. There are bound to be objections of that kind, but I think the charge cannot be limited to a smaller area than a county. It would be unjust to have maintenance made a national charge, though there may be a good deal to be said for that. You must stop somewhere, and the safest method at the moment seems to be to leave it as a county charge, as it is here. That is a magnificent advance and improvement on the previous measure, where drainage maintenance was an imposition on the benefiting landowners. Because of that, you had no maintenance work carried out. This system of making it a county-at-large charge is a vast improvement.

With regard to Deputy Hughes' reference to the levying of a rate for maintenance work, I have had experience in County Mayo of some fairly good drainage work carried out under the last Government. It was never maintained, because the county council dared not impose the rate on the local benefiting landowners. It was an unjust rate, from their point of view, and, therefore, they did not impose the rate on the local benefiting landowners. It fell unevenly, as in the drainage area there were some who did not benefit at all. They started a campaign of objection to the rate, and the rest fell in with them in an organised campaign against it. The county councillors were anxious, as they saw the work destroyed by non-maintenance, but they dared not take action. Then a commissioner came in, with bureaucratic control, and had the courage to impose the drainage rate and carry out the much-needed work. Even then, there were violent objections, but there is the satisfaction for those people now that that drainage rate is to be no more. I think that any objection to a county rate, at this stage in particular, would not be well founded.

This Bill represents a big step forward when compared with the last Drainage Act. Some provisions in the Bill may need to be amended on the Committee Stage. I hope that all members of the House will do their best to discuss the Bill in a good healthy spirit. There are many counties that will benefit from its passing, but there is no county that stands to benefit more than my own county. I think that the House would be well employed in giving serious consideration to this measure for a few days, and then giving it a speedy passage into law. The Parliamentary Secretary will have the gratitude of all sections of the community for tackling such an important matter at this particular time. There is no better work that the country could adopt for post-war period than this important question of national drainage which will give employment on a large scale. I hope that the machinery of the Government and of the Board of Works will not be as slow in doing its work as has been suggested by some Deputies. If the execution of the work is speeded up the Board of Works will get the co-operation of the farming community, and I am quite sure the co-operation of the Labour people.

I did not think that there would be much criticism of this Bill. On the Committee Stage we will have an opportunity of discussing the Bill in detail. We, in this Party, think that this Bill represents a move in the right direction. We do not stand up to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary or the Government on having brought it forward because it is our view that the present Government are to blame for not having introduced something on these lines during the past ten years. Their predecessors are also to be blamed for not having introduced a Bill like this in their ten years of office. I admire the statement made by Deputy O Cleirigh to the effect that we should adopt this measure in a healthy honest spirit. If he is prepared to do that, then certainly every member of the House——

The Deputy will follow suit.

Deputy O Cleirigh talked about the courage of a minority Government in bringing forward a Bill of this kind. My opinion is that it is because they are a minority Government they have introduced it. While the Government keep on doing things that are in the interests of the country they need not feel a bit shaken because of the fact that they are a minority Government. They will get the support of honest people in the House for measures such as this which are for the benefit of the people.

Now you know where you are.

Mistakes are found in every Bill introduced. Amending measures have to be introduced before Acts can be made perfect. I, like Deputy Ó Cleirigh, come from the province of Connacht. I am sure all Deputies have read the report of the Drainage Commission. Evidence will be found in that report that the province of Connacht has more drainage problems than any other province. It is affected to a very large extent by flooding. The Parliamentary Secretary said that, according to the report of the Drainage Commission, roughly £250,000 a year could be spent on drainage. It is estimated that this measure will involve an expenditure of £7,000,000. One does not need to be a great mathematician to reach the conclusion that it is going to take 28 years before the drainage work outlined in this Bill is completed and the £7,000,000 spent. We are at least 20 years late in making a start on this drainage work. If it is going to take 28 years to complete the work which it is necessary to do, then a lot of us here will not see the completion of it. It is all very well to have hope, but I believe the Government will have to take courage again if they mean to move faster in doing the necessary work. When our people, who have been compelled to leave the country, return, work will have to be found for them. Therefore, in my opinion it will be necessary, as regards this drainage work, to move much faster than the Parliamentary Secretary indicated in his statement.

Deputy O Cleirigh talked a lot about field drains. I think that would be a nonsensical thing to do, because what needs to be done is to tackle the main drainage of the country. In my own county I could mention at least half a score of important main rivers on which drainage schemes need to be carried out, such as the Sinkin, the Dalgin, the Islandsriver, Williamstown, the Belcare, Graigue Abbey and others. What is the use of talking about field drains when you have these main rivers to do? There is one warning that I want to utter and it is on the question of maintenance. Whether maintenance is going to be a national charge or a county-at-large charge on the rates, make sure that there will be a hard and fast rule to ensure the maintenance of all schemes carried out. Otherwise it will be only a waste of time going forward with this work as well as a false expenditure of money. I know schemes that were carried out under the 1925 Act and, because the maintenance was not afterwards attended to, the drainage is as bad to-day as it was before the schemes were executed. Another point is, who will decide the schemes that are to get preference? There is a bit of a snag in that because I have no doubt it will be said: "There will be a certain amount of political pull as to whether it will be this scheme or that scheme."

In fairness I want to say that since I became a member of the House and had some dealings with the Board of Works and the Parliamentary Secretary—I can say this in all sincerity and honesty—I found that to a certain extent they dealt with the matters I put before them fairly and squarely. I do not think they will work the terrible political pull that some people consider. Somebody will have to decide. I would like to hear suggestions from those who say that somebody other than the Board of Works should decide.

There is another point that I would like to stress, and it has to do with the question of unemployment. I hope that, unlike the relief schemes carried out in the past, the starting of work will not depend on the number of registered unemployed in an area. That should not be the test as to whether a scheme is carried out or not, because in my opinion it would not be a fair guide. In some areas you have plenty of unemployed people who never register, whereas in other areas you have people who actually make a trade of registering. I hope that is not going to be the test.

As regards Section 48, Deputy Hughes referred to one point that I would like to deal with. It is very seldom that I find myself in agreement with Deputy O Cleirigh, but I certainly fully agree with him that powers should be given to the authorities to deal with the man who, by standing aside, can succeed in holding up the prosecution of a scheme. We have had examples of that in my own constituency in the matter of relief schemes—of people standing aside and refusing to sign. That sort of thing should not be permitted. I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on, so to speak, taking the bull by the horns in this case, and of not leaving it to people to say whether they will sign or not. If that were permitted one man, because perhaps of political reasons or perhaps of jealousy between neighbours, could, by refusing to sign, hold up a scheme. That is all I have to say. That is as good a scheme as was ever introduced in this country. I regret that it is years late. It is even more important, in my opinion, than the Shannon scheme or any other scheme that has so far been introduced here, because it will give you thousands of acres of land; it will mean handing back to you thousands of acres that annually have been flooded out and that heretofore were no use to the nation. In doing that you are adding to the arable area, giving room for extra food production. That will be something on which the House can be congratulated.

If I can possibly avoid it, I do not engage in controversy. I would have started off by congratulating Deputy Donnellan, at least on the first portion of his speech, because he agreed with Deputy O Cleirigh's suggestion as to the manner in which this House should deal with the Bill—that is, in a calm and a big manner, dealing with it as a measure of great national importance should be dealt with. But I am afraid he ran away quickly from his own lofty ideals when he said he hoped it would not be dealt with like other relief schemes. The one great danger in connection with this Bill is the very danger that has arisen—I do not believe Deputy Donnellan meant it that way—and that is, that everyone of us could name off on the tips of his fingers the ten rivers we want drained. I think we should avoid that outlook as far as possible.

If I wished to enter into controversy, I might join issue with Deputy Donnellan on the question of whether the Shannon scheme or this scheme is the more valuable. I say that the Shannon scheme is a very valuable contribution to our national acquisitions. The emergency has shown what a particularly valuable contribution it has been. I do not think we would get very far by saying that this scheme is a better or a worse one than the scheme which emerged from the legislation dealing with the Shannon.

I do not think Deputy O Cleirigh or Deputy Donnellan was quite right in his interpretation of Deputy Hughes's remarks on Section 48. Deputy Hughes merely meant to point out that the powers were drastic and might give rise to friction. I am in agreement with both Deputies when they say that power should be given to compel people to keep minor drains cleared. I could cite a personal instance in that respect. There happens to be some land in the possession of my family that is well drained, and the owner of the adjoining land will not clear his drains and we have to clear them for our own benefit.

I would remind Deputy Donnellan and Deputy O Cleirigh, when they were referring to schemes being held up because someone would not sign— someone who, perhaps, did not like his neighbour's political opinion, or who might not like some of his neighbours to derive benefit—that the main fault lies with the local authorities— their refusal to exercise the compulsory powers conferred on them. They have never operated them. Where there is an application to make a new road and ten people are willing to allow it, but the eleventh will not sign, or will sign only if he gets, let us say, £30 from the rest of them, you will never get the local authority to exercise its compulsory powers in order to deal with the situation. Possibly it is hard to blame them.

That is one of the advantages in having a county manager, or having a board such as a central drainage board administering a national scheme like the one now proposed. I think it is very advisable to have the scheme administered by a board such as that envisaged in the Bill. I do not see how you could possibly have any other than a central authority to deal with the country as a whole. I do not think, when Deputy Hughes referred to the dangers of bureaucratic control, that he meant much more than this—and he was right in meaning it—that when we are enacting a measure like this and involving the tax-payer on the capital side and the ratepayer on the maintenance side in the expenditure of vast sums of money, the less far away the control and the criticism of the scheme and the expenditure involved are from public representatives the better.

Reference was made to the Land Commission. Deputy O Cleirigh said that we did not object to giving the Land Commission that type of power in the Land Acts. Of course, we did not, but there is no doubt that by every section in the House the operations of the Land Commission are severely criticised year after year when the Estimate is under consideration. I regret I was not present for the entire speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. If, as I can see by Section 3, which deals with expenses, the expenditure incurred in administration shall be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, they must ask for the money here and Deputies will be entitled to criticise, from their knowledge of any scheme that has been carried out, the future operations of the board on the strength of that knowledge, and that will certainly be a great help.

I do not think Deputy O Cleirigh had any necessity to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on his courage in bringing in this Bill, and I do not agree with the point of view of Deputy Donnellan, because it was perfectly obvious that every section of the community and members of every Party in the House have been asking questions about drainage as long as the Dáil has been in existence and everyone knew that sooner or later this had to come. I welcome the Bill mainly from this point of view. Schemes like this, if they are going to be dealt with only in a sectional way by county councils or joint committees of county councils, might not be so satisfactory. You could quite possibly get a very active county council or combination of county councils which would do very good work and carry out a scheme just as well as any central authority; but, on the other hand, you may get other county councils that, through reasons of political control or pure inefficiency or laziness, will not carry out schemes, greatly to the detriment of the people.

I think the one glorious thing in spending money on drainage is the high labour content of the work. I can hardly imagine any other type of work that will carry as high a labour content. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary, if he is in charge of the Board of Works when this Bill gets through, or his successor, will endeavour as far as is humanly possible to see that the money goes to the people who need it most, the ordinary people who will get work under the scheme. There is always a danger in every scheme, no matter what person or Department is in charge of it, that vast sums may be expended by way of overhead expenses, and these are inclined to mount until the proportion of money expended on a job, but not necessarily on manual labour, is much higher in relation to the cost of the scheme than it ought to be. I believe there is no necessity for that in this case and I welcome the Bill because of the possibility of a very high manual labour content in its operation and it will be at least one helpful contribution towards solving post-war unemployment problems in this country.

I see the difficulty that Deputy Donnellan and Deputy Murphy felt when they said that they might not be here to see the end of the scheme. I hope they will be here, as I think it might take much shorter than 28 years to complete it. But, in all fairness to those who will administer the Act, I cannot see how the work can be done very rapidly. For my information I will put this question to the Parliamentary Secretary: Have we engineering staffs, technical advisers and a trained staff to deal with a big scheme of this kind? I would not like it to get out that the reason for the spread-over of the expenditure of the money was that we want to do it in that way. I think I am right when I say that if we wanted to spend £3,000,000 out of the £7,000,000 in the next few months we would not have engineers, experts or equipment to do so. Every year we turn out from our universities many well-qualified engineers A number of them are now in the Army. These people will be looking for employment. There will be also those who return from England, mainly manual workers, some of whom are highly skilled, but do not possess engineering qualifications. I think it would be a good idea to direct the attention of the universities to that fact, so that an attempt would be made to give students doing an engineering course a thorough knowledge of the drainage problem as it affects this country. If necessary I would like to see, in the post-war period, four or five engineers being sent to other countries to see how they deal with their drainage problems.

I am afraid of one difficulty, and that is that no matter how good and how highly educated our engineers are they may not have the practical experience of drainage that will be necessary in a scheme like this. I do not think that is any criticism of our engineers. I think they would welcome the opportunity to extend their knowledge in a practical manner. Everybody knows that engineering is in its infancy, and that with the exception of the Shannon Scheme and some minor schemes, there have been no big engineering developments since the railways were built. With all respect to people associated with local authorities, engineering work has been mainly confined to the making of an occasional bridge or road. From the point of view of people whose expert and practical knowledge will be required to carry out this work, as well as the skilled and unskilled manual labour that will be required this Bill is welcome. The money expended will go into labour and will naturally return to the pockets of the taxpayers.

There will be, of course, complaints from various counties regarding the county-at-large charge. People will ask what benefit they will derive from the scheme. Some people who may reside on the side of a hill will say there is no flooding within ten miles of their place. If the cost of maintenance is going to be sectionalised the scheme will be shattered. If the carrying out of the scheme was confined to people directly benefiting in the catchment area, that would merely mean that an excessive rate would be imposed on those in that area, and while the rate might be paid for a while, the time would come when they would not be in a position to pay. Agitation on their part might be justified. I am satisfied that there are parts of the country where it would be absolutely impossible for people to meet arrears of drainage rates. This is not the only scheme that has a county-at-large charge. The main roads are a county-at-large charge. If one objects to this being a county-at-large charge, one might say that if a main road was built through a certain area, only those whose gates abutted on it should pay for its maintenance. Even though somebody may be hurt, I believe it is a good principle of local government to spread the area of charge over as wide an area as possible. If the drainage authority charged with the carrying out of the scheme do their work properly, and hand it over to the county councils in a good state, and keep continually looking after it, so that it will not be allowed to fall into disrepair, it might surprise most people how far one penny or twopence on the rates in each county would go towards maintenance. If a job is well done, and if maintenance is looked after, the actual cost should be very small.

Deputy O Cléirigh referred to the question of acquisition. While I am in agreement with the Deputy and with Deputy Donnellan, naturally there must be power to deal with the man who will not give way on anything but who will just sit and sulk over any scheme. Even if mill or weir-owners make high claims there is always the little question of price to be considered. While it might be said that the demands were excessive, no one would accuse any Government Department of being over-generous in the prices they offer. There should be a happy medium. I do not think it would be entirely fair to suggest that land should be taken off people at the price that a Department suggested, any more than a taxpayer should be compelled to pay the price they ask. There is a simple method of dealing with that situation in Government Departments and I suggest it to the Parliamentary Secretary for adoption in this scheme. In the Government service there are two sets of valuers, people who value land when the Land Commission acquires it, and those who value land for estate and probate purposes. There is an extraordinary difference between the value put on land wanted by the Land Commission and the value put on it for probate purposes. I always felt that in a scheme for the compulsory acquisition of land it would be a good idea if the valuers for the Land Commission were transferred to value for estate duty purposes.

This is a very comprehensive measure. We welcome it as an attempt to deal with national drainage. I do not think anybody will quarrel whether the scheme will be undertaken first in Donegal, Cork or Kerry. We should not have an endless row between ourselves, locally or nationally, as to what work should be done first, as that would be the worst thing that could happen. As long as the board is prepared to look at the problem as a national one, and do its best, that is all that is asked of it. I look to the House to retain control of the money. Deputy O'Donnell reminded me last night that in some counties there may be vast areas of dry land. In East Cork people have sometimes to go considerable distances with horses and carts to get water for household purposes, and also for their cattle. Work under this scheme might be work of national irrigation.

The man who would then complain that he had to pay for a benefit that was conferred on another person as a result of the water being taken away would have an opportunity of himself gaining some compensation in the future by a national irrigation scheme that would relieve his land from the danger of a terrible drought, which is as bad in its way as terrible flooding. I welcome this measure. It is one that will provide much employment and that will be of great benefit generally. Any matters that may arise as to details can be properly dealt with in Committee. I am quite sure that now that the Parliamentary Secretary has got over the first hurdle—and I am afraid he must have been nervous in view of the compliments paid to him by Deputy O Cléirigh and Deputy Donnellan—he will be able to face the Committee Stage with an easier mind. I hope that he will soften his heart on some of the more minor details which we shall have to discuss with him now that we have treated him so easily in dealing with the major issues.

In common with Deputies generally, I welcome the introduction of this Bill as a measure that is very badly wanted in this country. In addition, I welcome the policy behind the measure, the policy of long-term planning in respect of a national want of this kind. I do not think that anybody could look at the land code we have to-day, which has been referred to by some Deputies, without reflecting that if years ago some effort were made to deal with that problem in the manner in which an attempt is now being made to deal with drainage in this Bill, better results would have been achieved. I do not pay much attention to the complaints that have been made as to the length of time it will take to bring about the full fruits of the policy outlined in this Bill. As has been pointed out, it must of necessity take a long time to reach full fruition but the main thing is that when this Bill is enacted, we shall have machinery in existence whereby the whole problem can be dealt with and finished at some time. I do not say that amendments of this measure may not be necessary as time goes on. I believe it is quite possible that when the organisation for the expenditure of the amount of money contemplated under this particular Bill is perfected, difficulties may be encountered, but if such difficulties are met with, it should be quite easy to remedy them, now that we have made up our minds about the major measure.

I think the Parliamentary Secretary may not be correct when he says that it will take at least five years before we shall be in a position to spend £250,000 on this Bill. I believe that when the problem is tackled, when the organisation to operate this Bill comes into existence and when those operating it have a couple of years' experience, it is quite possible, and as a matter of fact quite probable, that we shall move much faster and that we shall be able to get much more work done under the Bill than is contemplated at the moment by the Parliamentary Secretary. It is quite true that we cannot expect all our local problems to be dealt with straight away under the Bill, but it is a very good thing that we have one measure for the whole country under which every section of the country can hope to benefit in due course.

The county which I represent is one that undoubtedly stands to gain very much under this Bill because there exists there one of the greatest drainage problems to be found in the whole of the State. In the whole of Mayo there are six existing drainage districts and, of these, four were not maintained or repaired over a great number of years. The result is that at the moment, particularly in respect of one district, the Saleen drainage district, the people are called upon to pay a drainage rate which they cannot possibly afford. I see that under Sections 21 and 22 it is proposed that the separate drainage rate will be abolished on the appointed day when the new drainage authority takes over. Unfortunately, in respect of the drainage area which I have just mentioned, the appointed day will come too late. I understand that last week the County Manager in Mayo instructed the county solicitor to institute proceedings against a number of those people who have not been able to pay the current drainage rate and arrears. I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that on the Committee Stage he might endeavour to provide some machinery whereby this matter could be dealt with because it is admitted by everybody in Mayo, by the county council and the county manager, that the amount has accumulated owing to the long neglect of the drainage. I know one unfortunate tenant whose valuation is not £10 and his drainage rate this year is in the region of £40. It is absolutely ridiculous to expect that these people could meet a burden of that extent. They are not able to do it. I am sure everybody has experience of the fact in connection with drainage schemes, that quite a number of people who did not benefit by them had to pay the rates.

In addition, many of these drainage areas had been neglected for such a long time that when the county managers came along and an attempt was made to do some maintenance work, the cost was prohibitive. I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the cases which I have mentioned and which are pending at the moment and to do something to relieve these people, because this is a genuine instance of the people not being able to pay, a genuine case of the amount of the arrears and the current drainage rate imposed on the people being out of all proportion to any benefit derived by them. The Parliamentary Secretary would only be meting out justice to these people by inserting some provision in the Bill whereby the amount of the arrears would be funded or dealt with in some other way which would relieve these people.

Deputy Hughes stated that the Government were meeting this problem very belatedly and Deputy Donnellan also suggests that it is a matter which should have been dealt with years ago. That may well be true, but both Deputy Donnellan and Deputy Hughes should appreciate the tremendous amount of what I might term spadework that must precede the introduction of a measure of this kind. Anybody who has any knowledge of the old drainage code in this country, the complicated system it was, the various interests that were affected and are affected under this Bill, will realise that a Bill of this kind takes quite a lot of preparation, a lot of study and a lot of planning. It is exactly the type of measure that might well be destroyed if we were to rush into it without due preparation or due consideration. I hope that when this measure is about to be put into operation some consultation will take place with the various other Government or semi-Government Departments that may be affected. I have particularly in mind the Electricity Supply Board or whatever Department is going to deal with the proposed rural electrification of the country and the Government Department responsible for the fisheries of the country.

In addition to this Bill, we have had the Fisheries Bill which also contemplates a long-term policy and certain future action to be taken by the State as regards fisheries. It is also proposed that an effort will be made in the post-war period to have rural electrification. Both these subjects have great bearing on this Bill and it may be possible—as a matter of fact, I think it will be essential—to have consultations between the drainage authority and the other bodies in charge of these other projects with a view to the economic working of all the schemes. I am in complete agreement with the particular section that gives the drainage authority power, in the case of farmers who, for some reason or other, object to doing their part, to compel them to do it. I think the position would be absurd otherwise and that, if the drainage authority had not these compulsory powers, there might be cases, such as Deputy Donnellan referred to, in connection with the bog road scheme, where some farmers refused to allow the Board of Works to enter their lands for the purpose of making a road or completing a passage. It is very difficult to understand the mentality of such people. It may be due to land hunger in some areas. At all events, I am very glad that these compulsory powers are being taken under this Bill so that certain persons will not be put in the position of depriving their neighbours of the undoubted advantages to be derived from the scheme.

I was very glad to hear the tribute paid to the Board of Works for their fairness—particularly by Deputy Donnellan of the Farmers' Party. I am pleased to know that there is at least one Government Department which that particular Party recognises as being honest and as giving everybody a fair deal. I hope it will not take as long as is contemplated by the Parliamentary Secretary before the benefits of this measure can be brought to the people of this country. As I have said, I believe it may be possible to bring the scheme into operation much more quickly.

Again, I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on introducing this Bill, and on the very able manner in which he has explained its provisions to the House. It is, as I say, a very complicated measure, and I hope that, with the co-operation of all Parties in the House, it will be passed as quickly as possible, so that the work of providing a scheme which is very badly needed by the farming community may be commenced.

The object of this measure is to introduce a drainage scheme, and to deal with it nationally and comprehensively. Whilst I am not seriously concerned as to whether I will be here or not when the scheme is put into operation, it is no harm to put on record that it is time this comprehensive scheme was started. There are some things conspicuous more by their absence than by their presence in this Bill, and in so far as the Bill has been spoken to by various Deputies, I do not think reference has been made to them. This measure will depend for its success to a great extent, if not entirely, on the manner in which it is financed. No word has yet been said as to how it is to be financed. I was very anxious in this regard, and I listened as attentively as I could to the Parliamentary Secretary in the expectation that he would tell us how the money is to be paid back. We have had experience of the financing of housing schemes and of schemes for the reclamation of land. If I had thought that this measure would be before us this evening, I could have produced concrete evidence as to how these schemes operate. However, I have in mind some instances. It would be no harm if the House realised that, if this measure is to be financed in a similar manner, it will require to be examined very carefully. For instance, under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, in respect of a loan of £500 for the purchase of a house, you pay back about £1,100. I know of such cases, and could give concrete examples of them. A similar system operates in connection with the granting of a loan by the Board of Works in respect of reclamation of land. I have one particular case in mind, because I dealt with it less than a month ago. A certain person reclaimed a piece of mountain, or did some such work, and put a good deal of hard work into it. For this purpose he borrowed two sums of £40. A demand for repayment was sent after Christmas. The person concerned discussed the matter with me to see if he could get some relief in respect of the period of repayment. I discovered that, for the loan of £80, he was to pay back over £180.

Let us consider that aspect in respect of this measure. We are told that £7,000,000 will be expended. What will be paid back? Deputy Donnellan told us with a flourish—I expected different ideas from the Farmers' Benches—that thousands of acres of land will be put into commission as a result of the operation of this measure. He did not tell us at what price. Neither did the Parliamentary Secretary, nor anybody else. That is my main reason for speaking on this measure. I have watched the operations of similar measures. There has been a good deal of misunderstanding between local authorities and the Board of Works and there has been some litigation in respect thereof. Farmers and others who have been members of county councils realise how these schemes were operated. A scheme was prepared. There was an examination of the position and statements were taken from various people concerned. The scheme was carried out and the people were told that so many hundred acres of land had been reclaimed. Then the drainage rate was struck and these people refused to pay the drainage rate because, they said, the scheme was not carried through as they understood it would be carried through. Will we have a repetition of that sort of thing in this case? Will we have schemes operated according to the mind and thought of the Board of Works and not according to the mind and thought of the farmers and the ratepayers who are going to pay for it in the end? After all, it will be a county-at-large charge, and who is going to decide whether the scheme as contemplated by the farmers who are to benefit by it is the same as that contemplated by the Board of Works? We have had very many cases of disagreement and litigation in regard to the benefits derived from schemes. I hope this will not be the position in this case. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary has something different in mind in respect of this measure.

We have no figures before us tonight as to the cost of the improvement per acre of land that it is claimed has been improved under former schemes or of the improvement per acre that is claimed to have been effected. We have had no estimate of any kind. This Bill, containing 58 sections, is introduced and we are asked to give it a Second Reading to-night. Of course, we will give it a Second Reading because it is a measure for which there will be a welcome in so far as it will improve land and put land into commission. But, in introducing a measure to do that, we should be given some statement as to the cost and as to the price that the ratepayers of the country will have to pay for the reclamation and improvement of that land. It may be thought rather strange that I should say that in view of the fact that Deputy Linehan has told us that there is great labour content in the scheme. There is great labour content in it, and I am not opposing it. I am merely endeavouring to secure the interests of the ratepayer. The largest ratepayer in this country at the present moment is the cottier who goes out to work and has nothing else but his labour. He is a larger ratepayer proportionate to what he holds than the farmer who pays a bigger rate. I am considering his position when I ask, what return will be made for the amount of land that will be reclaimed? What return will be given for the amount of land that will be drained? I want to throw that spanner into this revolving wheel of congratulations and compliments and, if possible, extract from the Parliamentary Secretary, when closing the debate, information as to how the money is to be obtained for this work.

I should like to make a passing reference to one other matter in connection with these drainage schemes. Up to the present, drainage schemes have been regarded, in the main, as agricultural work. We were told that the agricultural rate of wages should operate in respect of workers employed on drainage schemes. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not contend that that position should obtain on this occasion. These will be works of construction and the people employed on them should, certainly, get the rate of wages paid on constructional works and not the rate of wages paid for agricultural work. That is the only contribution I propose to make on the principle of the measure at this stage. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some information as to the financing of the measure before the close of the debate.

I welcome this Bill because of its necessity. I have no intention of congratulating the Government upon its introduction. My candid opinion is, as Deputy Donnellan has already said, that the Bill is being introduced at this stage because the Government find themselves in a minority and want to do something to save their faces in the future. This is a Bill from which the farmers should derive great benefit, if it be properly worked. In County Mayo, as other Deputies have pointed out, we should derive great benefit from it because we have many rivers and large drains which demand attention of this kind. Like Deputy Hughes, I was amazed that the Parliamentary Secretary gave no indication of how the money was to be obtained. Deputy Hughes made that point at the opening of his speech. Deputy Hogan may not have been present at the time. He asked whether the money was to be obtained by loan or was to be voted in a lump sum. Under the present drainage schemes, the rate of interest charged is beyond consideration. If a man had a small farm adjoining a river and it was estimated that five acres of his land would benefit, a water rate of £15 would be imposed, to be levied over a period of years. But, when the period of years had elapsed, he would find that he had had to pay £30 instead of £15. We shall be very interested to learn what rate of interest will be struck. Will the Parliamentary Secretary take every precaution to see that, when a drainage scheme is complete and when drainage charges are being imposed, the farmer will not be saddled with a heavy debt for 100 years to come.

There is another section here which I said, when the Minister was speaking, was a necessary section. At that time, I had not read it. I think it is very unfair that, when an important Bill, such as this, is to be introduced, we get it only the day before we arrive here after the Recess. We have no time to read it. We do not know what is in it and we do not know what we are to talk about. Although I agree that compulsion is necessary to ensure that the farmer keeps his main drains and side drains clean, we must consider the point stressed by Deputy Hughes as to the definition of "arterial drain". The definition may be settled by the Board of Works or the person who will have charge of a particular area. An arterial drain may, in a particular area, run along the land of five or six farmers, who will benefit by it. Other farmers, who may be living from three to eight miles distant, may be forced, according to this Bill, to open up their main drains right through to the arterial drain which has been cleaned by the State. That is a very important matter. Could we not have a rough definition from the Parliamentary Secretary of "arterial drain"? Would it cover those main drains which we talk about and about which we write to the Board of Works or will it cover only rivers of a certain size or what-exactly is the definition?

If, however, the Parliamentary Secretary gives a reasonable definition, then I am in full agreement with him in having this provision in the Bill, with a view to seeing that a farmer will clean and open up his drains and not be the cause of blocking up an industrious farmer by leaving the drains closed and holding up the supply of water.

Seven million pounds is not a big sum when we consider the amount of drainage to be done, and I believe it will cost a lot more than that. Take, for instance, the amount of compensation that will have to be offered in very many cases. For example, take the case of the Moy, which is a river in which I am interested. The Foxford Woollen Mills may be seriously affected by this scheme, and it is hard to say what would be the amount of compensation that would have to be given to these mills—it might run into thousands of pounds—unless you can find some other remedy. If you are to have the Moy drained properly, as I say, it may affect the mills considerably, and you will have to give compensation or devise some other means of dealing with the situation. In the same way, I suppose, very many other mills and industries throughout the country will have to be compensated. Accordingly, this is not a big sum when you look at it in this way, and particularly as it will take 28 years to administer or spend the money, and five years before you even start spending it. One cannot consider it a very big sum, then, as it is only £250,000 per annum.

There is another important point, and that is, the man who will have the last say in the matter. I listened to Deputy Hughes talking about bureaucracy. Undoubtedly, somebody will have to have the last say, but it would be well if some committee or board could be set up as a mediator between the man who makes out that he has a reasonable claim to put forward, that he has been victimised or unjustly treated, and the man with the last say, the official of the Board of Works. If a committee or some kind of board could be set up to act as a mediator and see that fair play is done to the claimant and to the Board of Works, it would be a good thing.

On this stage of the Bill there is not a lot that one can say, but it is a Bill of importance, because there is one type of people who will be relieved from a certain amount of correspondence, and that is the representatives of the various constituencies. At the present moment, one gets about 100 letters a day dealing with drainage. Practically all one's correspondence consists of drainage, drainage, drainage.

You will probably get about twice as many from now on.

Well, we may, but at any rate you will have a central authority to write to, and you will not have to write to the local council or the Board of Works. You will know where to write to.

It will save a lot of questions here.

Well, we hope so, and, as Deputy Allen says, it will save a lot of questions in the Dáil. Perhaps it may have the opposite effect and be the cause of a lot more questions, but we hope not. Anyhow, I would urge the Parliamentary Secretary to try, as soon as the Bill has passed both Houses, to have it implemented as soon as possible, and also to try to provide the necessary machinery that is needed for drainage. I would also ask him to take particular notice of the point raised as regards Section 28. That is a valuable and necessary section, as Deputy Linchan said. There are many farmers, many of whom I know in my own neighbourhood, who are industrious and hardworking, but whose work is held up because others definitely refuse to open or clean their own drains. That is very important, but it is only important if the definition of an arterial drain is reasonable and if the Board of Works do not expect us to do too much.

As far as I am concerned, like other Deputies in my own county, we will benefit a lot by the Bill. It is a welcome Bill and I believe that its introduction at this stage is due to the fact that the Government are in a minority and have nothing to fear. The Parliamentary Secretary has nothing to fear because, so long as he introduces Bills of this kind, which will be of great benefit to the community, he will get the co-operation and help of every Party in the House, and the people in the country will begin to see that since the return of a minority Government has meant the introduction of such measures as family allowances, increased old age pensions, the Bill we are now dealing with, and various other social services that have been brought about during the last six months, they might be inclined to return the Government with an even weaker position and say to themselves: "The weaker they are the more we will get." I think I may conclude now by hoping that the Bill will pass with reasonable discussion and that there will be no heated debates on it.

The Parliamentary Secretary, in opening this debate, did so in a very conciliatory manner, and I was very pleased indeed to hear the view expressed by him, that he was willing to consider very carefully all amendments which may be brought to this Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary, however, at the close of his speech, was very laudatory of this particular Bill. He even went so far as to say that it was about as good a Bill as human ability could devise. Now, I am very sorry to say that I cannot regard this Bill as being anything like as good a Bill as human ability could devise.

I have heard a great many remarks all around this House, that this is a very comprehensive measure. My main objection to this measure is that it is not comprehensive enough. This drainage question is a very large question. It is linked up with a great number of other things, and here we are dealing with drainage simply by itself, as if drainage could be put into a little compartment and as if other things, such as, for example, fishery laws, fishery rights, or the acquisition of water rights could be entirely ignored when you are dealing with a large question like drainage. If you wish to deal with like drainage in a comprehensive manner you will have to look at it from a far wider angle, and will have to take into consideration a greater number of other things than were taken into consideration by the Drainage Commission. The Drainage Commission was a commission set up with definite terms of reference, and the terms of reference were not wide enough to embrace the entire problem of satisfactorily and completely draining Irish land. I move the adjournment of the debate

Debate adjourned until Tuesday next.
Top
Share