Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 22 Feb 1944

Vol. 92 No. 11

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

Before I moved the adjournment on the last occasion, I mentioned that I could not agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that this Bill was the very best Bill which human ability could devise. Before I come to analyse this Bill, I wish to point out to the House what this Bill is not, because there seems to be in certain parts of this House a most extraordinary and mistaken idea of the provisions of the Bill. This Bill provides machinery. It provides nothing else. This Bill does not provide £7,000,000 for the drainage of land. It does not profess to do so. This Bill does not provide for the draining of a single perch of Irish land. It does not profess to do so. It does profess to provide machinery which a future Dáil can operate in order that Irish land can be drained. When a Deputy like Deputy Donnellan says that this Bill is a greater and more important measure than the Shannon scheme, he is talking absolute nonsense. The Shannon scheme did work. The Shannon scheme enabled water power to be utilised in this country to produce electricity. But this Bill merely provides machinery in very much the same way as if a person with 100 acres of land to till got the necessary horses and machinery and did nothing. He would have a very poor answer to give the inspector who came to prosecute him. I do not think Deputy Hogan or Deputy Cafferky understood this Bill either because they both asked where was the money coming from. Deputy Hogan wanted to know if £180 would have to be given back in return for a grant of £100—or something of that kind. As a matter of fact, it is perfectly clear under this Bill that the persons who will benefit when drainage schemes are carried out will not in their capacity as beneficiaries have to return one single farthing. They may have to contribute to the cost of construction in their capacity as general taxpayers; they may have to contribute to the cost of maintenance in their capacity as ratepayers, but, as beneficiaries, they will get everything for nothing.

There was one thing in the Parliamentary Secretary's opening statement which came as a bad shock to me, namely, that no arterial drainage scheme can be put in force until a period of at least five years has elapsed. At least, that is what I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say.

I cannot recollect having made any such statement.

I hope I am wrong. The Parliamentary Secretary did say something about five years.

I think he did.

What I did say was, I think, that, as indicated in the Report of the Drainage Commission, it was not expected that the maximum expenditure under this Bill when it became law could be reached, or the necessary organisation set up, in a shorter period than five years. That is, that we would not have the necessary organisation established whereby to spend the figure that was mentioned by the commission as the maximum figure until a period of five years had elapsed. I stated that only because it was stated in the Report of the Drainage Commission.

I am, of course, familiar with what is contained in the Report of the Drainage Commission, but evidently I took the Parliamentary Secretary up wrongly.

That is right.

I am very glad it has turned out that I took him up wrongly because it did seem to me that there must be schemes which are now practically ready in the Board of Works. For instance, let me take the River Moy scheme. That scheme was under very careful consideration. The sum of money that would be required for the drainage of the Moy had been estimated by the Board of Works. My recollection is that it was between £80,000 and £90,000. But, because the scheme was an entirely uneconomic one, it could not be carried out in its entirety. Then there was a question as to the drainage of some of the tributaries of the Moy—the Gloire and the Yellow Rivers—but there was a dispute between the people who thought they would benefit and those, lower down the river, who thought they would lose by it and the scheme came to nothing. This Bill, I am glad to see, removes the difficulty that existed in regard to the scheme being an uneconomic one, and it appeared to me, in consequence, that schemes of that nature might be ready in the Board of Works and that we might have arterial drainage work begun even this year.

I mention that by way of illustration because I intend to be very careful not to do what there is always a temptation to do, that is, to recommend that a particular drainage work should be done because it happens to be valuable for one's own constituency. If, in the course of my speech, I do allude to certain drainage works that are being done, or may have to be done, in my constituency, I will do so solely because a concrete example very often makes one's meaning very much more clear than if one keeps entirely to the abstract. I am glad to understand that I was mistaken in what I took to be the view put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary, and that work under this Bill can be started possibly in the near future, because we certainly will have to face a very serious problem of unemployment in a very short period of time.

I am not so much interested in the question of persons who are now in England and employed in England, because I think their employment there will probably last for a very considerable time; but I am interested in those who are now in the National Army, since, fortunately, according to some expert opinion, this European war is likely to end this year and the need of a National Army in its present size will become, very shortly, I hope, unnecessary. The work of demobilising the Army will fling a number of people upon the labour market, and they are the persons who, naturally, ought to be employed first. Now, a drainage scheme in its peak period will be able to give employment to 1,000 workmen—not the whole year round, but during the summer months. One of the reasons why I would like to see drainage work carried out as quickly as possible, even though it may not be capable for a considerable period of time of giving work to the full 1,000 men at peak periods of the year, is that it will give work to a number of men and do something to relieve the situation which must be occasioned by the disbandment of the Army.

Now, Sir, turning to the Bill itself, it constitutes a general drainage authority, but I myself am strongly opposed to the powers which are given to that drainage authority, and I am not satisfied that the constitution of it is the best constitution possible. Under this Bill, the central drainage authority will be the Commissioners of the Board of Works, and Section 4, a section of extreme importance, says:—

"Whenever the commissioners are of opinion that the execution of arterial drainage works is expedient in respect of any catchment area for the purpose of preventing or substantially reducing periodical flooding of lands in that area or improving by drainage lands in the said area, it shall be lawful for the commissioners to prepare a scheme for the execution of such works and for that purpose to make such engineering and valuation surveys of the said areas as appear to them to be necessary or expedient."

Therefore, every drainage scheme must be originated by the commissioners. Later on, checks are given to the Minister and the House can also impose a check upon them because it need not vote the necessary money. But this House cannot originate a scheme. The Executive Council cannot originate a scheme, and there is no parliamentary control over the origination of a scheme. I mentioned a moment ago that there could be a scramble of people to have particular drainage works carried out, but this House will not have the slightest voice in saying what scheme is to be taken up first or what scheme is to be taken up last. That is entirely under the control of the commissioners, and they must be of opinion that drainage work is expedient before any drainage work can be started, and they are the only persons completely free from any control in saying who will carry out the surveys and do the work. Now, that is an abrogation of parliamentary control and a handing over of the power of this House to a body which, if this Bill becomes law in its present form, will be independent of this House. I think that is bad.

My view is that whenever the Executive Council is of the opinion that drainage works are expedient—they are the Government of this country and under the control of Parliament— it is they who should control the Board of Works, who prepare the scheme and carry out all the necessary preliminaries. Passing away from the view that the constitution of the board is not in all respects the very best constitution possible, I think that there ought to be a central drainage authority. I am speaking for myself, but I believe that the central drainage authority should be constituted of three of the Commissioners of Public Works, the Chairman of the Electricity Board and a representative of the Department of Fisheries.

Let me take the Electricity Supply Board first. I do not think it can deal with drainage without dealing with all the other uses of water power. Let me take an example. I read recently a little booklet which contained the report of one of the most eminent of Dublin engineers upon the erection of a mill for which he had been engineer in Ballina, on the River Moy. In the course of the discussion which followed his paper, there was some talk among the engineers as to the water power available in the River Moy. He said that the water power in the Moy was not very great, but that if a canal were cut from Lough Conn, either to the mouth of the Moy or somewhere in the neighbourhood, it would develop a very great water power, indeed. Let me take it that such a canal were cut by the Electricity Supply Board. I do not want it to be thought that I have said that the gentleman said that such a thing was economic or that it ought to be done—I merely state on his authority that if it were done, water power would be developed. Suppose the Electricity Supply Board decided that the cutting of that canal would be advisable for the purpose of developing water power. Then, there would be an entirely new outlet from Lough Conn to the sea and the waters of Lough Conn are the principal waters that flow into the River Moy.

In consequence, it would seem to me that the work of draining the Moy would be far less onerous if that canal had been cut and an alternative way given to the waters to leave the lake and reach the sea. Much less work might be necessary in draining the river because, the waters of the lake being largely diverted, a smaller quantity of water would flow through the old channel, which might be capable of taking it all. I am putting that forward hesitantly, tentatively and doubtfully because I am not a trained engineer and, when dealing with matters of a highly technical nature, it is better to "walk cautiously as one goes down a shelving shore into a deepening sea." My views upon that matter may not be sound and may not be of any value but it does seem to me that, in developing the water power, the Electricity Supply Board will have to cut a considerable number of canals and these canals may have a very great effect upon the drainage of the country. The first work which is to be done is, I think, the cutting of a canal at Leixlip to utilise to the full the water power of the Liffey, which is already half-harnessed. In other places, they will cut other canals and these may have a very considerable effect on the drainage of the country. I can visualise works being carried out partly at the expense of the Electricity Supply Board and partly at the expense of the Central Drainage Authority because these works might, on the one hand, be helping along drainage and, on the other hand, developing water power.

Then, again, there may be conflicts between the E.S.B. and the Drainage Board because the E.S.B. may have to bank up rivers and that may actually flood the land. It would be a great pity if the drainage authority were to carry out a drainage scheme and if their work were subsequently to be undone by banking-up operations by the E.S.B. in order to obtain water-power. Consequently, it seems to me that it would be well if the E.S.B. were represented on this Board, so that the whole problem of Irish rivers, Irish drainage and Irish water-power would be considered by a body representative of both of the interests to which I have referred. Not alone do I suggest that it would be advisable to have the chairman or some representative of the E.S.B. on the Central Drainage Board, but I should also like to see there some official of the Department of Fisheries. Inevitably, there must be a struggle between the Department of Fisheries and the Drainage Board. When I was speaking the other night, I mentioned that no powers were contained in the Bill compulsorily to acquire fishing rights. The Bill had been following me around and had only reached me on the morning on which I spoke. I trusted entirely to the explanatory memorandum. I thought that it would give me sufficient of the general theory of the Bill to enable me to take part in a Second Reading debate. When I had an opportunity of going through the Bill carefully at leisure, I discovered hidden away in Section 9 —the side-note of which is: "The carrying out of a drainage scheme"— compulsory powers for the acquisition of fishery rights, water rights and easements generally. It seems to me that a very difficult problem will arise in connection with the acquisition of these fishing rights. Under the 1939 Act, it was generally contemplated that all the inland fisheries would be acquired by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. The necessary provisions are contained in that Act but the proceedings are long and cumbersome. From the appointed day to the final vesting of the fishery rights in each fishery district takes a period of ten years. If the Department of Fisheries are compulsorily acquiring the fishing rights of a whole district and the Drainage Board want to acquire one particular fishery, or part of one fishery, it will lead to great complications. It may mean that somebody will be informed that his fishery is to be compulsorily acquired by two Departments at the same time.

I should like to see the Drainage Board, when it acquires fishing rights, do so rather by rule of thumb. When a fishing right has to be acquired, I think they should simply go from the year 1929 to, say, 1939—some normal period—take the income-tax return of the net income of the fishery during that period, and give a certain number of years' purchase. I should act liberally as regards the number of years' purchase. The whole thing could be done much more simply than is proposed in this Bill. When questions do arise between the Department of Fisheries and the Drainage Board, the board will always be successful because, under Section 10, the Minister for Fisheries cannot stop the work if it "causes substantial detriment to such drainage works or substantial hindrance to their construction". What is "substantial detriment" and what is "substantial hindrance"? There will be a battle on that question because it is very hard to say when drainage will not be as good as it should be. Without being perfect, it may be substantial. I should like a representative of the Department of Fisheries and a member of the Drainage Board to settle these matters so that there will be complete harmony between the different parties.

Again, I am not an engineer, but I think that a great number of these weirs will have to be removed. The Parliamentary Secretary referred— this is a small point but I should like to draw his attention to it—to one weir. He mentioned a weir about which Deputy Blowick had put down a question to him last Thursday, the very day on which the discussion took place. I was not in the House at question time on that occasion, but I gathered from what the Minister said that he thought that the question, dealing with weirs in general, might affect in some way the weir to which Deputy Blowick alluded. That is a weir between Lough Mask and Lough Carra. Now, my home happens to be practically on the shore of Lough Carra and, therefore, I have a considerable amount of local knowledge concerning it. Somewhere about the year 1850, a private Act of Parliament was passed, under which that weir was erected, preventing the lowering of Lough Carra under a particular height.

If the Drainage Board attempted now to interfere with that weir they would be subject to indictment, and we might see the Commissioners for Public Works in the dock. Nothing in this Bill would be any saving to them because it is a rule of law that when you have a particular Act of Parliament doing a particular thing, and afterwards a general Act of Parliament —general in its terms—the general Act does not over-rule the specific Act unless it is definitely stated that that specific Act is repealed.

I do not know whether I have made that quite clear. What I mean is that a general Act, dealing with weirs, would not repeal a special Act dealing with one particular weir. I only really mention that because I think it would be well if the Minister were to have a search made, because there are an awful lot of different schemes and other things under those Drainage Acts, which are the most complicated things on earth. Therefore, I think it would be well to have a very careful search made with a view to seeing if there are any other private Acts. That particular Act, dealing with Lough Carra, was passed in or about the year 1850 or 1851. It was at the time that the Lough Carra and Lough Mask drainage was carried out.

I have already dealt with what I think ought to be the constitution of the Drainage Board. Now, I think that the establishment of a central drainage authority, as recommended by the commission, is an excellent suggestion. There is no doubt that a great deal of drainage work was unsatisfactory because a large enough area was not embraced in the scheme. I again will take a local example. The Board of Works, quite recently, carried out very excellent work on the River Robe in my constituency, but I think that if the Minister asks his engineers they will tell him that I am correct in stating that the River Robe drainage has not been at all as satisfactory as the engineers of the Board of Works would like it to have been, because, to make it really satisfactory, they would have had to lower the level of Lough Mask, into which the River Robe flows. It would be necessary to remove, I think, the weir there, and since the water goes underground between the two lakes, a certain amount of blasting would have to be done. That, however, was entirely outside the scope of the Robe drainage scheme and, therefore, it could not be done, whereas now, under this Bill, with the one authority, if drainage is to be done the whole thing will be visualised. In that particular case, they would have begun at the Galway end of Lough Carra, and it would be of intense benefit to the County Mayo if it were done.

Now, as far as the monetary provisions of this Bill are concerned, I think that the report of the Drainage Commission, advising that the entire burden should be borne by the central Exchequer is eminently sound. I think also, that it is eminently sound that one should not insist on a scheme being economic before it is carried out, but I am not satisfied with the provision which deals with maintenance. Maintenance, under the Bill, is to be carried out by the Board of Works, who are then to present a bill to the various county councils. I cannot see on what grounds differentiation is made between the expenses of construction and the expenses of maintenance. It seems to me that every single reason and every argument that you can bring forward to show that construction should be a charge upon the central funds is of equal force and of equal validity to show that maintenance should also be a charge upon the public funds. I think that it would make for efficiency, and I think it would avoid, at any rate, the friction which I fancy will arise with the county councils. You see, a county rate that is struck for maintenance and drainage will always be unpopular in every county because there will be only a comparatively small number of ratepayers who will benefit and they will always ask the question: "Why are we paying rates that are helping somebody else's land?" There will be another class of ratepayer, too—the man who sees another person's land being drained and whose own land is not being drained, either because the particular area in which his land is situated has not yet been reached in time, or else because the Drainage Board consider that it is impossible to drain it. That man will also have a complaint. Therefore, county councils will always tend to refuse to pay the amount which is asked, and I think there will be perpetual rows between the county councils and the Board of Works or whatever may be the central drainage authority. That is visualised in the Bill itself, because there is a provision in the Bill which says that if the county councils do not pay, the Board of Works can recover the amount due as a simple contract debt, thereby visualising that there will be certain difficulties in getting the county councils to pay. I think it would be very much more satisfactory as well as being logical and also better from the point of view of getting the work done, if maintenance as well as construction were to be a charge upon the Exchequer.

The Parliamentary Secretary, in the course of his speech, dealt with a very curious section, Section 48. As he and Deputy Linchan interpreted that section, it is a section by which, when a drain flows through the land of different persons and the portion running through one person's land is blocked, that person can be compelled to open it. In other words, if you have an easement for the flow of water over the land of somebody else, the Board of Works can compel that person to keep that drain clean, but that does not seem to me to be the meaning of this section, and, to tell the honest truth, I do not think the section has any meaning at all. The first sub-section is one of the most difficult subsections to construe that I have ever come across. It reads:—

"It shall be lawful for the commissioners, by notice in writing served personally or by post on an occupier of land (whether such land is within an existing drainage district or a drainage district constituted under this Act or is not within any such district), to require such occupier, within such time (not being less than one month from the service of such notice) as shall be specified in such notice, to restore, open up, and generally put into proper repair and effective condition such watercourses on the said land as are specified in such notice and, in the opinion of the commissioners, act as connecting links for the drainage of lands affected by the watercourses discharging into an existing drainage district or a drainage district constituted under this Act or proposed in a drainage scheme under this Act to be so constituted."

Now, that beats me completely. I do not know in the least how a drain can be a connecting link. It is "the connecting link for the drainage of lands affected by the watercourses discharging into an existing drainage district". I do not understand that. What drains are connecting and what are they connecting? I can understand water dividing land and I can understand somebody saying that Ireland is divided from America by the Atlantic Ocean, but I find it very hard to understand what is meant by saying that Ireland is connected with America by the Atlantic Ocean. How you can connect land with land by any link of water beats me. It is not a mere matter of wording; I cannot even guess at the class of land meant; and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to send that sub-section back to the Parliamentary draftsman to put it into language which is plain and easy to understand.

On that question of drainage, if it means that everybody is to keep clean the drains which go through his land, it might in certain circumstances be an absolutely intolerable burden and especially so in the case of mountain streams. I have in mind one mountain stream where the water comes down very fast, bearing a lot of gravel and stones with it. There is a right-angled turn for about 100 yards and then another right-angled turn and in the space between the two turns, all the stones and gravel collect, blocking up the passage. The water does not back up but flows over the fields lower down and occasionally destroys the road. It is not a drain with which the Board of Works is familiar because it has been repaired several times but always by the Land Commission. If the unfortunate person whose land lies at that right-angle turn had to keep that turn clean, the cost would amount to almost the value of his land in the year, while the other people would have to do nothing at all.

I might say—and possibly you, Sir, will allow me this little digression— that where the Board of Works carry out minor relief schemes, it would be an excellent thing if they inspected them from time to time, because there is a tendency in certain places when the water gets low to erect a dam to provide a watering-place for cattle and, when the floods come up, the dams are not removed but remain as obstructions, with the result that work which was very well done in some drains has been destroyed by the action of certain riparian owners in their making of these drinking-pools in streams. I do not know whether the Cavan people are as naughty as that, but I have seen it done in my neighbourhood, and I think it would be very well if from time to time the Board of Works engineers moved around these drains which have been constructed under minor relief schemes and saw that they were kept clean.

In Section 27, very large relief is given to the riparian owners in the Barrow drainage district. Deputy Moran the other night mentioned a very small drainage district in which a drain was constructed in the neighbourhood of Castlebar. The maintenance of that has become an absolutely intolerable burden. Deputy Moran put the case pretty strongly, but I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that he did not put it too strongly. The sum which was struck in rate this year for what is called the maintenance of this drain amounts to £480. It is borne by two or three wretchedly poor, congested townlands and a great deal of the work has been necessitated because the Turf Development Board cut drains higher up which have increased the flood which the original drain has to carry. It was quite a small drain, but the maintenance this year, in respect of which legal proceedings are being taken, forms a very substantial part of the original total cost of construction.

I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look into it and see if some relief could not be given to these people. Of course if the county council let the rate go into arrears, it would be all right, because, when the appointed day came, they could strike it off. They have that power under a section in this Bill. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to forestall the appointed day and see if the Office of Works could not go into this matter so that the people will not have to bear a burden which is quite intolerable for them. These are the only remarks I have to make on the Bill. As I have said, it has got features which are extremely good. I think the establishment of one authority for all drainage purposes and the defraying out of public moneys of the cost of construction are all for the good. But it is a Bill which, I think, can be very greatly amended and approved and I trust that will be done before it leaves this House.

This Bill has received approval from all sides of the House and I wish to add my voice in approval also. I wish to express my gratitude to the Drainage Commission for the very fine way in which they went into this whole question and for the very concise and valuable report which they presented to the Government. The measure now before the House has gone even further than the recommendations of the Drainage Commission; it has gone even beyond the expectations of all those directly concerned. But there is one part of the Drainage Commission's Report to which no Deputy so far has referred. While I do not agree with the reservations, because I suppose it suits me not to, being one of those who hope to benefit one day or another, at the same time I think that the reservations made by Mr. Hanna are worthy of consideration. He has pointed out, and it has been pointed out also in part of the report itself, that about 600,000 acres of land will benefit directly. All this land will be drained as time goes on for the benefit of those who live in it and we expect the scheme will be completed in our lifetime, but at the same time at a cost to the remainder of the community. Consequently, one-twentieth of the people of the country are to benefit and that benefit is being provided at the expense of the other nineteen-twentieths. As one who hopes to benefit directly by the passing of this Bill, I appreciate the length the Government has gone in this matter and that we are to be given benefit for which other people are to pay. I think all those who will benefit will appreciate it in the same way. It is easy for a measure to be popular for the time being, but very often it becomes a bit unpopular when it has to be paid for. Perhaps, as time goes on, when the money has to be provided, it may not be so popular with the people who will have to pay.

The reservations, however, point out more than that. It has been asserted in this House by various Deputies, and from time to time I have heard it stated, that Government activities are usually governed by the opinions expressed by the red-tape Civil Service mind. This Bill, anyhow, rebuts that statement, because the Government have gone away from the expressed opinion and advice given by a very highly-placed official in the Department of Finance, and it is only a very strong Government who would do that, believing that they were doing what was right in bringing relief to people who have suffered this great hardship for a number of years. I also think that the view expressed by a number of Deputies, that there was considerable delay in bringing in this measure, is met by the reservations, because when a person like Mr. Hanna expresses doubt as to the wisdom of a measure of this kind, it was no surprise to me that the Government should have some difficulty in making up their minds. I think that the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary in outlining the Bill was very wise and prudent. Some people said it was very depressing. Nevertheless, we all know that, in view of all the commitments that the Government will have to provide for in the post-war period and for which money will have to be raised in direct or indirect taxation or by way of loan, he was very discreet in the way he put it, and in not raising too high hopes in our minds with regard to the length of time the scheme will take to complete and the amount of money that will have to be spent on it.

This Bill confers benefits on County Galway, but the most direct benefit that it will confer on people in County Galway—I will not mention any particular rivers, although I know there are several which require drainage badly—is in relation to the arrears which have accrued under the 1924 Act. The local authority in Galway felt, when the case was put up to them, that it would not be right or proper to enforce the collection of the rate for the construction work and maintenance of the schemes carried out under the 1924 Act. For some reason or other, these were not carried out as well as they might have been, but that is past history now. So far as the 1925 Act is concerned, the arrears are very small. We had no scruple in enforcing the payment of the rate under the 1925 Act. We took the view that the people who made application to have the work carried out were given to understand what the cost would be and what they would have to pay and they agreed with their eyes open. Nevertheless, from time to time we have had a good many complaints that it was difficult to meet the rate imposed. So far as the 1924 Act is concerned, I think we will now be in a position to legalise the decision we took not to enforce the collection of the arrears. We acted illegally when we did not enforce the collection of the arrears, but I believe this will legalise the position.

I believe also that this arterial drainage scheme will help to relieve unemployment to a certain extent. The commission's report does not say that it will have an appreciable effect on unemployment. But, of course, land cannot be reclaimed without being properly drained. There are huge areas of waste land all over the country which I believe should be reclaimed and on which money could be expended to very good advantage if the main arteries were open. I believe that in many parts of the country the occupiers of the land, even when the drainage work is carried out, will not be in a position to finance reclamation schemes. This is a matter which should be taken into account and where there are large tracts of such land the State would be well advised to take over the land and have it reclaimed and apportioned out into holdings, as has been done on the Continent.

Of course, there is provision in this Bill regarding obstacles which have to be removed. That provision is very necessary, but I would like to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary—I am sure he is himself aware of it—that, while drainage is a blessing, you can, at the same time, have over-drainage of certain types of land. I know land in parts of my county which was drained under the 1925 Act and the people there tell me now that it is much more unprofitable for them than before it was drained. It is what is known as callow land. The water has been taken away and the land has become so dry that the hay and grass produced on it now is not of good feeding value, nor is it produced to the same extent as if the water could be controlled. In many parts of the country some years ago, there was such a thing as the flooding of callow land at a period of the year for a short time. I believe that should not be departed from now either and, if sluice gates were put down, whereby the water running through such land could be controlled, it would be advisable. Provision should be made in this Bill for sluice gates of that kind, so that they would not be regarded as an obstruction.

Regarding the scheme of maintenance, I believe the best and proper scheme is to have a county-at-large charge, but there again I would like the county council to have some rights beyond merely meeting the amount they are called upon to pay by the Commissioners of Public Works. It might happen that maintenance work may not be carried out and that some people would hold it was not very properly carried out. I do not suppose that that is likely to happen but, if it did, there is no reason why the county council through its surveyors and engineers should not have some say in the making of a case to the Commissioners of Public Works and directing their attention to it.

Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney mentioned, in regard to the commission itself, that he thought it would be advisable to have a member of the Electricity Supply Board and also a member of the Fisheries Board as members of that Drainage Commission. Perhaps there is something in what he says but, if that is so, every other interest would probably be asking for representation, too, and none more strongly than the farming community. They would expect the Department of Agriculture to have representation on it, while the local authorities would also expect to have representation. I believe the proper course to adopt is that outlined in the Bill and that we cannot find any great fault with it, in view of the fact that we have handed over similar powers to other bodies. In fact, we have handed over to the Land Commission the power to acquire and divide land and that cannot be questioned. There is no one but the Land Commission to represent the tenants, even before the Land Commission Court. That, of course, has it disadvantages but, if all the bodies mentioned by Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney had the right to representation on it, perhaps it would not make things any better. If this House, or even the Government, had a right to decide the priority cases, I believe the first who would call that in question might be Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney and the other Deputies who have spoken in the same strain.

I believe the Bill is one which it is very difficult to amend, and I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has asked all members of the House to express their views and, if they think it desirable, to put in amendments on the Committee Stage. It has been observed here by certain Deputies that, were it not for the fact that we are a minority Government, this Bill would not have come at this stage; but we were not a minority Government in 1938, when the Drainage Commission was set up.

Or in 1940, when it reported.

That is so.

And we accepted the report.

How long did that take?

That was in 1941.

No time has been lost since 1941, in view of all the things that had to be taken into consideration. Some of the Deputies here have stated that it is a good thing that we are a minority Government and that, if we were in a greater minority, it would have been better for the country. They are now in a position in which, if they think the people will dance to their music, they have a chance to call the tune and, if they do, I believe we are prepared to waltz the country with them at any time.

I would like to add a note of appreciation to the Government in their attempt to deal with this very big and complex problem. The fact that the estimated cost of carrying out the work is £7,500,000 indicates that the Government intend to make a serious effort to tackle the problem. My own opinion is that the amount mentioned will, like every other Estimate, be very much exceeded before the desired end is achieved. However, that is only an opinion. The Government have accepted the findings of the Drainage Commission in toto, or almost so, which is evidence that, if the estimated sum is inadequate, there is the desire—which is the predominant and important factor—that the drainage of the country be undertaken seriously. This means that, if the Estimate of £7,500,000 is an underestimate, money will not stand in the way.

One point I would like to have cleared up is this. In making this Estimate, how far have those whose duty it was to go into it undertaken the drainage of the country as a whole? It is pretty obvious to assume that they have undertaken the duties of clearing the main rivers and the tributaries thereto.

In that respect, I wonder how far do these tributaries extend? Do they include small tributaries, townland boundaries, bogs, waste lands and swamps? Do they include all the drainage leading up to field drains on a farm? Secondly, do they include the estimated costs of drainage boards in so far as the present commitments of those boards are concerned? While on that subject, I should like to say that I think the appointed day should be declared as soon as practicable for the reason that most, if not all, the existing drainage boards have commitments which they must fulfil each year. They are bound to carry out certain repairs and improvements so as to maintain their area up to a certain standard. Usually, they make their preparations for the following year's work about this time of the year.

I should like to know if these boards are still to plan as usual for the carrying out of repairs and improvements. If so, and if in the meantime the appointed day is fixed, when their responsibilities will be handed over to the county councils, who is to take responsibility for the works which they have planned to carry out and for the payments involved? The question also arises as to whether those drainage boards are to continue in existence until the appointed day. Will they cease to exist on the appointed day, or is it contemplated that they should co-operate with the local authority which will have responsibility for the drainage area?

When the existing drainage boards are handed over to the county councils, to what extent will the latter bodies be responsible for the future maintenance of the drainage areas? Many, if not all, these drainage areas—some, perhaps, more than others—have been waiting for a long time for the application of a major drainage scheme. Suppose, for instance, there is a long delay, following the handing over to the county councils of these drainage areas, in the application of the major operational scheme, who is going to carry out the ordinary work at present being done by the drainage boards? Is the responsibility for that to remain entirely on the county councils, or is it to be a joint responsibility between the drainage areas and the county councils? If that duty is to become the sole responsibility of the county councils, I can foresee a great furore being raised by county councillors on behalf of the ratepayers—that, before the rest of the country receives any benefit from the operation of the major scheme, they should be asked to undertake the responsibility of making payments for the execution of works on drainage within the county. If the application of the major drainage scheme and the transfer of the drainage areas are jointly to become the responsibility of the county councils, then I can see the objection that Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney raised with regard to making the county councils responsible for the maintenance charge. I differ somewhat from the Deputy with regard to that. In my opinion there should be a declaration from the Government as to when it is intended to pass over to the local bodies responsibility for maintenance.

That is an important factor. Those who have knowledge of drainage work know that, even in the case of a small drain, a waiting period has to be allowed for a settling down of the ground surrounding it. However well the work may be done, there is likely to be a falling in, and hence a settling period has to be provided for. Therefore, after the operational works have been carried out, a specified period should be allowed before responsibility for maintenance is handed over to any local body. That period might run from one to five years. No county council, I think, would undertake the cost of maintenance within a short time after the completion of a work. Therefore, this question of maintenance is an important one. In some places you will come upon soft earth where the excavation work will be easy. That would be so in the case of bogs and of sluggish rivers, but if you come up against hard rock the excavation work is going to be costly. The capital expenditure on excavation work carried out in soft ground, bogs, etc., will necessarily be much smaller than where you have to excavate rock or hard foundations. There will obviously be a difference also in the cost of maintenance between these two classes of areas.

We are no longer going to have county boundaries as far as drainage is concerned. That is a good thing because you cannot have drainage within a specified area. You must take the natural boundary. Is the maintenance rate to be levied per county or counties within the drainage area in proportion to the improvements made or to the expenditure incurred in each county? If it is going to be levied on a county council or on a group of county councils in a drainage area, then I hope it will be somewhat on the basis not merely of the cost of the initial expenditure but that it will have some bearing on the value of the land improved. The maintenance rate should be in proportion not merely to the initial cost but to the continuation cost. It would be very unfair if county councils, without discrimination, were charged with the responsibility of maintaining sluggish rivers, bogs or other such areas where it is well known that the maintenance costs would be very excessive. Some consideration will have to be made to deal with a situation of that sort, because a situation of that sort is bound to arise.

As regards drainage areas which are part of Eire and part of the Six Counties, it appears, unfortunately, that no arrangement has been made by which the Six County Government will cooperate. I am not quite clear as to how it is proposed that that drainage work will be done in the future. As I understand the position, some contribution is to be made to the existing drainage boards. If that is so, then we must assume that the existing drainage boards include representatives of the Six County area, acting jointly with representatives of our own area. Are these people to have the administration of that fund, or are we to cut the boundary of the drainage area as it exists? Are we going to release the people who hitherto have borne the burden of repairs and maintenance? Is it to be a State or a county council charge? I do not think it should be a county council charge at all, because clearly it is the duty of the State to bear the expense of maintenance in a case of that sort.

I have no doubt our Government have made every effort to ensure co-operation with the Government of the Six Counties, and I must take it that some substantial reasons have prevented our Government from securing the necessary co-operation. If they have failed to meet with any good grace or to secure the necessary assistance in getting a unified effort for a drainage scheme applicable to the whole of the country, I am pretty certain that it was not the fault of our Government. If the responsibility lies elsewhere, then it is not right that this State should contribute money towards a drainage area in which there are people benefiting whose Government are not in a position to contribute for the relief of drainage to the extent that it is desirable in the interests of their area as well as ours that they should contribute.

Above all things, I can see no logic in any contributions made to these drainage areas that will not be made entirely out of State funds. I know this Bill will be discussed at great length and considered thoroughly. That will be done with the intention of making the best possible contribution we can towards the success of the scheme. In addition to what I have already said about the intention to hand over the maintenance costs to the county councils, I should like to add that while that burden should not be handed over to the county councils until a reasonable settling down period has been reached, the maximum costs that the county council should be asked to bear at any period should be fixed in the Bill. Otherwise I can easily visualise a condition in which various county councils from time to time will have occasion to take a strong line of action against increased costs for the maintenance of areas that will in themselves impose an excessive burden on the ratepayers. In order to make the scheme workable, I advocate that the fixing of a maximum contribution from the ratepayers towards the future maintenance of the scheme should be included in the Bill.

There is one thing about this Bill on which there will be unanimity—if not exactly voiced in the House, at least it is the view of most members—and that is what Deputy Cafferky said the other night, and it has been dealt with in a sort of left-handed refutation way by a Deputy this evening. It is that this Bill is clearly the result of the Government being placed in a minority position. Even the Parliamentary Secretary's introductory speech proves that. A commission sat in 1938 and reported in 1940. In 1941 we were told that the Government had approved of the report—that they accepted it. At this period of 1944 this Bill, which is largely make-believe, is brought before the House. It is an attempt to add colour to the rather shabby rags in which the Government find themselves clothed at the moment.

Deputies have to try to make the Bill something in the nature of a reality. Let us try to put some limits on it, see where we are going, and see if we can get answers to all the questions that should be asked about such a Bill. In connection with a measure of this sort, the questions that should be asked are simple enough. What is going to be done? Why is it going to be done? How is it going to be done? Who is going to pay, and how much? Who is going to benefit, and to what extent? You can search the Parliamentary Secretary's opening speech on this measure with a microscope and you will not find an answer to any of these questions, except one, and that is, that anybody who expects to get anything done under this Bill quickly is doomed to disappointment.

Dealing with the expenditure side, the Parliamentary Secretary, feeling that the people here would be aghast if they were to face an expenditure of £7,000,000, said the scheme would be carried out at the rate of £250,000 a year, or a total period of 28 years. The ordinary life of the Dáil, as we have got used to it, is four years. If this goes according to plan, there might be £1,000,000 spent during every Dáil—during the life of a new Dáil. And that is only a "might".

What is going to be done so far as this Bill is concerned? It talks about the drainage of the whole country, not merely arterial drainage, but what could be called "through drainage". That is going to be accomplished. How, and under what conditions? So far as we have it in this Bill, the operative clause is Section 4:—

"Whenever the commissioners are of opinion that the execution of arterial drainage works is expedient ... it shall be lawful for the commissioners to prepare a scheme...."

Ordinarily speaking, in this House we have got detailed schemes brought forward for certain projects. They have been discussed and, when we discussed them, we sent them to some authority, not merely with a statement that it should be lawful to carry these things out, but telling them to carry them out. All we have here is that the commissioners must consider whether it is expedient, and then it shall be lawful for them to prepare a scheme.

Some of these questions I have asked overlap. The question of who pays is one of the important matters that arise. After the commissioners think it expedient to do certain things, they prepare a scheme. Where does that lead them to? In preparing a scheme they send it to councils and get returns. There are certain times inside which certain returns are made. According to Section 7, certain things shall be submitted to the Minister. Who is the Minister? The Minister for Finance? The Minister for Finance is not a very active person about the paying of money, but the whole thing comes to him after the commissioners have thought it expedient to do certain things and have exercised their lawful powers of preparing schemes. It comes to the Minister and the Minister may confirm or may reject, or send it back for amendment. At a later stage we get the situation that, as far as drainage works are concerned, the cost is substantially to be borne by the State but, as far as maintenance is concerned the cost is to be borne by the councils. I think Deputy Maguire could have been easily answered by the Parliamentary Secretary. The Deputy asked a question that it was of importance to ask. The matter the Deputy spoke of is handed over entirely to the commissioners. If land in certain areas is benefited the commissioners make an award and that award is conclusive and binding. There is no appeal to an arbitrator. The commissioners make an award, determine how the maintenance cost is to be borne and between what councils. That is conclusive and binding.

I should have expected to find how far the Minister for Finance would deal with the spending of State money, even in a limited way, by doling it out year by year on this supposedly great scheme of drainage. The Parliamentary Secretary might have answered one important matter mentioned in the report. Some Deputies referred to the fact that a very strong minority report had been written by a representative of the Department of Finance, who will be at the back of the Minister for Finance when he is going to consider what the commissioners think it lawful to do, and whether that should be confirmed and carried out. In his report Mr. Hanna stated that the whole scheme is based on the view that something under 600,000 acres may be benefited at a capital cost of about £7,000,000. He capitalised the maintenance costs and took them at the low rate of 3 per cent. You get a figure of ten millions to be spent and he made a calculation of the acreage to be benefited—leaving out the Shannon which is going to cost more—at £17 per acre. He made a further calculation of the worth of the land that is going to benefit by the direct expenditure of £17 an acre, and he calculated that it is worth £9 an acre. We are solemnly asked to believe that there is going to be a scheme involving the Minister for Finance in the expenditure of £17 per acre for the improvement of acres that are only worth in full value £9 an acre. If anybody believes that the Minister for Finance is going to have any enthusiasm about approving of such schemes he does not know the particular Minister for Finance we are dealing with or the amazing amount of opposition, and praiseworthy opposition that there will be in the background of the Department of Finance against any of these schemes.

We are told that there is going to be a comprehensive drainage scheme. According to the report of the Commissioners of Public Works, before they considered this comprehensive scheme of arterial drainage there appears in the front of it these words: "a skeleton comprehensive scheme." It is built up in this way. Some 669 petitions were received by the Office of Public Works under the Act of 1925, 81 of which materialised. The skeleton scheme is built up on rejected petitions. Remember the circumstances. In the old days only those petitions ran the gauntlet that had received the approval of a certain proportion of those likely to benefit.

Whether the Office of Public Works did not move because they did not think them worthy schemes, or rejected them, or whether some proportion got the length of going before the occupiers of land supposed to be benefited, the situation is that out of 669 petitions from the Act of 1925, only 81 had been dealt with. We are going to deal in the main with a scheme which is built up out of petitions which were sent in but were rejected, that is to say, with petitions for the drainage of land in respect of which those who were supposed to benefit would not meet the maintenance costs.

We are supposed to have a scheme to drain almost 600,000 acres, built up out of rejected schemes of the past, which, having run the gauntlet of the Commissioners of Public Works, eventually got before the Minister, and are going to be carried out. It should be stressed and be repeated that if we pass this measure as it is we have done with drainage as far as this House is concerned. In their report the commissioners say that in the old days the initiative had to be taken by people in the neighbourhood of a flooded area or by people in the neighbourhood of a river. The initiative no longer depends on them. It is entirely with the Commissioners of Public Works. The initiative is no longer in this House. The whole thing is cast out and we leave it to the commissioners and the Government to deal with it in what way they like. Let this be repeated about this Government: They set up a commission in 1938, they got a report in 1940, they told us in 1941 that they accepted the report, and in 1944 we get what ordinarily would be a White Paper explaining in detail how far they accepted the report. We should have expected, after the White Paper, a Bill setting forth certain schemes for which the Dáil approved of the expenditure of so much money. The Parliamentary Secretary did not tell us of a single scheme. One paragraph in the report says that it will be necessary before entering on any scheme to have a certain survey made. The Parliamentary Secretary has not told us that a single survey has been made. The report has been in the hands of the Government for four years. Much of the report is built up on old schemes, on old maintenance works under the Acts 1842 and 1845, and on schemes that broke down because the people in the benefited areas would not pay the maintenance rates.

One Deputy stated that the old survey should be brought up-to-date. Four years after this report has seen the light, and three years after it has been accepted, not one word was said by the Parliamentary Secretary about a single piece of surveying that had been done as a necessary preliminary to this scheme of drainage. Then people get up here and congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government on the expedition with which they dealt with the question. Deputy Moran was foolish enough to ask the Dáil not to be long about passing this Bill, so that work could be commenced at once. After the Parliamentary Secretary has slept on it for four years, it is introduced here, and we are solemnly asked, as if, so to speak, the work was there ready waiting and we were keeping people from being employed, that we should discuss it only for a short period. When we are finished with this measure as it stands, we have nothing more to do with drainage. The Government move as and when they please. When the Government move through all this complicated machinery, they, in the end, in answer to Deputy Ben Maguire's question, set out the award, and that is final, conclusive, and binding on everybody.

What is going to happen then? As I say, according to Mr. Hanna, one of the officials of the Minister who is in the background of this measure, we are solemnly asked to spend £17 to improve each acre of land, to a total quantity of 600,000 acres, each of which will be worth only £9in toto when it is so improved. I do not know whether the Government accept that view of Mr. Hanna's. It is quite obvious that when Mr. Hanna spoke in those terms, he spoke only of the direct benefit and of the direct cost. Of course, incidentally, all these figures must be revised. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney referred to the Liffey scheme, and spoke of some canal which had to be joined at Leixlip to get further power from the Liffey. It should be remembered that there has not been one atom of power derived from the Liffey yet, or that one atom will not be derived from it until the war is over or, possibly, for many years after the war. As far as the Liffey scheme is concerned, it is entirely a reservoir scheme. No power development is likely to take place in connection with it for some years. It should be remembered that the cost of the Liffey scheme exceeded the estimate by between 33? and 50 per cent. Prices happened to move up terrifically from the date of the introduction of the Liffey legislation and the completion of the works. It should be remembered also that this Bill is based on an old report of 1938 or 1940.

In estimating the cost, the commission took certain figures and they added a certain amount because of what they call increased prices since 1936. Do not forget in that connection that the most remarkable achievement of Fianna Fáil is that they have reduced the value of the pound to 9/-, so that all your Estimates have to be revised in the light of the difference. This Estimate of £7,000,000 is based on prices that were current about 1938 or 1940 or whatever was the last time the commission deliberated on this scheme. Prices have gone completely against us meanwhile and very few people think that they are ever likely to go back to the 1939 standard. Even on 1938 prices as given here, Mr. Hanna's calculation is that it will cost £17 to improve one acre, worth in its entirety £9. Do the Government accept that?

What are the other matters we have got to take into consideration to warrant that expenditure? There is quite a number that can be mentioned but what are those on which the Minister asks us to authorise an expenditure at the rate of £17 per acre on land which will be worth only £9 an acre when it is drained? Again in that connection, it should be remembered that at least half of the acreage concerned is to be completely new land and that half of it is land that has been already drained, where the maintenance works have broken down simply because the people would not pay the maintenance costs. It is supposed that we are going to enter on a vast scheme of development under these circumstances without the Parliamentary Secretary giving us any indication of what other views the Minister has or what considerations operate in his mind to make him even a reluctant assentor to this measure being brought into the House. Who is going to pay for all this? That will depend to a great extent on how the scheme is going to be worked, whether it is going to be a matter of taking the money from people by taxation or a matter of raising it by borrowing. What is the rate at which it is expected the money can be borrowed? Is the money going to be got in one big sum or in dribbles of £250,000, as the necessity arises? Is there any thought of using our credit resources in connection with this scheme? I should imagine priority being given to other matters much more important than drainage in connection with the use of credit. These are matters on which we should expect some light from the Parliamentary Secretary, but we have got none.

We got one great division of the costs. Substantially drainage is to be a matter of State financing and maintenance is to be borne by the counties-at-large. That sounds very well at the moment. It is said that we are no longer going to charge those who are in occupation of the lands that will most directly benefit, because there is a sort of communal use of rivers and that, therefore, this should be a county-at-large charge.

Those who are in the areas likely to be benefited and likely to be charged for maintenance of these works are told, in so far as they can be told indirectly, that they are not going to bear any of the real costs of the scheme. How are they going to be borne? If there is going to be an expenditure of £7,000,000, and if the service of that particular debt and its repayments have to be met by the taxpayer, who else is there to tax in this unfortunate country for this measure? We are taxing the necessities of life because, as one Minister explained, they are things which people must buy. It surely is not proposed to put additional taxation on the necessities of life for drainage purposes?

It is said the land is going to benefit. There is, then, a sort of hope, although not a very strong hope, held, put in the report that there might be an expansion of production in the country as a result of the benefit done to the land. Farmers will not agree that that has been the result of drainage carried out so far, but apparently this scheme is going to be forced on them whether they like it or not. They are going to have their land benefited and it is hoped that to that extent production will be increased. The next step from that is easy, to tax land values. It does not matter whether you call it rates or taxes if the landowners have to bear it. I would have thought that the Parliamentary Secretary, as the report is based on a skeleton comprehensive scheme, would have at least a skeleton policy to display to the House as to what proposals were in regard to the financing of this whole matter.

The last matter that arises for consideration in this general discussion is, are there any other benefits to flow from this scheme except that of directly benefiting the land? This has been described in certain parts as an unemployment relief measure and certain people have praised it from that angle but, if Deputies read the report, there is very little consolation held out to them from that point of view. The most that is promised, if this scheme is entered on and if it is carried out at a rate of expenditure of £250,000 per year, is that there will be 1,000 people, unskilled labourers, employed during the year. There is a comment on that in part of the report and that is, that the Office of Public Works say that their employment relief schemes give employment to the equivalent of 15,000 or 16,000 men per annum. So we are going to enter on this grand scheme to provide the equivalent of one-fifteenth or one-sixteenth of the amount of employment provided each year by unemployment relief schemes.

I do not think anybody can really look for much fortification to this report or this whole plan in that particular matter Of course, the employment of 1,000 men is not an inconsiderable matter if it can be done cheaply The employment of 1,000 men, even if it costs a lot of money, may be a necessary matter. When we remember that the Government set up this commission in 1938 and got its report in 1940, when we think of the people who have fled out of this country in the meantime and of the way in which inflation has developed in this country through the money that has come in from the other side, one begins to wonder why were the fast slumbers of the Government not disturbed by the thought of those people who were emigrating, and the thought that they might have given employment even to 1,000 unskilled men rather than have them forced to leave their own country, and that that money would, at least, have been doing something—how much, we do not know —but something leading towards production in this country.

Since the war started we have had the Government accepting, possibly with reluctance at the beginning, but now, apparently, as something inevitable, that this drain must go on and that we must even suffer the reverse of the inflation caused by the moneys these people send home and all that that leads to while here. If there was any survey done, if there were any of the old surveys which could have been brought up to date, if there was any one catchment area in connection with which there was any plan ready, we could have provided employment for 1,000 unskilled men, and we could have avoided the repercussion of that 1,000 going abroad and sending home the bits of money they have sent home to swell the amount of purchasing power here, having its effect upon our diminished goods and causing the inflation we know of, the inflation that, as I say, has brought about Fianna Fáil's most spectacular victory—the reduction of the 20/- in the £ to 9/-. All the while, apparently, there was some work that could be done, some preliminary work, something that could have occupied even 1,000 men over a couple of years. You had to wait until 1944, and even now, as I said before— the note on which I will finish—we have got from the Parliamentary Secretary not a glimmer of a plan, not a suggestion that a survey is being made, not a date mentioned, nothing brought forward in the nature of reality.

The Bill, as I said in opening, is mainly make-believe. There is no solid work done in the background. Whatever work has to be done—and work will be necessary—has yet to be done and we have no explanation of what has happened since the year 1940, when that report was introduced, or the year 1941, when, according to the Parliamentary Secretary, it was accepted, and 1944, when we get this skeleton measure brought in for our consideration.

I want, first of all, to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary on the explanatory statement which he has given to the House, and his lucid statement when introducing the Bill. Deputy Beegan more or less admitted that there was some dissatisfaction in the Fianna Fáil Party because the Parliamentary Secretary was not more joyful in introducing the Bill, because he adopted a more or less depressing note and did not bring it forward with a fanfare of trumpets. I think the Parliamentary Secretary was prudent. A Drainage Bill and everything pertaining to drainage is fraught with difficulties, many of which are apparent but many of which are unpredictable. Anyone who knows anything about draining land knows the unsuspected difficulties in carrying out apparently simple operations. How much greater, therefore, will be the difficulties in carrying out a national scheme? In my view, however, it is very satisfactory that the Bill is being introduced at the present time. Many people may complain that it is a pity that it was not introduced years ago, but there are reasons why the present may be a more opportune time for tackling this very extensive and important work. We are entering upon a period when unemployment is likely to be a more serious problem than it has ever been, and this Bill will contribute, in however small a degree, to the relief of unemployment. There are other considerations which should dispose Deputies to a favourable consideration of this measure. At present great attention is being paid to the proper utilisation of land. It is probable that, as a result of the experience of the past few years, the people of this country and of every country in the world will direct their attention to securing from the land greater output than has ever been possible. Therefore, the land which may be improved as a result of the operation of this measure may yield a greater output than would have been possible from land which might have been drained 10 or 15 years ago.

It is only necessary to mention the strides that have been made in the proper cultivation of grass to realise the possibilities in connection with lands that are not suitable for tillage but which may be suitable for grass cultivation on the most modern and scientific lines. Therefore I think it may not be an unmixed evil that this Bill has been so long delayed. There is also the fact that during recent years, as a result of the farm improvement schemes, adopted and approved by this House, greater attention is being paid to the improvement of field drainage, and that will yield far greater results if this Bill is fully and properly implemented.

I regret that no indication was given to us by the Parliamentary Secretary, when introducing this Bill, as to how it is to be financed. I understand from his statement that the work indicated in the Bill will be spread over a period of at least 28 years. The Parliamentary Secretary should indicate whether it is proposed to have the £250,000 that is required each year levied out of ordinary taxation or borrowed over a long period. Common sense would seem to indicate that, as the results of effective drainage should be of long duration, there is a case for raising the money by way of loan. This would mean, I assume, that the £250,000 required each year would be borrowed each year. I do not know whether that is the intention of the Government or whether they intend that a large sum should be borrowed and placed to the credit of the central authority. From the point of view of ensuring that this House retain control over the operation of drainage, it is essential that the money should be voted from year to year. Deputy McGilligan made the point that, if this Bill be passed, this House will lose all control over the administration and operation of drainage. I do not think that that can be true. I think that this House can, in a number of ways, exercise control over the operation and implementation of this Bill.

Therefore, I think that the money required to finance these drainage schemes should be borrowed from time to time. The House would then have an opportunity of considering the schemes put before it as justification for raising the appropriate sums. The question of the interest rates upon this borrowed money is one to which the House will have to direct its attention. There can be no justification, on a scheme which is so far-reaching, for penalising taxpayers to the extent to which they were penalised in the past in respect of Government schemes or to the extent to which consumers of electricity have been penalised in connection with the Shannon scheme. If the very courageous and far-seeing Minister who introduced the Shannon scheme were introducing that scheme to-day, he would find a cheaper means of financing it than was adopted at that time.

The next question to which I want to refer is that of the cost of maintenance. Since local authorities have been deemed incompetent, under this Bill, to carry out drainage maintenance, there does not seem to be any reason why they should be saddled with the cost of such maintenance. If the local authorities are to be saddled with the cost of maintenance, it would seem to be only logical and reasonable that they should have complete control of maintenance. If they are not to have complete control—and I think there are good reasons why they should not—there is no justification for imposing the cost of such work upon them. If the work is to be centrally operated, it should be centrally financed. Another reason why it should be centrally financed is that it will be difficult to apportion the cost of maintenance as between one county and another. I can see great difficulty in that connection and I can see some counties with very strong grievances. If the Parliamentary Secretary has any vision, he should be able to see indignant ratepayers of some county marching up Molesworth Street, led by infuriated councillors, T.D.s and would-be T.D.s, to protest against the imposition of this charge upon them. Take the case of a county in which a considerable amount of maintenance work may be carried out. That might be a county through which the outfall of a river would pass. That county might derive very little benefit from the drainage itself or from its maintenance. If the ratepayers were to be saddled with a large percentage of the cost, they would, naturally, feel that they had a grievance. The easiest way would be to have the entire operation, control and financing of the schemes centralised.

In a matter of this kind, which affects so many people, it is necessary that the interests of the private citizen owning land should be adequately safeguarded. There is always a grave danger that, in the carrying out of schemes of this kind, people owning land or other productive property may be seriously victimised. There is no doubt whatever that private owners of property have suffered serious victimisation in the carrying out of the various hydro-electric schemes. There is a danger that farmers, owners of fishery rights, or millers, who are a very important section of the community, may not be adequately protected under this Bill. It is not enough to provide compensation for injury done to property. There should be a definite assurance that all possible steps will be taken to avoid interference wherever that is possible. In the case of a small water mill, for example, it is not the owner of the mill only who would suffer if it were put out of operation; the district for which the mill caters would also suffer. In the same way, in regard to fishery rights, a district which might, otherwise, benefit from tourist traffic would be seriously aggrieved if the fishery rights were destroyed. There ought to be some protection for these rights. I think that the suggestion of Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney is a good one—that people whose rights might be interfered with on whose interests might in some way clash with the interests of those engaged in the work of carrying out drainage should have representation on the central drainage authority. That, I think, was a reasonable suggestion.

There are other reasons why the central drainage authority might be strengthened by having representatives of other important interests placed upon it. In the carrying out of a drainage scheme there are many factors which have to be taken into consideration besides the improvement of land. There is also the question of the provision of schemes for irrigation wherever they might be possible, and the provision of schemes for a water supply wherever such schemes might be necessary. All those schemes could be combined with the work of carrying out drainage, and unless all those other aspects of drainage are taken into consideration there is the danger that a considerable amount of money and time may be lost.

Finally, I want to stress the fact that in the Bill we are contemplating the addition of a considerable number of permanent employees to the State. We are contemplating the expenditure of considerable sums of money over a long period, and it is of the greatest importance that this House should ensure that an adequate and full return is obtained for the money to be expended. There must be a most thorough checking and rechecking of the work which is being carried out, so as to secure the greatest possible measure of efficiency. There is a belief, of course, in the minds of a great many people that any Government job, whether it is that of a Deputy in this House, that of a white-collar job in a Government office, or simply that of a manual worker in a Government Department, is a soft job. I think that that belief ought to be fully and finally dispelled in the public mind. In every section of this work the supreme motive of those directing it should be to get the largest possible measure of efficiency. I notice that there is a provision in the Bill for having work done by contract in addition to work being done directly by the central authority. Now, I hold that that is a very desirable provision. If it were provided in the Bill that all work were to be done by contract and none by direct labour, so to speak, I would be opposed to it. I hold that the two systems of carrying out work should be operated so as to compare one with the other. Portion of the work on certain schemes should be carried out by direct labour and portion by contract, and then, by comparing the results in both cases, it would be possible to secure the greatest possible measure of efficiency. That, I think, would be just common prudence and common-sense.

As I have already pointed out, it may be considered that this Bill has been introduced very late in the day, but I think it is introduced at a rather opportune time now, and if it is properly administered, operated and financed, it will have a very far-reaching and beneficial effect upon the country generally. It may not add more than 500,000 acres to the total of agricultural land in this country, but 500,000 acres is not a thing that can be despised. It will also—and this is an important consideration—make for the better development of turbary in this country. I am one of those who hold that the production of peat will eventually be of immense benefit to this country. It may be necessary to convert it into electric power or to utilise it in some other manner than at present, but I believe that it is capable of utilisation, and it is up to the best brains of our engineers to ensure that it is so used.

The development of turbary depends to a great extent upon the successful carrying out, first, of arterial drainage, and then of minor drainage. In this connection, as a final word, I should like the Parliamentary Secretary, when replying, to define accurately the line of demarcation between arterial drainage and field drainage. I should like him also to bear in mind that, while his Department might be inclined to concentrate first upon the larger scheme of drainage, there may be schemes which are not so spectacular as some of the larger rivers, but which are nevertheless of immense value, and which would bring into agricultural production and into turf production vast areas in the State.

There are a few matters to which I wish to allude in connection with this Bill. One of the first is the question of finance, which seemed to annoy Deputy McGilligan a few moments ago when, in one of his rare visits to the House, we had a good, breezy discourse from him. I think it is in Section 3 of the Bill that it is laid down that the Minister will provide the finance through the Oireachtas. I think that that is a sufficient safeguard, the fact that the money will be voted by the Oireachtas.

Where are they going to get it?

Well, we are not concerned with that now, and, after all, I am sure that if the Minister feels unequal to the task he will turn it over to Deputy Flanagan, who, in a short time, will provide the necessary finance for him. Deputy McGilligan was the only Deputy to get up here and set out to throw cold water on the provisions of this Bill. In fact, it seemed as if he would like to drown it altogether, if it could be done. He succeeded very admirably, however, in his discussion of this matter of drainage, in enunciating once more some of his pet theories on other matters, such as unemployment, the bad points of this Government, and a new one which he has developed since he went into the political wilderness, and that is the question of high finance. The Deputy has developed that very strongly in the last few years, and if he is left out in the political wilderness for a few years longer, I am sure that he will be as good on the subject of high finance as Deputy Flanagan is.

And I presume that Deputy Allen will rest on the bosom of Senator Sir John Keane.

I hope not. However, on the question of this Bill, I think the House will be in general agreement that the main principles embodied in the Bill are acceptable to the House and that, with certain amendments, of course, which will probably be inserted, the Bill will be found to be generally acceptable. On the question of a central drainage board, I think there is no mistaking the wisdom of the Drainage Commission, the Government, and the Parliamentary Secretary in having a central drainage board, because all drainage Acts in the past years failed in some directions, and generally failed for want of central direction. I think that that is quite obvious. On the question of State finance, I think that that was the only possible method by which you could have dealt with a large mass of arterial drainage schemes. All the other Acts—the 1848, the 1863 and the 1925 Acts—failed because the land improved was not able to bear the cost of improvement. Drainage is uneconomic, no matter what anyone says. I have no doubt in the world on that point. It is uneconomic in the proper sense of the word.

Yes; it must be uneconomic.

In the improper sense of the word, I think.

In whatever way the Deputy likes, it is uneconomic.

In the present-day sense.

Uneconomic in the Board of Works sense.

It is uneconomic from the point of view of the land improved which has never been found to be worth the cost of its improvement over a short number of years, and the charge which must be put on some land improvement is too great. The capital charge for improvement and construction has been found to be too great in the past for the particular parts of the land to bear. That was found in the case of the Barrow drainage scheme which has been in operation only a short time. The Bill in that connection was introduced by Deputy McGilligan's Government in 1926, and it is an extraordinary thing that, in 1932, when this Government came into office, the drainage of that area was not completed. The land cost over £14 an acre to improve and Deputy McGilligan now tells us that drainage under this Bill will cost £16 or £17 an acre and objects very strenuously to it.

I believe that, apart altogether from the value of the land improved, the value of drainage from the public health point of view to the country as a whole is far greater than has ever been estimated. We have a humid, damp climate and any provision which can be made to get water off the land more quickly than in the past, into the sea or wherever it is to go, will be for the betterment of the health of the nation. That must be admitted by everyone. We know that in wet areas of the country where water lies continuously, there is a high incidence of rheumatism and tuberculosis. The best medical authorities in the country tell us that is the position, as a result of the dampness of the climate. From that point of view, the nation will be well served by the expenditure of money on arterial drainage.

I suppose the Parliamentary Secretary, being a prudent man, had of necessity to be conservative in his estimate of how long it will take to carry out all the arterial drainage necessary. He based his estimate on what was in the report of the Drainage Commission, which went into the matter very fully and which had engineering and other experts to give advice as to how much money it was possible to spend and how much work it was possible to do each year. They found that it would take quite a considerable time before they would have the proper equipment constructed and ready even to start, and while many Deputies believe that all this work will be done by manual labour, I do not for a moment believe that that will be the case. I am sure that machinery will play a very big part in the carrying out of all this work. We read of the improvements in such machinery in other countries and we know that in America and on the Continent they have very up-to-date drainage machinery. I believe it will be found that the Central Drainage Board will acquire such machinery by contract or otherwise.

With regard to the provision of money from local taxation, I want it to be understood that I am not in thorough agreement with the Parliamentary Secretary—and I expressed these views before—with regard to maintenance. I believe that the State should also carry the cost of maintenance. All the tax-payers, whether landholders or otherwise, will contribute according to their means to the central fund for construction. The ratepayers of a particular county, of which an area has benefited, are to be called upon to maintain the drainage work, and my estimate is that for very many years they will be spending more money on maintenance than the Central Drainage Board will be spending on construction. I believe that the local ratepayers, in addition to providing their part of the money for construction, will be providing more money each year than will be provided by the central authority for construction, and for that reason the Government would be wise to alter their decision and to make the whole cost a central charge.

There are some provisions in the Bill which, I hope, will be altered on Committee Stage. I think the suggestions in relation to county councils are most unfair. They are treated in the Bill as inferior bodies which nobody can trust. Very stern powers are taken to compel county councils to maintain, over very many years, these drainages, over which they have no control at the moment and which are in a very bad state of repair. They are compelled to maintain these works and to maintain them as the commissioners wish, which I think is most unfair. In addition, there is a provision by which moneys payable to local authorities can be retained, as in the case of the Land Acts, if a county council fails to pay certain moneys to the Office of Public Works. It was well-known to those who drafted the Bill that all county councils paid each year sums probably 100 times in excess of anything they will have to pay for drainage maintenance, in respect of local loans, and they pay these sums without any demur whatever, and it is most unfair and unjust to county councils to suggest that they will not remit to a State Department whatever the law demands they should remit. That provision in Section 44 should be deleted. It appears in no other Act of this Dáil but the Land Act, and, to my mind, it shows that the framers of this Act had nothing but contempt for local authorities.

There is provision for dictating to them what they should do in the matter of maintaining drains; there is provision for dictating to them what they should pay until the commissioners take over these works, which in some cases will probably not be for 30 years; and they also want a provision under which they can take from the grants payable to local bodies from other funds what may be owing to the commissioners if a council refuses to pay.

If a provision, such as was recommended in the commission's report, had been embodied in legislation, it would have got over that difficulty. There was a recommendation that there should be some kind of an appeal board set up and I think it would be well if we had an amendment to provide such a board, as it is absolutely necessary.

There is bound to be friction between the Commissioners of Public Works and the county councils in the future as there has been in the past, as to whether the construction has been properly done. The Commissioners of Public Works are well aware that friction took place in the past in connection with the 1924 Drainage Act between themselves and the county councils or county engineers as to whether works were properly constructed or not and that that friction is also bound to arise in the future. After the work has been finished, there is no provision in this Bill for any appeal to the Minister for Local Government or anyone else if a county council doubts whether work has been properly finished or not. As I say, friction took place in the past and is bound to arise in the future if proper safeguards are not put into this Bill. There will be no necessity for the penal provision in this Bill to compel county councils to pay this money if an advisory board of some kind representing the Minister for Finance and the county councils were set up—some kind of a central committee to decide on issues between the county councils and the Office of Public Works.

There is another very important matter and that is that the words "arterial drainage" are not defined in this Bill. I want to inquire whether "arterial drainage" means drainage of the estuaries of tidal rivers or not. In County Wexford there is a tidal river, the River Barrow. On the upper reaches of that river some eight or 10 years ago the Government, at that time, in their wisdom, spent about £600,000 in doing drainage work in the Counties Kildare, Laoighis and Offaly. The result of that drainage work in the upper reaches of the Barrow, so far as Wexford was concerned, was that all the flood waters of the midland counties were thrown down much faster. There are about six miles of embankments at New Ross. All these embankments have been burst in recent years since the Barrow drainage was carried out, with the result that there is far more land badly flooded there than was ever flooded in the midland counties. I hope that this Bill when it becomes an Act can be made to apply to these embankments so that they can be repaired. I hope it will not be pleaded that because they are in the tidal waters or estuary of the Barrow the Act does not apply to them. There is also provision in this Bill for abandoning existing embankments. I hope there will be no question in the future of abandoning the existing embankments there and that they will be repaired. If these embankments are abandoned, not alone will a couple of thousand acres of land be lost, but the town of New Ross, where there are nearly 7,000 people living, also must be abandoned. Whatever may be the cost or the difficulty of putting these embankments into repair, I hope it will be done.

There is no provision in this Bill either for cleaning up or dredging rivers. Dredging will be absolutely necessary on the River Barrow at New Ross. The siltage from the midlands has been deposited there by the slow-flowing river. It is a tidal river for about 20 miles upwards. It is a slow-flowing river from that down to the harbour of Waterford, and all the siltage is deposited there, with the result that the river has been silted up and the flood of water coming from the midlands when the tide is coming in, having burst the embankments, flows over the adjoining lands. I hope that that is one of the matters that will be given early attention. Not only is there a lot of land involved already, but the town of New Ross will be involved inside the next five or ten years if these embankments are not repaired. They are very large embankments. No one is responsible for them at present and they have been no one's responsibility in the past. Therefore, I hope that when the Bill becomes law it will be the definite responsibility of this central drainage authority to repair them and put them into good condition. I hope it will not be pleaded that they cannot be repaired and will have to be abandoned, because there are serious factors entering into the matter.

I believe that the Bill is a good Bill, subject to certain minor amendments which I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary, as he indicated in his opening speech, will be prepared to agree to. It is a Bill which will receive the good will of all sides of the House. I do not believe it is a Bill that was introduced, as Deputy McGilligan believes, because the Government are a minority Government. If that be so, it should be in the interests of the country always to have a minority Government, if they got good legislation and good Bills like this under a minority Government.

Be careful, you will be on the carpet to-morrow morning.

You will go through the hoops to-morrow for this.

If they believe they will get all they want if they have a minority Government; if that is true, and if it can be proved and Deputies can satisfy the country it is a good plan to have such a Government, then Deputy Norton, I am sure, will be satisfied that he will get all he requires.

You had better leave the door of the Party room open to-morrow.

I welcome the principle of the Bill and I am prepared to support it. Certain Deputies have referred to the fact that there is a danger of influence being brought to bear on the Office of Public Works. One Deputy made reference to political pull being worked to get certain schemes carried out. Since I became a member of this House I have had certain dealings with the Office of Public Works and for many years before I became a member I had dealings with the Office of Public Works, and I can say that it is the one Department that I know where political influence has never been used. That is my experience. I may be only a new Deputy and I may learn the lessons that other Deputies have learned, but from any dealings I have had with the Office of Public Works I am quite satisfied that no political influence has been used, because there is a Fianna Fáil Deputy in my parish, and I am satisfied that I have got more schemes through than he has. That proves that there is no political influence being used.

Certain Deputies have referred to the manner in which the Parliamentary Secretary introduced this Bill. I say that the Parliamentary Secretary is a person who is quite capable of introducing it. He is one of the few members of this Government that Deputies can talk to because he does not, like other Ministers, run away from us at dinner-time. That is one thing for which he must be admired. The reason why I welcome this Bill is because this country is an agricultural country and agriculture is the real source of the nation's wealth.

We also know that drainage has a great effect on the fertility of the soil. Therefore this legislation, in my opinion, is long overdue. I differ from Deputy Allen, and I agree with other Deputies who stated that the reason for the introduction of this legislation is that the Government are in a minority. I am quite satisfied that that is the real reason, because they were not in a minority when the commission presented its report and they did not introduce it then when there were men in the country to do the work. They come now to introduce it, when the men have gone to England and are not here. There are certain schemes for which the Board of Works provided money in my constituency, and about which I spoke to our county surveyor yesterday, but apparently the money cannot be spent, as the men are not there. Where are the men to be got to do the work if they are not here now?

We are told that £7,000,000 is to be spent. Deputy Cafferky says it is not much, that it is nothing to worry about. Deputy Allen tells us that the £7,000,000 is to be spent and he does not care where it is to be got: so long as the Minister finds it, he does not care. Does Deputy Allen realise that, if £7,000,000 is to be borrowed for this scheme, somebody has to pay it back and, therefore, the scheme is to be run as a debt and we know that no individual can work to his satisfaction on a debt. If it is to be run in that way, how is the money to be paid back? This Bill does not tell us anything at all about the financing of the scheme; it does not tell us if the money is to be borrowed in one lot or if a certain amount is to be borrowed in each year; it does not say from whom it would be borrowed, or at what rate of interest. We are not told anything at all about that.

When the Barrow Drainage Bill was going through the Dáil in 1927, when Deputy Cosgrave's Government was administering the affairs of the country, the farmers in my part of the country and in Deputy Norton's constituency — Carlow-Kildare and Laoighis-Offaly—were crying out for drainage. They wanted nothing but drainage. I remember, when going to school, that the streets of my own town were completely flooded. Deputy Gorry can prove that the streets of Mountmellick and other towns around his part of the country, like Clonaslee and Portarlington, were flooded out, while Deputy Norton can say the same about Monasterevan. They wanted drainage and they got drainage, but were not able to pay the debt. When the people get this drainage, will they be able to pay for it? If the Government believe they will not be able to pay for it, they should not try to inflict any further hardships on the people. What else have the Government to tax: they cannot tax anything any further than it is taxed already? Are they to increase the rates? The people are not able to pay the rates they are paying at present and there will be nothing but evictions and forced sales, including the Land Commission putting up holdings for sale as people cannot pay for them. Let us be very careful as to how we shall deal with people after the scheme is carried out. I know very well that, when this scheme is completed in 28 years' time and it is found to be a loss, it will not be the present Government that will have to deal with that. Deputy McGilligan says that four years is the life of the Dáil. That means there will be seven more Dáil administering in this House before we know whether this scheme is successful or not. I do not expect that the vast majority of us will be here in 28 years' time.

I am anxious to see this scheme going ahead, as it will mean a great amount of employment. We know very well that the men are not here at the present time, but there is a certain number here who will get employment on this scheme. There is very little use in carrying out schemes of drainage unless you keep a constant staff of men at the work. Drainage is a whole-time job. In the case of the River Barrow, which flows through my constituency, we have seen that the scheme carried out was very soon affected by the lack of proper maintenance. We saw the briars and bushes grow almost across to meet each other on the Barrow and its tributaries, and we saw there was no machinery available for the carrying out of maintenance to the satisfaction of the farmers concerned. There were no gutters and no machinery. The only implement available, as far as I could see, was a billhook, to snip the tops off the weeds, which grew again as high as ever in two months' time. Maintenance would give fulltime employment in each area.

Like Deputy McGilligan, the only point which worries me about this Bill is the financing of it. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary, when replying, to give the House information as to where the money is to be obtained. Does he intend to borrow it, and from whom? How is it to be paid back? Will the whole £7,000,000 be borrowed at once or a certain amount each year? How is the repayment to be levied on the people? On the other hand, does the Government intend to issue the money—and then there would be no need for us to tax anyone, as we would not have to pay it back, seeing that we owe the money to ourselves. That is the only snag that I see in all these schemes.

I am very much inclined to support this Bill, as there is a certain amount of relief in it for my own constituency. Under it, the Barrow drainage ratepayers will get a certain amount of relief. I am glad that the Government has, at last, seen fit to do something to remedy the grievances of those hard-working farmers living on the coarse, marshy, bog-land in Laoighis, Offaly, and Kildare. I am satisfied that nothing ever would be done for them by the Government, if it were not for the agitation by certain members of this House and by the farmers themselves. I see that the annual sum that was to be raised in respect of the Barrow drainage was £21,571, and when this Bill becomes law we are told that the sum will be £7,154. That is a very good reduction and certainly is in accordance with the recommendations of the Drainage Commission.

Provision is also made in this Bill for powers to be given to county councils to refund any drainage rates they may think fit. I hope the House will see that that section of the Bill becomes law, as it is one of great importance. There are certain drainage rates in my constituency, and also in Carlow-Kildare, which the people are unable to pay. There is a member of the Government Party in the same parish as myself, and in that parish there is a farm which consists of 15 acres 10 perches, on which the poor-law valuation is £7 15/-, the Land Commission annuity is £1 16/-, and the Barrow drainage rate is £1 10/-. How could the man living there, on practically bogland, pay those charges? It is practically impossible. Yet, Deputy Gorry, the Fianna Fáil spokesman, can come along and say that the farmers are exaggerating and should be made pay.

Deputy Flanagan had better see his fellow-Deputy for Leix-Offaly on that matter outside. This Bill is not designed specifically to deal with the Barrow drainage problems.

The Deputy's remark serves a certain purpose, all the same.

Certainly, and it serves the purpose. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. till Wednesday, 23rd February, 1944, at 3 p.m.
Top
Share