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.