Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 29 Feb 1944

Vol. 92 No. 14

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

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

On the last occasion that this Bill was before the House I dealt with its benefits from a general point of view, and I wish now to refer to the fact that £7,000,000 is to be spent when the scheme is undertaken. The financing of the scheme is of importance, because if £7,000,000 is to be borrowed, then we will have to pay back that money. Who will pay it back? Are we to tax the people by imposing on them a rate that they will not be able to pay? Are we going to impose further taxation on top of the burden that already exists? Where will the money come from? I assume that it will be necessary to incur indebtedness in order to run this scheme. If that is so, I do not hope for good results. Farmers in my constituency have been demanding drainage in their districts for many years. The Cumann na nGaedheal Government in 1927 introduced a big scheme of drainage affecting Leix, Offaly and Kildare. There is no doubt that that scheme was a good one. When I was a schoolboy I remember the streets of Mountmellick being flooded, as a result of which it was impossible to get from Dublin to Portarlington, Monasterevan, Portlaoighise and other places. The Barrow drainage scheme was a good one but it did not do all that the farmers in the affected areas expected. Section 27 of this Bill concerns the Barrow drainage district.

I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary was able to announce that the Government thought it fitting to take into consideration in this legislation the position of hard-working farmers in the Barrow drainage district. I am also glad to say that that section in this Bill will be welcomed by them inasmuch as it appears that there will be a considerable reduction in the demands for rates made on them, and that these will be made a county-at-large charge.

I go further and ask the Parliamentary Secretary to say if it would be possible to introduce an amendment to the Bill, which would take into account the fact that the Barrow drainage rate was struck for a period of 35 years, and that it has been in existence for six years. That rate has not been paid because the farmers concerned were unable to meet it. There is now going to be a great measure of relief for them, as the rate is to be a county-at-large charge. Would it be possible for the Parliamentary Secretary to introduce a clause wiping out drainage rates due for the past six years? I think that suggestion is worthy of consideration. If it was wrong to impose a rate that was to exist for the next 29 years, surely it must have been wrong to impose it for the last six years. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to see if it is possible to amend the Bill, so that the Barrow drainage rate would be wiped out, and to give the county councils concerned authority to refund amounts already paid. That rate was an unjust one and farmers were unable to pay it. The Government, as well as public representatives of all Parties, joined in the present emergency in an appeal for the production of more food. Every Deputy has on some occasion appealed to farmers to get into the front line of defence by securing the country against starvation, and the farmers have gallantly risen to the occasion.

I ask for special consideration under this Bill for farmers in Leix, Offaly and Kildare. Their case has been given consideration by the establishment of the Barrow drainage district, but I wish the Parliamentary Secretary to go a little further, and in the name of the Government, to have drainage arrears that are outstanding for the past six years wiped out, and where they were paid have the money refunded. Some years ago I submitted a memorandum to the Drainage Commission suggesting that it would be well if drainage schemes were made a national charge. I received an acknowledgment from the commission intimating that the matter was receiving attention. I am glad to see that the Government are about to undertake this drainage scheme, and that it will be financed and controlled by the central drainage authority. I should like to know where the labour to carry out the work will be secured and what wages will be paid. At present, on various employment schemes sponsored by the Board of Works, on drainage, roads and turf, the wages paid are such that ordinary workers could not exist upon them. When this scheme is embarked upon I wonder if the workers are to be paid the mean wages that some of them are now trying to exist upon. I hope that no worker will be employed at a wage less than £3 10s. 0d. a week because, in view of the high cost of living, it would be impossible to exist on less. As I am not satisfied that workers employed by the Board of Works in the past were properly remunerated I hope that they will now get a satisfactory wage.

One Deputy stated that there would be reams of correspondence with the Board of Works from all parts about the undertaking of new schemes. While I am open to contradiction, I suggest that no part of the country requires drainage worse than the midlands. When learning geography at school the first thing the schoolmaster told us was that Ireland was formed in the shape of a saucer, with mountains around the coasts and then the valleys.

If every Deputy were to advocate special drainage for his own constituency it would be a long debate which would achieve nothing, if I read the Bill aright.

I was referring to my constituency in the midlands. Anybody who passes through County Galway, Offaly or Westmeath will have noticed that the Shannon overflowed its banks between Offaly and Galway. I think the Government should give special consideration to the midlands. They should start off their schemes there, and have the midlands properly drained, because around Shannonbridge and such areas there is great need for proper drainage.

It strikes me that the Deputy is sailing down the Shannon now.

I quite appreciate the point of order, Sir, but to get back to what I was saying: generally speaking, I welcome this measure, but I should prefer that all future maintenance would not be a county-at-large charge but would be paid for out of the Central Fund. After all, we are told in one part of the Report of the Drainage Commission—I cannot quote the exact portion at the moment—that lands that are drained do not benefit very much from drainage until five years after it has been carried out. As I say, I cannot quote the exact words used in the report, but these words are contained in some part of it, and I should be very glad if the Parliamentary Secretary, when replying, would make special reference to the question of the financing of this scheme. Will he tell us where the money is to be got: whether it is to be borrowed, or whether it is to be raised by means of rates or taxes, or how the money is to be levied? I would not like to see a great scheme such as this going through, if it were to mean nothing but forced sales, seizures, and so on, because the farmers could not pay the rate that might be levied.

My one request to the Parliamentary Secretary is that he should introduce some section into this Bill which will enable the Barrow drainage rates for the last six years or so to be wiped out or, if those rates have been already paid, to have them refunded. I happen to know these people. I happen to represent them here in this House, and I can safely say that they have a genuine grievance. I do not blame the Parliamentary Secretary for yawning, because he has been listening to this question of the Barrow drainage for the last five or six years, but I think that he should go further in connection with this Bill, and wipe out completely the Barrow drainage rates or, as I have said, in cases where the rates have been paid, refund them. We are told that it will take about 28 years for this scheme to be completed.

Very well, then. As I said before, it will probably not worry the members of this House in 28 years' time, because very few of us will be here; but if the administration of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, should be under the administration of the present Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Smith, then, as I have said already, it will be in very capable hands. From my experience, the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Smith, is the right man in the right place. I have had a long experience in these matters, and if Deputy Smith is in charge of the administration of this scheme in 28 years' time—as I hope he will, but I am afraid he will not—I say that it will be a great thing to his credit and to his honour that he introduced this scheme. If the scheme is carried out under Deputy Smith, I am sure that it will be a very great success, but I want him to give special consideration to Section 27 of the Bill, from the point of view of having the rates connected with the Barrow drainage wiped out completely, or, where they have been already paid by the farmers concerned, refunded. I should be very glad if legislation of that kind were to be passed here, because those farmers deserve special consideration. There is no use in repeating what I have said, but I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary could see his way to have this grievance, this burning question, in Leix-Offaly and Kildare, of the Barrow drainage, dealt with properly. It is dying out now, and I believe that it is in the hands of the Parliamentary Secretary to have those rates refunded to the people who have already paid them.

This Bill has been eagerly looked forward to by practically every local body in the country, and by the great majority of our agriculturists. I think the Parliamentary Secretary is fortunate that it fell to his lot to introduce this measure which, I expect, will, in future years, be known as the "Smith Act". I should like to add my voice to the tribute the last speaker paid to the present Parliamentary Secretary, because I believe that the implementation of this Bill will be in very capable hands and that, so far as there is any obligation on the Parliamentary Secretary to implement the Bill when it becomes an Act, it will certainly be done, but I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary desires, as we all desire, and as I am sure he does, that when this Bill leaves the Oireachtas and becomes an Act it will be such a measure as will merit respect from every section of the community: in other words, that it will achieve the object which most of us had in view during the last 20 years— the proper draining of the rivers of this country.

The one blot that I see in this Bill— and it is a matter that will be largely discussed on the Committee Stage—is that all powers in connection with this scheme are concentrated in the Board of Public Works and, finally, in the Minister for Finance. It appears to me that that will create an impression in the minds of a lot of people, that the approach from the point of view of the Minister for Finance in all cases will be that of economy and that, eventually, that might lead to greater efforts at economy and a greater burden being put on the various local bodies which will have to bear the cost of such works. There is also, to my mind, no reference whatsoever in the Bill to local bodies or, through the local bodies, to their county surveyors, as partakers in this scheme. There is some kind of a provision for consultation with the Board of Works, but in order to make the Bill a real success I think that we should have brought the county surveyors into the Bill in some responsible way.

The principal section of the Bill on which I think there will be any great criticism is Section 13, which deals with the certificate of completion. To my mind, the really vital section in the Bill is the section which says that when a scheme has been brought forward and completed, the Board of Works, through the Minister for Finance, issues a certificate of completion, and that that is final and there is no appeal. Whether the work was completely done or not there is no appeal, once the Minister for Finance has issued his certificate. There is in the section a sub-section to say that within a month after publication has been made in the official gazette any person may lodge any objection in writing that he sees fit, but the next sub-section says that the Minister "shall consider every (if any) objection sent to him under the next preceding paragraph and shall take such steps in regard thereto as he shall think proper"—in other words, he can put them in the waste paper basket. I do not say that that will be the procedure adopted, but that is the only safeguard that the ratepayers and others will have to ensure that the work will be accomplished to their satisfaction. When the Minister for Finance has issued his certificate, they will have no appeal otherwise than to lodge an objection in writing which may or may not be considered. That in my opinion is the main blot on this Bill, and I hope that on Committee Stage, the Parliamentary Secretary will accept an amendment to provide some sort of an appeal from the decision of the Minister for Finance.

There are only one or two other matters in the Bill to which I want to refer, because I believe it is largely a Bill for consideration in Committee. Section 48, which deals with watercourses, was referred to by Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, who said that he failed to grasp the meaning of it. I cannot say that I am in that position because I think I see what the section leads to. It deals with a case where a farmer might try to obstruct an adjoining farmer in his endeavour to drain his land properly, and the section proposes that the obstructing farmer should be compelled to drain his land. I am, however, principally concerned with the question of main watercourses and I hope that when the Board of Works comes to formulate schemes it will include all major watercourses in the district and that there will be no possibility of any watercourse being omitted from a scheme. In that connection, I might refer back to my objection to the fact that the Minister for Finance has the final decision in regard to all schemes. In my opinion, the Minister for Finance has quite enough to do without saddling him with this responsibility. He has his job as well as the rest of us, and his main job is to cut down expenses as far as he can. He is the very last Minister we should like to see entrusted with the final say on a question of this kind where the matter of a little extra expenditure might make all the difference in the success or failure of a scheme. We do not want any possibility of cheeseparing which may result in a scheme not being carried out in the proper manner.

I am sure that this question of main watercourses will be brought forward when the various schemes are submitted but there is nothing in the Bill to say specifically that they will. In any major drainage scheme that I ever saw, there was always some reference to main watercourses and I dare say that in schemes submitted by the Board of Works they will be provided for, but I should like to see some provision of that kind embodied in the Bill. I should like to see the inclusion of all main watercourses made obligatory in arterial drainage schemes brought forward under this Bill.

No doubt there will be smaller drains left, the maintenance of which will be the obligation of the farmers concerned but, provided that main watercourses are included in the scheme, I see no objection to Section 48. If the matter is left as it is, without any reference to the necessity for including such main watercourses, it may result in some large watercourse being omitted from a drainage scheme and so becoming the responsibility of some local farmers. It would be impossible for any group of farmers to maintain a main watercourse. It might mean in some cases the removal of a culvert or the sinking of the level of the drain and that would involve altogether too much expense for any ordinary farmer. I want to see it definitely provided in the Bill that all such main watercourses will be included in the main scheme so that there will be no possibility of such watercourses being omitted.

Some Deputies in the course of the debate referred to the fact that many of the schemes brought forward would not be economic. I am quite certain that many of the schemes proposed by the Board of Works will not, on the face of them, be economic—there were many schemes before this Bill was introduced that would never have been economic were it not for the contributions of local bodies—but there are other considerations to be borne in mind besides the mere improvement in the quality of the land as a result of the carrying out of a scheme. There is for instance the question of the effect on the health of the people which, perhaps, none of us can assess at its proper value. Medical Deputies would be in a better position than I to express an opinion on that matter, but I think I can say that the beneficial effect of an arterial drainage scheme on the health of the people of the locality should be very considerable.

Above all, there is the question of the effect on unemployment. That is a matter that we shall have to face in an acute form in the next five or six years. Much has been said in regard to the Parliamentary Secretary's statement that it would take 28 years to complete all the schemes under this Bill. But I think the Parliamentary Secretary was not properly interpreted in dealing with that matter. At least I did not gather from the Parliamentary Secretary's statement that it would take 28 years to complete these schemes.

I hope the schemes will be completed in the shortest possible time and that the first schemes will be brought forward as soon as possible after this Bill becomes an Act. Our aim should be to complete the work in the shortest possible period so as to give the maximum amount of employment at a time when it is most needed. No scheme that I can think of lends itself more to the solution of unemployment than drainage, because there is a greater proportion of labour involved than in any other form of public work.

As to the question whether maintenance of the various schemes should be the responsibility of the direct beneficiaries or the county at large, I am in favour of the proposition in the Bill, that it should be made a county-at-large charge. Everyone who has had any experience as a member of a local body knows the difficulty of collecting drainage rates under the existing regulations, and I think it will be better for all concerned when maintenance is made a county-at-large charge. I do not think it should be beyond the capacity of the ratepayers to bear the maintenance charges arising out of the various schemes that will be undertaken in the several counties. Perhaps the men living on the higher lands, taking a selfish view, may say: "Why should we pay for the land of those who live in the lower and wet regions?" I think they should be answered, that the men living in the lower regions never charged anything for the water that was allowed to flow down on them, and that it is only fair that something should be paid now for the damage that the people in the hills and highlands did to those in the lowlands in not stopping the water that flowed down on them in past years.

There is provision in the Bill to refer certain matters to a panel of arbitrators. I should like to see a representative of the local bodies included in that panel, some competent engineer with experience of arterial drainage, who would have the full confidence of the local councils of this country. I think possibly that could be done by a nomination of the General Council of County Councils. I think it is right that local bodies should have some voice in regard to this measure, and the absence of any power given to them is, to me, a blot on the Bill.

When the Bill is finally passed, I hope it will emerge in such a manner as to be acceptable to everyone interested in drainage in this country and that it will carry with it a halo for the Parliamentary Secretary who introduced it.

In the course of speaking on the Second Stage of this Bill, I want to relate the Bill to the general question of agricultural production. I cannot accept the statement that the Drainage Bill will not prove in the end fully economical in its effect. The question, to my mind, of whether the actual cost of it will be repaid by the people who immediately benefit is a purely indirect one. I consider this Bill to be the first long-term plan produced by the present Government for the increase of fertility and for the increase of agricultural production resulting therefrom. When I say "long-term plan" I mean a scheme requiring co-ordination, having universal application and needing particular care and particular supervision over a considerable number of years, but all with the object of increasing fertility. I look on this Drainage Bill as one of many measures that will be required completely to destroy the atmosphere of stagnancy with which our whole agricultural life is associated. When we look back on some of the fundamental facts in connection with agricultural production we see immediately the necessity for drastic measures. I should like to mention, as I have before in this House, the fact that there has been a negligible increase in food production in this country from 1880 to 1935 as compared with any other modern European country and as compared with any other country with which we have to compete in the foreign market. There has also been a virtual stagnancy in the volume of our production ever since we achieved independence, so far as the records to which we have access show. There has been a substitution of certain forms of production for other forms, but there has been no measure of increase in the total volume of production.

One of the symptoms of that state of stagnancy has been the gradual decrease in maintenance of drainage, both main drainage and field drainage, the failure of drainage boards and the failure of county councils to implement the 1925 Act. The consequences of that have been an enormous increase all over the country of saturated, wet, acid soil—which has its immediate effect on agricultural production—the reduction in the tillage area, where farmers no longer have sufficient callow meadow for grazing purposes, a growth of poor herbage in all the areas which have become frequently flooded, and, what is most serious of all, the decline in what may be described as the drainage habit, the habit not only of maintaining co-operatively main drainage, but also of maintaining field drainage. These are some of the consequences which are affected by this Bill. There is no need for us to go into the causes of this stagnancy in detail; they are due to historical facts which have no relation to the Bill; but we do know that the Bill will have the effect of arresting a process of rot that has set in in connection with the maintenance of land in many areas.

People have become indifferent and, in some cases, despairing as they watched the waters flow over their land and in every single year the cost of draining the land has become progressively heavier. The cost increases almost by geometrical progression as time goes on until eventually the time is reached when it would not pay a farmer either to combine with his neighbour or to do his own field drainage, because the cost would be quite uneconomical.

In order, as I have said, to bring about an increase in our production, the farmer needs confidence in the future, greater knowledge, sufficient capital and strong leadership from the Government. Unless all those things are made available to him, he will eventually begin to listen to some of the futile suggestions we have heard in this House, such as excessive subsidies which mean merely bribing the farmer in the long run with his own money. Therefore, I particularly welcome this Bill. During the first period of the present Government's office many measures were carried out to aid the farmer.

They were all measures which would have immediate effect, such as providing the farmer with a market in this country, settlement of families on the land, provision of lime subsidies, and the provision of very greatly increased grants for various forms of farm equipment. But I regard this scheme as part of the new process, the production of long-term facilities to aid the farmer. When the land improvement scheme first started we realised immediately that it was only part of a whole scheme for draining the entire country. The land improvement scheme, in fact, showed the need for co-ordination of all drainage. The very rapid increase in the number of grants in each year under the land improvement scheme produced an effect in some places whereby the field drainage was flooding lands close to rivers which had increased their flow owing to the field drainage already effected. In order to make the drainage scheme of maximum value, it would seem essential to ensure that after the drainage has been done the Department of Agriculture will co-operate with the Board of Works to make sure that everything is done to take full advantage of facilities that are made available to farmers when their land has been properly drained. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he will, in the course of developing the scheme, consider that point. It is quite obvious that unless all the field drainage is done, not only in the immediate area of the main drainage scheme, but in areas which have been affected because brooks and streams have overflowed as a result of drainage schemes previously effected, the scheme will not be economic. Unless the fullest advantage is taken, it will not be economic. It seems to me that an important part of our drainage programme is what happens after it has come into effect—what the farmers do when the floods have been removed; to what extent they take advantage of modern methods to increase their grass production; to what extent they carry out the fullest possible ditch and shore drainage. If the two Departments can combine together to assure the maximum effect, it seems to me that the Drainage Act will have twice its economic value.

I made inquiries in connection with some drainage schemes carried out in the past 20 years and I found that a very high proportion of the farmers, partly because of declining prices and partly because of the economic war, did not take advantage of the main drainage effected for them. They did not carry out field drainage of any description, and it would seem absolutely essential on this occasion to develop the two together. Moreover, I was also making a study of drainage as carried out in other countries similar to our own, and I found that a great deal has been done in the past 20 years to alter the methods of using recently-drained land.

It is impossible for many farmers to ascertain with accuracy what the water-table level in their holdings is, and, in relation to that, the best kind of herbage to produce when drainage has taken place. The water-table, as most Deputies will know, is the level up to which water goes beneath farm land through the development of ordinary drainage levels, and, in the past 20 years, there has been a very great development in the knowledge of particular classes of herbage suitable for particular drained land, and whereas 20 years ago it might pay a farmer to use land freshly drained only for grazing purposes, the position now has changed and there will be a number of alternatives open to him.

Therefore, I should like very much to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary to what extent it would be possible to push land improvement in general in connection with this drainage scheme. I refuse to take the pessimistic attitude that drainage is not economic because it cannot be carried out on the basis that those who benefit immediately pay for it completely, and that it is therefore not worth while. Apart from many health reasons, I believe it will stimulate better production; it will give confidence to the farmer and encourage him to modernise his production; and it will bring hope to many people who have become indifferent to the potentialities of their land because they were invaded by floods and saw no possibility of increasing production under the many excellent schemes already provided for them by the Government.

I welcome this Drainage Bill. No doubt it is very essential for the country in general, but I would suggest that such a gigantic scheme as this should not be undertaken until such time as conditions are restored to normal after the emergency. In the first place, you cannot get labour. At different meetings designed to encourage the production of food for the nation, we find that labour is the problem, and if such a Bill as this is to be put into force in the near future, where are we to get the necessary labour? I suggest that the scheme be left over until after the war. Prepare the schemes to the full; be ready for the period after the emergency when many men will be disbanded from the Army; and then go ahead with them.

With regard to the cost of maintenance, I entirely disagree with the idea that the cost should be borne by the local authority. Local authorities already have burdens heavy enough without having to bear the maintenance cost of a huge drainage scheme. Everybody will agree that many farmers and poor people in the towns cannot and ought not be asked to pay a county rate to meet a county-at-large charge in respect of a gigantic drainage scheme. I suggest that the cost should be provided out of the Central Fund, and that if this drainage is to be of such benefit to the land in general, the land should pay a certain share of the cost. If that land is put into production, it will have a greater national value than heretofore. This drainage will return a dividend to the nation for the expenditure incurred in maintaining it and I see no reason why it should not be maintained out of the Central Fund.

Take the man on the mountainside, the smallholder. Even though his valuation may be very low, I see no reason why he should be asked to contribute on behalf of his more fortunate neighbour in the lowlands, who may have 150 acres of land, 50 acres of which may benefit substantially from the scheme, and who may have an income from his land five or six times as great. He has heavy burdens to bear; he has a family to maintain; and his land is much less fertile; and it is very unjust to suggest that he and others like him—the worker in the cottage, for example— should be asked to contribute to the maintenance of this scheme which, possibly will benefit the big land owner. If the land is to benefit from a national scheme such as this, the nation as a whole should be asked to contribute to it.

Local authorities will have more to contend with after this war than many of us can realise to-day. There are demands for increased hospitalisation all over the country, and I agree that hospitalisation ought to be on a much greater scale than it is, but these hospitals will have to be staffed to a greater extent than at present. The rising generation will not accept what they have been getting heretofore— salaries which would not keep them clothed. They will have to be properly looked after and proper hospitals will have to be provided. The local authorities must bear the cost. Who else is there to do it? We have recently seen a programme of new roads to be carried out after the war. Who will pay for them? The ratepayer who has enough to pay for already will have to pay for building them and for maintaining them. They will be a county-at-large charge, and I see no reason why this burden should also be placed on the local ratepayer. If this is to be a national scheme, let it be maintained by the nation.

Another section of the Bill deals with embankments, old drainage schemes, and so on. Many of the old embankments were maintained by the Land Commission in days gone by and, even up to now, they are their responsibility. If that is so, why should a local authority have to accept the responsibility of the Land Commission? Breaches in river embankments due to high tides in a flood will cost thousands in a night. How could a county ratepayer be asked to bear the cost of the repair of such damage? I think it should be borne by the State. The Land Commission up to some years ago did not have the benefit of the moneys collected in the shape of land annuities. To-day these annuities are retained at home, and why should the Land Commission try to place the responsibility on the ratepayers?

I hold that they are more liable to maintain the embankments to-day than ever. I hold that a percentage of that money which is being or has been collected as land annuities should go towards the maintenance of drainage schemes and that maintenance should not be made a county-at-large charge. I see no reason why the poorer sections of the people should be asked to shoulder the burden. I know of cases in my own locality where breaches in such embankments would cost thousands of pounds to-day to repair. Even if they came under the Bill and were repaired, it is quite likely that within a week or ten days after the repairs had been carried out another breach would occur and a further charge of thousands of pounds would be thrown on the shoulders of the unfortunate ratepayers. For that reason, I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to remove Section 48 from the Bill and have the maintenance costs made a national charge and not a charge on the rural ratepayers. I know of several rich and well-to-do farmers with large incomes in the locality that I speak of who will benefit by the Bill. The poor unfortunate men trying to eke out an existence on the mountainside will not benefit by it and I think it is unjust that they should be asked to contribute towards the maintenance of the drainage of that land. If that land is improved by a Government scheme, the nation will benefit and, as well as maintenance being made a national charge, I hold that a percentage of the maintenance charges should be placed on the land benefited.

Mr. Lynch

With other speakers, I welcome the Bill for what it is worth. But there is no doubt that there is a great deal in what Deputy McGilligan said, namely, that there is an amount of make-believe about the Bill. It is purely and simply an enabling Bill. It is a promise to do drainage. That promise is being given statutory effect but it is no more than that. No scheme of drainage is put before us and the Bill after it is passed will not drain anything. We must wait for what will come afterwards. It will be very long afterwards before any real effects are seen from it.

There is no need, as some Deputies have done, to look for fantastic reasons for supporting this Bill. Some of the reasons advanced by various Deputies were fantastic. Deputy Allen gave one reason. I think it was in order to salve his orthodox economic conscience, if I might call it that. He said he was supporting the Bill because of the wonderful improvement it would make in the public health of the country. There is not a shred of evidence before us that arterial drainage will benefit the health of the country in the least. It may be that it will, but it is just quite on the cards that it will not have the slightest effect on public health.

That is your opinion.

Mr. Lynch

I am just giving my opinion, and Deputy Allen has only given his opinion. There is not a shred of evidence before the House that drainage will benefit public health in the slightest way.

My opinion is as good as yours.

Mr. Lynch

I am not saying it is not. The Deputy gave it as his opinion, as if it were based on undeniable and irrefutable evidence, that it must follow as night follows day that there will be an improvement in public health generally if arterial drainage is carried out. There is no such evidence. I do not know whether Deputy O'Higgins intends to speak on this, but he told me that he had heard two very eminent medical men discussing that very matter. One of them —who was a very eminent specialist— quoted quite a lot of statistics to show that the healthiest man was the man who lived in the middle of a bog, in a swamp. I do not accept that view. However, he was entitled to his opinion, just as Deputy Allen is entitled to his opinion, and as I am entitled to my opinion. I do not think that there is any need at all to look for reasons of that kind for supporting this Bill.

I entirely agree with Deputy Childers' view of the economic value of the matter. All these theories of what are and what are not economic are in no sense infallible. They, too, are purely matters of opinion. Where a scheme will help to increase the productivity of the country, I think that such a scheme is, in the last event, economic, no matter what it may cost.

I think it was Deputy Bennett said that he could not see anything to support the opinion that this scheme would be spread over 28 years. I think the Parliamentary Secretary's statement, that he accepted the view of the Drainage Commission, would bear out the statement that it will take from 28 to 30 years to carry out the programme envisaged by the Drainage Commission. That programme is not in this Bill, but the Bill will enable that programme to be carried out. It is, apparently, the intention of the Parliamentary Secretary that it will be spread over that number of years; that, in fact, we have not the machinery, neither the human machinery in the way of engineers, etc., nor the physical machinery in the way of excavators, which would enable us to spend more than about £250,000 a year. If you are only able to spend £250,000 a year on a scheme which is to cost £7,000,000, it is only a sum in simple division to divide £250,000 into £7,000,000, and you will get something roughly in the neighbourhood of 28 years; so that it will be spread over 28 years at the rate of about £250,000 per annum.

It is also a pity that this arterial drainage scheme should be referred to as if it were a relief scheme. Deputy Donnellan and others spoke of it as if it were just another one of those special employment schemes that we have heard a good deal about to deal with the problem of unemployment. I think that arterial drainage should not be faced in that way. We all hope, of course, that each scheme as it comes along will absorb a number of our unemployed. But we must not run away with the idea that it will make a big difference at the rate of £250,000 a year. It will not make a big difference in our unemployment problem. As a matter of fact, the commission in their report, under the heading of "Labour Content," paragraph 200, state:

"Our examination has led us to the conclusion that, on construction works, the total average labour content will vary between 40 and 50 per cent. of the total cost...."

That is, the labour content including engineering and other overhead expenses.

"....and the unskilled labour content between 25 and 35 per cent. These calculations are based on the assumption that mechanical plant will be utilised as far as feasible. On maintenance work, the average content, which will for the most part consist of unskilled labour, will vary from 70 to 80 per cent. of the total cost."

That is on maintenance, which will, of course, be a small matter, but will also have the value of giving permanent employment. We must get out of our heads that this will be a complete panacea for our unemployment difficulties. It will not: it will absorb—if we are assuming that £250,000 will be spent per year—between 600 and 700 or, at the outside, 750 unskilled labourers in each scheme per annum. That is not a very big amount.

I agree with the Drainage Commission in their assumption that mechanical plant must be utilised if the job is to be done properly. After all, when dealing with arterial drainage, our first object must be that, when a scheme is undertaken, the job will be done properly and that, where excavators and so on are required, excavators will be used, even though that may mean lessening somewhat the number of people to be employed. I do not suppose that we could spend any more than £250,000 a year and, therefore, I think it is wiser to handle the problem in this way, in accordance with our resources in the way of qualified engineers with experience of this kind of work. It is better to tackle the job and do it properly, even in that rather slow manner, than to rush in to undertake something we are incapable of doing and to botch the job.

I think it was Deputy Linehan who made a suggestion to the Parliamentary Secretary which he ought to note, that is, to get in touch now with the schools of engineering in the universities and point out the openings there may be in a few years, when the schemes are started, for the young engineers. That will turn the minds of those attending the engineering schools in that direction. A special course of lectures could be given to the students now training as engineers, so that they might be ready to slip into jobs in these drainage schemes when they are qualified.

I entirely accept the view that there must be a central authority, first of all, to carry out any drainage scheme that may eventuate as a result of the Bill, and especially for the purpose of looking after maintenance. The only obvious central authority I can conceive is the Board of Works. They have the engineering staffs and, I believe, they also have some mechanical plant. That is the only body we have in this country suitable for the job. I am not nearly as afraid as some of my friends are of bureaucratic control. Perhaps it is because I was for ten years on those benches and had a fair experience of civil servants. During my ten years, I never found any great desire amongst the civil servants to get hold of responsibility or to collar power. The contrary is the fact. I have mostly found that civil servants, by their training, avoided responsibility whenever they could. Most of them hated to be put in a position where they would have to give a decision. That is their training, and unless they have changed very much in the past 20 years, that is the position to-day. Of course, it is quite possible that, with all the emergency powers and such things, they may have developed a bad habit since. Certainly, when I remember them, I never found any great desire among civil servants to seek power and, therefore, I am not as much afraid of bureaucratic control as persons who, possibly, have not had the intimate contact with the Civil Service which I had over that period.

When I was talking about fantastic reasons for supporting the Bill, I was about to refer to those of Deputy Donnellan, which are the most amusing of all. He wound up by saying that, because of what he had read in the Drainage Commission Report and because of the great value to Connaught, he was strongly in favour of the Bill. He talked about it being greater than the Shannon scheme. He thinks this particular Fianna Fáil promise—that is what it is—is greater than the actual fact of the Shannon scheme. The funny part of it is that, if he had read the Drainage Commission Report closely at all, he would have found that they recommend two schemes in priority, to be dealt with whenever the drainage schemes are being undertaken. One of them is in Munster and the other in Leinster and there is no reference to any scheme at all in Connaught, for priority. The only two schemes the Drainage Commission mentioned were the Brick and Cashen in North Kerry—in my old constituency—and the Brosna in Offaly. I do not know whether the views of the Drainage Commission are being taken on that, or whether that priority will be given. Even though I no longer represent the people in the Brick and Cashen area——

It is part of the Kingdom, anyhow.

Yes, and there is the old grádh there, I suppose. Apart from that, it is the greatest eye-sore in the whole country. The description by the members of the commission of their visit to that area is very well worth reading, being a magnificent piece of description. They describe how they stood on a bridge eight and a half miles from the sea, amid the saturated water-logged stretch of country stretching for miles around them. I hope that since the Parliamentary Secretary has, apparently, accepted the report practically in its entirety— apart from the provision for maintenance—he will also accept that part of the report and do what they suggest in priority—the Brick and Cashen and the Brosna.

In the sense that it has so closely followed the recommendations of the members of the Drainage Commission, the Bill is very flattering to them. I think that was wise; as their work was done well. They recommended, in paragraph 330, as regards survey work prior to legislation:—

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

In his opening statement, the Parliamentary Secretary did not tell us whether or not any survey work had already been done, as was recommended in the report of the commission. In a Vote which subsequently came before the House—I think that it was a Vote making provision for the expenses of extra engineers—the Parliamentary Secretary told me, in reply to a question, that survey work had been done on the Brosna. I should like to know what has happened in the case of the Brick and Cashen. Has any survey work been carried out there and, if not, why not? Has the Parliamentary Secretary departed from the recommendation of the Drainage Report in respect of that area?

You need not arrive at that conclusion. There are other factors to be considered.

Mr. Lynch

If the Board of Works has already, in compliance with the recommendations of the Drainage Commission, surveyed the Brosna, I must assume, at least, that the Brosna is getting priority to the Brick and Cashen. Survey work is being carried out on the Brosna and has not started on the Brick and Cashen.

There were other and compelling reasons why the Brosna should be selected in present circumstances.

Mr. Lynch

I accept that from the Parliamentary Secretary so long as he does not go off next to the Moy in Mayo. When he has finished with the Brosna, I hope he will turn his face to the south-west. Other matters in the Bill will be more appropriately discussed on the Committee Stage. The provision of a panel of arbitrators will require a good deal of consideration before it can be agreed to. I think that it would be far better if the Government, or the Parliamentary Secretary, would second a Circuit Court judge to do this work with the assistance of assessors. That would give more satisfaction to the persons concerned with these schemes than the plan proposed. There will be all sorts of claims regarding interference with fisheries and lands, and the decision of an experienced Circuit Court judge in such cases would be far more impressive and acceptable than that of a layman, no matter what his qualifications may be. Arbitrators are generally engineers or valuers.

There is a feeling amongst the people that if these men do not cut down their awards to the bone they will not be sent on the next arbitration. They are paid either in accordance with the number of sittings or according to the particular cases which they adjudicate. It is a bad thing that people should feel that the arbitrators must cut down their awards so as to get the next job. There would be no feeling of that kind if a Circuit Court judge were taken from his circuit and told to dispose of these cases. He would be quite independent of the Executive. Once appointed, a circuit judge is perfectly independent and can give his decision according to the evidence presented to him. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary should seriously consider some method of that kind to replace the proposal regarding a panel of arbitrators.

There was one point which I should have mentioned before dealing with the last matter to which I have referred. That is the question of embankments to which Deputy Heskin alluded. The Bill is silent as to when it is proposed to take these over. Differing from Deputy Heskin, I am very anxious to see these embankments taken over by the Land Commission. The only hope of their proper maintenance is to put them in the hands of the Board of Works. They have not been properly maintained in the past and are not being properly maintained now. I presume that the funds at the disposal of the public trustee, or whatever other functionary is concerned, for dealing with these embankments will be placed against the maintenance charge; that whoever will be responsible for the maintenance will have the benefit of the funds reserved or retained for the maintenance of those embankments which used to be maintained by the landlords. The sums retained by the Land Commission for the maintenance of these embankments will, I take it, be made available for the relief of the rates if the ratepayers have to maintain these embankments in the future. I trust that the money retained for the upkeep of embankments which, in former times, were maintained by the landlord, will not be diverted into the Exchequer and the cost of maintenance thrown over on the local authorities. I am not clear that that is the intention, but Deputy Heskin was of opinion that that was proposed. I had not time since he delivered his speech to look more closely into the Bill to see if he was right.

What about reconstruction work?

Mr. Lynch

Part 4 deals with the handing over of the embankments, and I take it that reconstruction would be in the nature of a new arterial drainage scheme and would be a national charge. Irrespective of any funds in the hands of a public trustee or drainage trustees, work which would be part of an arterial drainage scheme would, I take it, be a national charge.

That seems to be very like having the hide and the price of it.

Mr. Lynch

No. These funds were intended for maintenance. They were never sufficient to deal with such happenings as Deputy Heskin referred to—what might be described as acts of God. These funds were never able to deal with conditions in which you had big floods or tides which wiped out hundreds of yards at a time. Such breaches used to be dealt with out of the Unemployment Vote, and a great deal of excellent work was done in that way. Like much of the excellent drainage work that was done, it was allowed to go to waste through want of a slight bit of care by way of maintenance subsequently. When the Parliamentary Secretary asks us to vote money in the future for these purposes, the House will know that the money will not be thrown away, that the Board of Works will be in charge and that any arterial drainage scheme carried out will be properly maintained. That is one advantage I see in having the Board of Works in charge not only of the present construction of these works but of their subsequent maintenance. It is only a body of that kind which knows exactly how the job should be tackled. They will know how to do the work properly and prevent the money which will have been spent being wasted.

I welcome this Bill. It is an excellent Bill and a bold effort to solve a difficult problem. There is no doubt that drainage, within the past 100 years, has been sadly neglected here. Mr. Hudson, the British Minister for Agriculture, in a recent speech stated that a complete survey of England, made since the last war, showed that 1,000,000 acres of arable land had gone to waste. As regards our own country, I am fairly satisfied that since Griffith carried out his survey, basing it on the capacity of an acre of land to grow wheat, you would nearly have to write down the valuation of the country by 20 per cent. I am not so much interested in the temporary employment that will be given while the actual drainage work is being carried out, as I am in the improvement of the land and the greater population that it will then be able to carry. I calculate that for an expenditure of £7,000,000 and a consequent improvement of 500,000 acres of land it would mean that from 10,000 to 15,000 extra people would be employed on the land. That is the figure that I am really interested in. I agree with Deputy Lynch that the actual drainage work will not employ the big numbers that some people expect.

I would like to emphasise that our anxiety with regard to drainage will not end with the passing of this Bill. There is the grave danger that when it is passed it may be hung up for a certain length of time. I would strongly advise the Parliamentary Secretary that, the moment the Bill is passed, he should carry out a complete survey of the country and he should do it immediately, if possible. I would urge him to carry it out in a way that many people might not perhaps agree with. First of all, he should carry out a survey of the rivers that are not likely to be touched by widening, dredging or otherwise. If the survey is done along those lines, and if you schedule the areas that do not need artificial drainage, you can then go ahead with your subsidiary drains, minor drains, reclamation work and afforestation.

Personally, I am a bit bewildered when I think of the administration of this measure when it becomes an Act. You will have a drainage scheme and a hydro-electric scheme possibly involved in it; you will probably have a waterworks scheme and even a sewerage scheme. So many other Departments are going to be involved in this that I am not too happy about the constitution of the drainage authority. If there is a hydro-electric scheme, the Minister for Industry and Commerce will be involved in that. If such a scheme is needed in certain rivers then a drainage scheme will not be needed in them. If a hydro-electric scheme is combined with a waterworks scheme, as has been done in the case of the Liffey, that might have the effect of altering the whole course of the subsequent drainage of the river in question. In other words, you would have the following Departments involved: Local Government and Public Health, Industry and Commerce, Lands and Agriculture since the fisheries might be vitally affected. The improvement of the land will naturally be affected. The Department of Industry and Commerce will be involved in the hydro-electric scheme, or in the construction of canals. The Department of Local Government will be involved if there is such a thing as a waterworks scheme, sewerage scheme, or the construction of a bridge.

When I think of all that, and visualise the fact that schemes have been submitted by county managers to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health for the improvement of roads involving a possible expenditure of £30,000,000, that schemes for waterworks and sewerage to the tune of £6,000,000 have been submitted to him, that the Department of Industry and Commerce is interested in a scheme involving £10,000,000 in connection with transport, and that big developments are contemplated by the Department of Agriculture for the improvement of the inland fisheries, I am just wondering whether we should not have a national planning council. I am satisfied that this Bill really points to that.

It means in a nutshell that if you carry out a drainage scheme and, at a later stage, find that a hydro-electric scheme should be constructed in the upper reaches of a river, it would be far better if you had never carried out your drainage scheme, because possibly the hydro-electric scheme would have provided a big catchment area in the upper reaches; it would have held the water from the upper and the mountain streams and would, possibly, obviate the necessity of having a drainage scheme further down. For that reason I strongly suggest that the composition of the drainage authority should be one representative from the Department of Local Government and Public Health, one from the Department of Industry and Commerce and one from the Department of Agriculture, with the three existing Commissioners of Public Works.

Speaking for my own particular district, I can say that until certain drainage schemes are carried out there afforestation will be held up. Over wide stretches of the country reclamation schemes, which are also badly needed, will be held up, while turf development will definitely be held up in areas where you have numerous unemployed. When I put forward suggestions that minor relief schemes should be carried out in the construction of drains and of subsidiary drains in certain areas, I have been told that these must wait for an arterial drainage scheme. It is because of that that I strongly suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that, immediately this Bill is passed, he should get his engineers first of all to schedule the areas that do not need arterial drainage so that afforestation, the reclamation of land and the drainage of bogs may start immediately. I have given the Bill fair criticism from the point of view of administration. But, as I said at the outset, I think it is a bold Bill to solve a very difficult problem.

I was a bit surprised to hear Deputy Lynch chipping at Deputy Allen and saying that drainage would not improve health. Everybody knows that before you build a house you have to drain the site into a minor drain, from a minor drain into a subsidiary drain, and from that into a river. We known what the Pontine Marshes were; we heard a lot about them and the diseases for which they were responsible. There are no places of that sort in this country, but if a house is built in a damp district, in an area where the surrounding district is very damp, that breeds tuberculosis.

I welcome this Bill. It is a measure that is long overdue. One of the weak points is the period calculated to give full effect to the provisions of the Bill. The £7,000,000 that will be expended on drainage will be divided over 28 years, the expenditure to be made at the rate of £250,000 a year. There was no mention as to where the money is to come from. Perhaps it might be wise to be slow and sure about the operation of legislation of this sort.

There are some sections of this Bill that deserve attention. The Parliamentary Secretary said he was anxious to get the co-operation of every member of the House. I am sure he will have that co-operation, and I trust he will give full consideration to the amendments that will be submitted for the Committee Stage. The maintenance of the drainage will, in my opinion, mean a very heavy burden on the taxpayer. Taxpayers generally feel that they are already taxed to the limit of their capacity. They have the feeling, too, that the maintenance of the proposed drainage works will mean an unusually heavy burden in the years to come, and that the taxation for drainage purposes will tend to grow.

So far as maintenance is concerned, I am satisfied that each county should bear portion of the cost. At the same time, as this is a national drainage scheme, I feel the maintenance work should be subsidised each year out of national funds. A comparison may be made with the main roads. They are being subsidised year after year. They are constructed out of subsidised money and are being used to accommodate the public. So far as the drainage scheme is concerned, it may be beneficial only to one part of a county, yet the whole county will have to pay. I think the drainage scheme finance should be put on the same basis as that applying to road construction and maintenance. I feel that the county, in the first instance, should contribute a reasonable amount towards the maintenance, but a reasonable amount should also come out of State funds.

Section 17 refers to the provision of water-power in the case of mills, factories and other industries, and deals with the rights of mill owners. I have in mind some mills that have been erected on main rivers. Those mills were erected there simply to avail of the water-power. At the present time most of those mills are giving a considerable amount of employment. In my own county there are three mills run by water and I am aware of the benefit they are to their particular areas from the point of view of employment and a reduction in the cost of manufactured commodities. Those mills serve at least two useful purposes—they give employment and the goods they produce can be distributed at a cheaper rate to the people in their respective areas.

As regards the assessment of compensation for those mills, in paragraph (c) of Section 17 the period of ten years is mentioned. I think the period on which compensation will be based should be thought out in a very broadminded way, for this reason: that when the mill was erected, the intention was to extend its power; in other words, the power that is being used to-day in that mill is not the limit of the power intended by the owner when the mill was erected. In those circumstances, I think the period of ten years would not produce a fair calculation as to the value of the water-power utilised in the working of the mill.

It may happen that mills or factories may be able to retain the pressure of water that they have now, but if as a result of drainage that pressure cannot be retained, I suggest that alternative power should be given to them if it is available. Electrical power is available in a number of places and, where that is so, it would be one way of assisting these men to keep in production. While on that I wish to refer to the position of arbitrators. It is my experience that people are not satisfied that the amount of compensation allowed by arbitrators in these cases is sufficient. I have in mind places where land was acquired for the erection of labourers' cottages but the amount of compensation allowed was not at all favourable to the owners of the land.

I agree with the suggestion of Deputy Lynch that if a claim for compensation is made, the tribunal to decide it should consist of a judge before which both parties should make their case. A judge would have a free hand and would be preferable to arbitrators. Amendments will be introduced on the Committee Stage and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will take into consideration the viewpoint of those responsible for them. If he does, he can take it that he will have co-operation from all sides of the House in making this Bill as workable as it is possible to make it.

This Bill has been welcomed from all sides of the House. It is undoubtedly a far reaching measure and one that will do a great deal of good. There are sections in the Bill that I should like to see amended. One Deputy has called attention to what I consider to be a great danger. People seem to think that when work is to be done at the expense of the rates or out of State funds it is up to everyone to grab all they can and to give compensation to Jack, Bill and Tom. That is why I definitely object to the manner in which some sections of the Bill are drafted, throwing the cost of maintenance on to local ratepayers. According to the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary, drainage work will not start for five years.

That is not correct.

I am glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary saying that. I would like to see work starting when the Bill passes, as it will take 28 years before it is finished, allowing for an expenditure of £250,000 yearly. There is to be an appointed day on which the capital charge will be taken over by the State, and the maintenance rate taken over as a county at large charge by the local authorities. I will give an example of what happened on the Aubeg scheme between Buttevant and Charleville. That scheme cost £16,000, of which the ratepayers of Cork County paid £11,000 as a county at large charge, while £5,000 was paid by the tenants of the area affected as a maintenance charge. The ratepayers of Cork County are paying £710 yearly for the Aubeg scheme for 35 years, the tenants are paying £300 yearly for maintenance charges, and £363 of an annuity as their share of the capital charge.

On the appointed day the £363 will be put on the backs of the taxpayers, and the £300 will be taken off the backs of the tenants and also put on the backs of the ratepayers as a county at large charge, leaving people who were quite satisfied, and who thanked the county council for the generous contribution that conferred such benefit on their land, clear of all charges. In my opinion that is going to be a bad proposition, because people are not going to have any interest in these matters if they have not to pay. If they have to pay something they will see that the work is done. I think the ratepayers of Cork County did sufficient when they paid £11,000 on a £16,000 drainage scheme, without having this extra burden thrown upon them.

I am always suspicious of Government schemes, because people always try to grab all that is going and to throw the debt over on somebody else. We have an instance of that in the case of embankments. A real injury was done tenants when land was being purchased as in most cases sufficient money was not withheld for the upkeep of embankments. I have a case in mind where four years ago an embankment gave way, and the only way in which the owner of the farm could save his land was by going to the Land Commission and asking them to put an extra annuity on it for the repair of the embankment. That was due to Land Commission negligence in the first instance, in not withholding sufficient money for such work. Here is what is going to happen under this scheme. Trust funds are now in the hands of the Land Commission for the maintenance of embankments.

Those trust funds are now going to be taken over by the State, but the job that those trust funds were held for, namely, the maintenance of the embankments, is to be thrown over on the local ratepayer, under the Act. There is no doubt that the Bill is a good one, that it will have a far-reaching effect, and that a thing that is badly needed in this country is the making of a decent job of drainage, once and for all. I do not want to delay the House, as we will have an opportunity of discussing the Bill more fully on the Committee Stage.

This Bill, as has been pointed out, by several speakers, has been long overdue, and if the Parliamentary Secretary tackles the problem of drainage in the manner that is envisaged, this will certainly be a wonderful measure. I should like to say a few words about the West of Ireland, where there is a very heavy rainfall. Deputy Lynch does not seem to think so, but there is a very heavy rainfall there, and I think that wonderful benefits will accrue as a result of this Bill—that is, if we do not have to wait, as we are told, for 28 years. There are a few outstanding points in connection with the Bill to which I should like to refer. Firstly, there is no indication as to where the money is to come from. In the case of the Children's Allowances Bill there was an indication as to how the money was to be raised, and the Minister concerned indicated, on the Second Reading of that Bill, how it would be raised, but there is no such indication in this Bill. The second point I should like to make is that £250,000 a year is a rather small amount. There are many schemes in the country that badly need being attended to, and, in my opinion, £250,000 a year will not go half-way towards dealing with these schemes. Are we to understand that this job will be a slow one, and will drag on from year to year for the next 28 years?

There is one other thing that I should like to ascertain, and that is the definition of the word "arterial." That word comes into the Bill very often, but we are given no indication as to what is its real definition. The Parliamentary Secretary directed attention to Section 48 of the Bill. That section gives power to the commissioners to compel the repair of watercourses. It says that:

"... it shall be lawful for the commissioners, by notice in writing, served personally or by post, on an occupier of land, to require such occupier, within such time as shall be specified in the notice, to restore, open up, and generally put into proper repair and effective condition such watercourses on the land as are specified in such notice."

Now, if we go back to the definition portion of the Bill, we are told that the word "watercourses" includes "rivers, streams and other natural watercourses, and also canals drains, and other artificial watercourses." Section 48, undoubtedly, is a very necessary section because, in the case of drainage schemes undertaken by the Board of Works in the past, it was quite a common thing to get a number of people to agree to a scheme, but one farmer, perhaps, would refuse, as a result of which the whole scheme was held up. Accordingly, I agree that Section 48 is a very good section, but I wish to point out that according to the definition of the word "watercourse", it would mean that people can be compelled to clear up and repair watercourses which are definitely rivers. At least, that is my reading of it, and I think there will have to be a change in that, because it is quite clear that a farmer, or even a group of farmers, could not be expected to clear a canal or a large river, or what is called here an artificial watercourse. While it is usually within the capacity of any farmer or group of farmers to keep a drain of, let us say, two feet wide, clear, it would be quite beyond their capacity to keep a large river clear. It seems to me that that is a serious flaw in the Bill, which requires remedying because, if it is not remedied, it would mean that it would be obligatory on a farmer to clear a river on both sides— say, a river 16 feet or more wide— which would be a considerable hardship. I think that that would be a matter for the Board of Works, rather than for the individual farmer. I want to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to that, because believe that it will prove to be impossible of achievement if the section is left as it is.

There is another thing in connection with this Bill to which I should like to draw attention, and that is the question of employment in the post-war period. Undoubtedly; there will be unemployment on a large scale in the post-war period. I do not wish to say more about that at the moment, but it appears to me that the Parliamentary Secretary will have to take power to increase that amount of £250,000 to £1,000,000 or even £2,000,000 a year for the first two or three years of the post-war period, with a view to providing employment here. If that can be done, very good work could be accomplished as a result of this Bill. Deputy Lynch had a tilt at Deputy Allen because Deputy Allen said that one of the effects of this Bill would be to improve the health of the people. I quite agree with Deputy Allen on that. Deputy Lynch had another tilt at Deputies of this House on the question of drainage in Mayo, Roscommon, and other portions of the West of Ireland. Deputy Lynch seems to be concerned particularly about Kerry, but I think that Connaught, on account of the very heavy rainfall there and the vast amount of low-lying land, deserves special attention. Lastly, I should like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to one old drainage scheme in my locality which, I think, goes back to 1852. I think the Parliamentary Secretary has heard of it. At the present time a job is being put into operation there under the county manager. Something like 40 or 50 families are concerned, but the strange thing is that if the job is well and thoroughly done, it will mean that a big bog will be drained into the arable land of these families and their land will become flooded. That has been the case in the past every time the job was done even fairly efficiently, and the result has been that these people certainly did not benefit. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether there is any way of taking these things into consideration. I realise that, compared with the general scheme, this is only a small matter, but in this particular case there are about 100 acres of shaking bog or pure mire, and some thing like 40 or 50 families will be affected. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give sympathetic consideration to that matter.

It seems to me that the discussion on this Bill is likely to be very long drawn-out. I am not enamoured of the Bill, and I see nothing very revolutionary in it. For the last 25 years or so, the great question here has been how to keep our workers on the land at home, but at the present rate of emigration it seems to me that we shall have nothing but old age pensioners left here to enjoy the benefits of this drainage scheme, particularly as we are told that it will take 28 years to accomplish. The great leaders of Ireland in the past told us that we should keep our people at home here and give them a proper standard of life that would enable them to keep themselves and their families in frugal comfort, but what is the position that we have now? We are nothing but a nation of paupers. It is my belief that too much attention is being paid to high finance and not enough to the ordinary financial requirements of the people of this country.

This Bill is the product of men who have the mentality of Senator Sir John Keane. I should like to see the Bill the responsibility of a man like Professor O'Rahilly, who believes in the regeneration of this country. The Bill is a poor headline for post-war planning. On the basis of a proper Drainage Bill we could definitely start our post-war planning. It is my belief that we could mobilise not alone our finances but our manpower on the basis of a properly conceived Drainage Bill. When one speaks of mobilising labour it may sound very revolutionary but on the other hand, when we realise that during the last 25 years there have been anything up to 100,000 unemployed men in this country, many of them, no doubt, genuinely seeking work, but many more who would not work under any conditions so long as they could get the dole, I think it will be agreed that the time has come when some drastic steps should be taken to deal with these work-shys who are living on the sweat of the honest workers of the country. We see many of them slipping out of the country over to England, where they are content to work under the most depressing conditions although they absolutely refuse to work on a bog or on the land here at home. I think it is time that all classes should be satisfied to work for the good of the country under equal conditions here at home. There is too much of a tendency to sidetrack schemes that are intended for the common good. Even here one sees a desire on the part of some Deputies to play up to the mob and there is a sort of competition to see how many votes we can catch by being nice to everybody. I think it should stop.

In my opinion, the Parliamentary Secretary in bringing in a Bill of this kind should have proceeded on more revolutionary lines. I know that in his heart he is a type who would be inclined to adopt revolutionary lines when necessary, but he is bound down by the customs and precedents that have obtained up to the present. I hold that we should harness the man-power of the country as well as our financial resources to carry out national schemes of this character, so that everybody and not a favoured few will benefit. As things stand at the moment the rich are getting richer although, for the most part, living lives of ease and idleness, while the poor are getting poorer. We must strive to give everybody a chance of earning a decent livelihood within the country.

I have always held that far too much time is wasted in the preparation of schemes of this character, and that a good deal of the money spent on the preparation of maps and things of that character would enable us to give employment at an earlier stage to men who really need work. I hold that many of these areas were mapped several times in the past and that there is no necessity to repeat the process for this scheme. There is hardly any drainage scheme that is not known from A to Z, because the country has been mapped several times in every county. I hold that we could go ahead with schemes under this Bill without going through all this mapping again. I see no reason why we should not start these works immediately the Bill has been passed. In my own county there are alleged drainage schemes where farmers are asked to pay for the drainage of their land, but where, in actual fact, they are paying for the water that floods their farms. They have been brought into court year after year to compel them to pay arrears but the position has been so bad that the judge felt that he could not in justice give a decree against them. I welcome the Bill from the point of view that it may enable some relief to be given to these people.

A short time ago we heard a long statement from another Minister in an after-dinner speech about the beautiful roads that were to be constructed after the war, roads that were to be skating rinks from Dublin to Athlone and other areas all over the country. I hold that talk of that kind is the purest tripe.

And the Chair holds that it has nothing to do with this Bill, even though it may be the delectable comestible the Deputy suggests.

I hope that when the Bill comes into effect we shall not have skating rinks for our big financiers all over the country. In my opinion the financial provisions of this Bill are altogether too vague. Nobody seems to know where the money is to come from, and I should like the Parliamentary Secretary when he is replying to tell us exactly where we stand in regard to the financial provisions of the Bill. I should also like to know what is to become of overseers who are at present in charge of drainage areas in various districts. Are they to be thrown out of their positions without compensation? I know that in my own county some of these overseers had salaries ranging from £150 to £200 a year. They were very good men at their work and are they now to be scrapped without any compensation? I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give a clear indication as to their position when he is replying.

As I have already said, I am not a bit enamoured of this Bill. It is simply a case of "live horse and you will get grass". I want to see the finances and the man-power of this country mobilised for the common good, so that we can remove a big load from the backs of the taxpayers who have been obliged to support so many men in idleness for years past. I welcome the Bill from that stand-point, though I think the Parliamentary Secretary will realise that it is not going to bring about the wonderful change that some Deputies have predicted. Talk of that kind is just vague political nonsense.

The question of drainage in this country has always been regarded as very important, and substantial sums have been expended in the past in an effort to solve the problem. Maintenance has also been a very big problem and it is true to say that the bill that confronts us now would not be so formidable were it not for the lack of care of existing schemes. If the existing schemes had been maintained, the bill would not be so heavy. Personally, I am satisfied the contemplated expenditure of £7,000,000 will be found totally inadequate to carry out necessary schemes. I assert that the problem is very acute and I think it is foolish to suggest that a mere expenditure of £250,000 per annum will be sufficient to deal adequately with it.

To have any effect, drainage will have to be carried out on a much greater scale. On the calculation made by the Parliamentary Secretary it will take approximately 34 years before the last scheme is finished. That is a very long time, and even though some Deputies on the opposite benches were optimistic enough to think that the Parliamentary Secretary might still be available here when the last scheme is completed, I think that if he is here, he will be the possessor of a very long beard by that time. I think the problem will have to be tackled in such a way as to ensure that the work will be carried out on a much bigger and more expeditious scale.

Although a number of Deputies in this House have welcomed the Bill, I fear that it is really a purely political Bill in the sense that you are going to have keen rivalry as to which district will have the first scheme. Between now and the next election, every Deputy on the opposite benches will boast that his particular district is promised the first scheme. The electors in each area will be told that if Fianna Fáil are in office their particular district will get the first crack of the whip.

They will have five years to wait.

Well, they will have four years within which they can make all the promises they wish.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present. House counted and 20 Deputies being present,

After that slight diversion, created by the troops from Offaly, I think I can proceed. I wonder if that was a little plan to divert attention from the point I was making in regard to political activity. This young fellow is becoming a fair student.

The Deputy, yes. I do not think he will resent that.

This is into his barrow.

The Bill will allow the Government Party to make a promise within the next four years, and before the next election, that every district in the country will be the first district. It will be an encouragement to people to maintain the Government in office, and then very unseemly disputes will arise as to which scheme should start first. A survey has been made in a number of cases, and where surveys have been made the schemes should be proceeded with at a far greater rate of speed. In view of the number of people who are unemployed, there is no reason in the world why the Government could not proceed with those schemes that do not require machinery, schemes with a high labour content. If they were to do that, I am satisfied that they could spend much more than £250,000 a year; they could spend £1,000,000 a year or more. I admit that some of the schemes will require mechanical aid as well as man-power, and in these cases there will be delay. They cannot be started until the machinery is available, but efforts should be made to have the machinery produced in this country. Production —even at an uneconomic price—if it involves labour, creates assets, and every acre of land that is improved becomes an asset and gives value for any money spent on it.

Although some Deputies, and some members of my own Party, do not approve of the central authority, as one who gave evidence before the Drainage Commission, I am glad that the idea of the central authority is being developed. I think that it is the only method by which effective drainage can be carried out in this country. Hitherto, each drainage board was a unit in itself, and did not care who was drowned if it kept its own head above water. By having a central authority, there will be coordinated effort and unified control.

I suggest that the maintenance should not only be carried out by them but that the rate should be struck and collected by the central authority because, as sure as we are here, when a maintenance rate is struck, or a demand made for the striking of a maintenance rate, there will be councils revolting, and all that sort of thing, and the result will be that, as in the case of the late drainage boards or trustees, the rate will not be struck. There will be mutinies and all that sort of thing against it by the local authorities. Therefore, I assert that the entire responsibility for drainage should be taken over by the central authority plus an advisory committee from every particular county. In that way you would have local influence plus, if you like, the dictatorial control of the governing body in getting the work done. If the scheme is not carried out in that way, in my opinion, it will not be effective.

A question arises as to the position of the existing employees. There is no mention in the Bill, as far as I can find, as to what is to become of them. Some arrangement must be made for them because they have been officials of these boards for a long time and they are entitled to compensation. Of course, they may be re-employed by the central authority.

The Second Schedule provides for the taking over of the assets and liabilities of the dissolved drainage boards after the appointed day. I do not know if the Minister realises that many of these boards owe considerable sums of money to banks, and that some members, in their official capacity as members of the drainage boards, became guarantors to the bank for sums of money. That is a matter in connection with which they should not be called upon to bear liability. They are responsible in their personal capacity to the bank as guarantors, and I want to ensure that where these liabilities exist, the matter is covered in this particular Schedule. Is it correct that it is covered?

That will be a great relief to a number of people who have liabilities to the bank for drainage works that were done. It will be news that they will be glad to hear. The chief point to which I wish to refer is the time taken for this scheme. If a drainage work of this magnitude is to be drawn out over a prolonged period of even 20 years, the work carried out in the beginning will have to be done again by the time the last work is carried out. The drainage would not last that length of time unless it were maintained at high pressure. Therefore, when the Government are undertaking a drainage scheme, let it be done on a generous scale at once; let it be tackled in a big way; let the men be employed on it. There are many engineers in the country and in the Board of Works capable of supervising and directing this work. Therefore do not put it off for a 20-year period. Tackle the matter and get it done speedily so that, at a maximum, in ten years the job will be completed. It may be said that that would cost too much and that the money could not be obtained in that time. I assert that the issue of the equivalent of land bonds, or something like that, for this purpose would be worth while and would be the proper method of financing the scheme. Instead of people having to leave the country to seek employment there would be employment here for everybody and the dream of the present Minister for Supplies could be realised, namely, the return of the exiles in America and England to do the work.

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned until to-morrow.
The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 1st March, 1944.
Top
Share