Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 2 Mar 1944

Vol. 92 No. 16

Arterial Drainage Bill, 1943—Second Stage (Resumed).

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

I suppose that if Deputy Carter were to return, the Deputy who has just risen would, by leave of the House, give way to him?

Yes. I think Deputy Carter had not actually spoken when he moved the adjournment of the debate.

I join with other Deputies in paying tribute to the Department concerned with this measure. In paying tribute to the Department over which the Parliamentary Secretary presides, I think it will be agreed on all sides that we should extend a tribute also to the Drainage Commission for the painstaking manner in which it examined the large volume of evidence that was submitted to it before bringing in this report. I expect that every member of the House has still a copy of the Drainage Commission's Report of 1940, but it is no harm to recall the fact that representatives, of 28 different local authorities, 15 drainage boards' trustees, seven miscellaneous bodies and ten other witnesses gave evidence before that commission. As well, the commission heard evidence from a certain number of Departments of State, for instance, the Department of Agriculture, the Office of Public Works in its various branches, the Department of Finance, the Department of Industry and Commerce, the Department of Lands, the Department of Local Government and the Valuation Office. The commission held 41 meetings, and there were 19 sub-committee meetings. I think the fact that all that evidence was given, drawn from all counties in the State, should silence the criticism that has been made here up to the present that the Government have been lax in their duty in not bringing in this measure sooner. I think that the best advice on this very important measure would be to hasten slowly.

I agree with speakers who recommend the Parliamentary Secretary not to be led away by the idea that there will be a solution for the unemployment problem beyond a certain danger line provided by these schemes, because I do not think on close examination such a view would be justified. I believe that a large number of our unemployed will find work on schemes promoted under this measure but, at the same time, I think that on the major rivers and the major arteries throughout the country room will have to be provided for the employment of mechanical apparatus, otherwise the cost of drainage would be prohibitive. I prefer to think that the vast bulk of our unemployed in the various counties will be absorbed by the farmers in their respective areas in making use of the outlets which these major drainage works will provide. Coming from the Midlands, I should like, with other speakers here, to pay tribute to the magnificent engineering work carried out in the last 15 years in the drainage of the Barrow.

I can bring any member of the House into the Barrow valley area and point out the magnificent farm improvement work going on there, where land has been brought under tillage and where meadow land formerly submerged is now made available. I can throw my mind back to drainage works carried out under the 1924 and 1925 Acts and I know what a vast amount of improvement work may be expected in future under the farm improvement schemes conducted by the Department of Agriculture as the result of the opening up of a main waterfall to take the water away from the countryside.

I would ask that every member of the House should try to concentrate, by constructive criticism, on making this scheme one that, as years roll on, will require little amendment. The size of the job that is to be undertaken in this comprehensive scheme is indicated by the statement in the report of the Drainage Commission that 650,200 acres will be improved as a result of this measure. Under the Drainage Act of 1924 work was executed all over the country and large schemes were also carried out under the 1925 Act. Fifty-one schemes were carried out, and it is stated that approximately there were 230 drainage districts. I refer to that because the experience that has been gained over a period of years of the conduct of all concerned—the benefiting ratepayers and the local authorities—in regard to the maintenance of work done, goes to show that the Government are wise in their decision that the local authorities should undertake the extra burden of maintenance. Magnificent schemes have been carried out all over the country in the past 20 or 30 years, even since the 1924 Act, and the benefiting ratepayers in the respective areas have grumbled about paying for the valuable work carried out, work which made it possible to unload the waters that were making their land unmanageable and sodden and even affecting grazing and meadowlands. I cannot understand the mentality of people who refuse to pay a few shillings, 1/6 or 2/6 an acre, in respect of such work. The Government are wise in giving charge of the drainage problems of the future to one central authority who will expect from the local authorities wholehearted co-operation in discharging their obligation to provide maintenance.

I am glad, therefore, that the controversy about the payment of drainage rates is being brought to an end because in the County Laoighise you have, on the one hand, a body of farmers who, in the majority of cases, have undoubtedly derived real benefit from the magnificent Barrow drainage scheme and who have during the past years been putting up objections to paying the drainage rates. The estimated improved value of the land amounted to roughly 2/7 or 2/8 per acre. On the other hand, there is a number of smaller drainage schemes, of equal importance to the drainage ratepayer concerned, where the cost was much higher. For instance, three drainage schemes were carried out in connection with the Douglas, the Erkna, and the Cush, under the 1924 and 1925 Acts. In the Douglas area the estimated improved value was 4/2 per acre; in the Erkna, South Laoighis, the estimated improved value was 5/8 per acre; in the Cush it was 1/8 per acre. In connection with these three schemes, when the work had been completed, prior to 1930, there was some grumbling that the benefiting ratepayers had not got value for their money, but since then, the ratepayers have been bearing the full cost of the necessary maintenance work. In the case of the Barrow, there was a dispute and the local authority paid annually to the Board of Works the necessary instalments and the arrears due by the Barrow ratepayers, amounting to an accumulated arrear of £18,000, were put back upon the shoulders of the general body of ratepayers.

It is clear, therefore, that anyone associated with a local authority has cause to be glad that such disputes and discrepancies will be brought to an end by the wise decision of the Government to appoint a central authority. Undoubtedly there was disparity in regard to the striking of the rate in County Laoighise. In one case the Government were helping to the extent of 50 per cent. of the cost of maintenance and in the other case the local farmer ratepayers were paying the full cost. According to the Bill, it is proposed that the collection of arrears will be referred to the local authority. I daresay, at a later stage there will be an opportunity of referring to that matter again. In one sense, it is not very desirable that that matter should be left to a local authority, but, on the other hand, the members of a local authority must play fair as between one section of ratepayers in a particular county and another. I think the House should appreciate that fact.

On the question of the fixing by the central authority of the yearly maintenance charges to be met by the local authority I think—and other Deputies have referred to it—that it is a matter for consideration whether some amount could not be fixed as the maximum burden that a local authority should bear by way of maintenance charges.

There is another point in regard to which I am anxious to have some information from the Parliamentary Secretary: Supposing a large amount of bank erosion takes place as a result of a heavy flood following a heavy fall of snow, will the burden of replacement and of rebuilding the banks and putting the river into a normal state of repair, involving, perhaps, thousands of pounds, fall on the shoulders of the county ratepayers, under the heading of maintenance, in the succeeding rate?

Deputy Allen stated, and rightly so, that the drainage that has been carried out and that will be carried out in the future will have a very beneficial effect on the health of our people. I have seen in my own area, even as recently as last week, districts where flooded conditions still obtain. Until extra work is carried out in the Barrow area, where main tributaries of the Barrow require to be opened up to take off the water from certain localities, flooded conditions will remain. I have seen a pump hole in a certain yard that was flooded and the overflow was flowing into the pump hole. The people of the house were using that water for domestic purposes. That is common in many places. In Mountmellick and Portarlington it would have been impossible to instal waterworks or sewerage schemes under the conditions that existed prior to the drainage of the Barrow because there was no outlet for the sewage and disgraceful conditions were often found at the rere of houses and near houses owing to the pollution of the river and the obstruction of the system of sewerage then existing.

Down further, there is the important town of Athy, which, I think Deputy Hughes will agree, was possibly similarly placed. On the whole, we must put it up to the people to realise that there will be a direct bearing on their general health and well-being by having large scale drainage carried out, because if an epidemic breaks out in a town, due to bad water supply or to any lack of proper sewerage arrangements in the summer months, that epidemic will find its way into the country districts. The country people have to visit the towns to get their goods, and the more co-operation and goodwill which can be brought about between country and town on these public health matters and matters of common concern the better, because, in the last ten or 15 years, with the huge increase in social services and particularly the installation of sewerage and waterworks schemes all over the country, a burden has been thrown back upon the rural ratepayer as high as 1/- or 1/6 in the £. There can be a certain reciprocity in the whole matter when the burden is being spread. When the National Exchequer is to bear the full cost of new work, it is reasonable, within the limits I have referred to, to expect that local authorities will play their part so far as possible.

There is good ground for joining with those who have asked the Parliamentary Secretary to inquire into the possibilities of a survey of the country on a much larger scale and, if you like, the establishment on a fair basis of a priority list of the works which are most essential, because, when the Bill goes through, there is bound to be pressure from every area to have particular works undertaken, and, unless there is some plan devised to select the most important, the most far-reaching works at the beginning, there will be clogging of the office of the Central Drainage Board by unnecessary clamouring for the undertaking of works which could not possibly be undertaken.

I have been referring to new works and I now refer to the taking over and maintenance of old works. As the House is aware, an appointed day will have to be fixed for the taking over of the various old boards and drainage districts. All these cannot be taken over at the same time, and it must be made perfectly clear to all concerned that just because this Bill goes through in March, 1944, every drainage district must not clamour at the one time for the taking over of their district and the carrying out of reconstruction work, because it would be quite impossible. Some ordered scheme for the taking over of such works will have to be devised, and I am satisfied that it will be good policy for the people in the areas concerned to look at the generous assistance provided in this measure and not to grumble about paying whatever contribution is required of them to keep works in reasonably good repair until the fixing of the appointed day for their respective areas.

In connection with the taking over of the various districts, I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that there could be valuable co-operation between the Board of Works and the Drainage Commissioners on the one hand and the county engineers on the other. These county engineers will have found out, in connection with a number of drainage schemes carried out in the last ten or 15 years, much useful and valuable information which, I think, should pass into the hands of the Central Drainage Board. Ways and means should be devised by which that information could be gathered in, in a spirit of sincere co-operation between both parties, for the benefit of the entire community. We have in various districts men who have had years of experience of drainage matters. These men have become specialists at their work, and some special provision should be made whereby they would automatically pass into the employment of the central drainage authority when it takes over.

I am satisfied that, as a result of this comprehensive and valuable measure, thousands of acres can be reclaimed through drainage, and I am satisfied also that the Parliamentary Secretary and his officers will find that, once the central machinery is put in motion, it will be possible, as well as desirable, that work should be pushed ahead at a quicker rate than that indicated by an expenditure of £250,000 a year. There is scarcely a county wherein certain works could not be usefully undertaken. In some cases, it will simply be a matter of reconstruction and maintenance of works which have fallen into disrepair and, in other cases, it will be a matter of new works, but, whichever it is, I am satisfied that there is room for a greater expenditure than £250,000 when the commissioners get properly to work.

At the outset, we shall have to go easily and to remember that we are living in abnormal times, when facilities for obtaining machinery, parts, etc., are very few. At present even the quality of the spade and shovel, so much needed in agriculture and on the bogs, is very much below that obtainable a few years ago. We shall have to make allowances for such difficulties. We cannot expect as high a standard during an emergency such as that through which we are passing as would obtain in normal times, when there is keen competition between manufacturers to produce the best article for sale to the public.

With regard to appeals, I think there should be some form of arbitration as between the central authority and the local authorities on certain questions, because I and every member of the House can foresee that differences of opinion and arguments as to the amount of money which should be devoted to maintenance work in a given year are bound to arise. That is bound to happen.

There is no use in people shutting their eyes to that fact, because the experience of the last ten or 15 years will prove that that has been the case. On examination of the report of the Drainage Commission, dealing particularly with the evidence taken from the representatives of the county councils, it will be seen that it is clearly set out there that such a state of affairs is bound to arise. Consequently, I think that to avoid long drawn-out controversy it would be better to have a proper form of arbitration set up which would hold the balance fairly as between the central drainage authority and the local authority, with the same powers of veto. There are certain powers of veto given to the central authority where the local authority refuses to pay its fair share.

I welcome this measure on behalf of the constituency I represent, as in County Offaly there is wide scope for drainage work and also in the County Laoighis. I should like to say, however, that it would be well, in starting off, that certain extra work that is required to be done on schemes carried out since the 1925 Act and on the Barrow drainage scheme, which in fact is only 70 per cent. complete, should be carried out. We have to remember that the lower regions of the Barrow from Carlow down have not got any benefit so far from that scheme. Many thousands of tons of water have been released by that scheme and flow freely down to Carlow and the country below it. Whether it is correct or not, I have been told that certain flooding has occurred below Carlow. We have to be fair in this matter, and I say that important works like that should receive early attention.

In the districts where the Barrow drainage scheme has been carried out there are tracts of hundred acres of land where, by preparing a scheme of additions to the work already carried out and pushing tributaries further in from the river, an additional 600 yards here, a 1,000 yards there, and half a mile in another place, it would be possible for the farmers of these districts to proceed with the work of improving their lands. In that area there are some hundreds of acres of arable land that could be improved and brought into good condition if that work were carried out. But until these main tributaries are opened up the farmers will not be able to do the necessary farm drainage.

As to the powers that are rightly taken in the Bill to compel certain landowners to clean up drains on their land which are holding up the drainage of their neighbours' farms, I do not think any fair-minded farmer will disagree with that power. It is a necessary power. There again, however, I think there should be a proviso inserted. One farmer might have a main drain or artery flowing for 300 yards through his land and another farmer might have one for half a mile or a mile through his land. The job of opening up such a watercourse would be beyond the capacity of the farmer to bear. Such matters will require careful consideration from the central authority when the time comes for dealing with them. Now, when the measure is before the House, I think is the time for us to make what we think are fair and reasonable suggestions and to call the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to them so that they can be properly provided for before the Dáil gives its full assent to the measure.

Like others who have spoken, I want to pay a tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary for his clear explanation of this Bill and also for the memorandum which accompanies it. At the same time, I think it is right to say that it is high time that we had a Bill of this kind, as any drainage legislation which we have had since we got our own Government was of a very piecemeal nature. Nothing but dissatisfaction emerged as a result of that legislation. Those who are alleged to have benefited by the different drainage schemes carried out were always dissatisfied and, in a great many cases, refused to pay the rates levied on them.

On reading certain sections of the Bill, one might get the impression that the county councils were to be consulted before any drainage was carried out in their districts. On closer examination, however, we find that the drainage work in the particular area of a county council will be a fait accompli before the county council have anything to do with the matter. I think it is not good enough merely to tell the county council what is going to be done, and then, when the work has been done, to ask the county council to levy a rate in the area under their jurisdiction. I may be drawing a wrong inference from the Bill, but that is how I see it. Surely it is not too much to ask that the engineers of the Office of Public Works should enter into consultation with the local engineers, who are more familiar with the position so far as want of drainage in their area is concerned than perhaps abler men in the Office of Public Works. I suggest that some kind of consultation should take place before any scheme is undertaken. After all, the maintenance charges will be placed by the county council, by compulsion from the Government, on the ratepayers in the area under their jurisdiction.

I agree with the last speaker that we need not look to this measure as a relief of unemployment to any appreciable extent. Anybody who examines the figures will have to agree with that. It is suggested, and, I think, even definitely laid down, that the amount of money to be spent each year is £250,000. I think the Parliamentary Secretary said something which would lead us to infer that it would take 40 years to spend the amount of money which will have to be spent before drainage is carried out to any appreciable extent in this country.

If we take £250,000 and divide it between 26 counties, it will be found that there is only a sum of £9,615 for each county. The Parliamentary Secretary may say that the major schemes will be only in certain counties, but I suggest there is not a county in Ireland which does not need some drainage work carried out at once. If we relate that to what Deputy Gorry has said, everybody will have to agree that, as far as the relief of unemployment is concerned, this Bill will create a very, very small impression on that vast problem, which has confronted us for a number of years.

I notice in one section of the Bill that the Board of Works is entitled, and perhaps wishful, to arrange that work of this kind be given to a contractor. If that is to be the policy of the Government, the least we can expect is the insertion of a clause stating that any contractor who takes on work of this kind is compelled to pay a decent living wage. There were Housing Bills and other Bills passed here, in which the Government agreed to insert such a clause. This is very heavy work, work of a very dirty nature and of the kind that everybody would not like; and I hope the Board of Works will not try to have it done on the miserable wages paid under the minor relief schemes. Time and time again, this Party has raised the matter of wages paid on minor relief schemes. I hope the mentality which prevailed in regard to the wages paid on that particular work will not prevail in this instance. I ask the Minister to agree to accept an amendment, on the Committee Stage, which will be moved, to ensure the payment of decent wages to the men who will be employed.

In Section 5, the commissioners are obliged to publish in Iris Oifigiúil and “such one or more newspapers as they shall consider appropriate, a notice” and so on. Where a drainage scheme is about to be carried out in a particular county, the least that can be expected is that the local newspapers— each and every one of them—be asked to give notification of that fact. The people in the rural areas do not see the Government paper, and very few see the daily papers. It is the local papers that are important, so far as they are concerned, and it is in the local papers that the notice should be published.

Deputy Gorry referred to the River Barrow. As far as I can ascertain, £500,000 has been spent on the upper reaches of the Barrow. Not being familiar with the geography of the place, I am not in a position to judge what good has been derived from the expenditure of that money. I do know, however, that the River Barrow comes down from his particular county into mine—Wexford—and empties itself into the sea. In consequence of the fact that these banks have been built up, the energy of the water has been harnessed to a great extent and, as a result, it comes rushing down into County Wexford, overflowing the banks of the river and lodging an amount of silt, especially in the vicinity of the town of New Ross. Anybody who knows New Ross knows that the people's health has suffered as a consequence. There is no need for me to say at this stage from what particular disease they have suffered. The flooding that is created there always leaves a fog in the immediate environs of the town. It is hoped that the remedying of that will be one of the first works undertaken by the Board of Works, as soon as they get the necessary permission to proceed.

I have said I could not find anything in the Bill to show that a consultation would take place between the local authorities and the Board of Works before a scheme is undertaken. I would also like to know whether the county council mentioned is the actual county council or the county manager. Under the County Management Act, the county manager is often referred to as the county council. Is this a "reserved function" of the county council, or is it the county manager who will decide for himself what action should be taken by the county council in connection with any work of this nature?

I wish, in the first instance, to congratulate the Minister on introducing this Bill, and also to congratulate his Parliamentary Secretary. This is the greatest Bill that has been brought before the Parliament of this country since it was founded. It will confer great benefit on the poorer people, living along channels in various districts, who cannot go out to till their land for want of drainage. I have heard the various arguments put forward by Deputies here, and I think that, in the main, we should leave the principle of the Bill to the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary. I am sure they will provide all the necessary safeguards for people who might be badly handled.

I know small millers in various parts of the country—the Parliamentary Secretary knows them in his own constituency and I have some in mine— and, if there is not a certain amount of drainage done there, it may hurt these millers in another way. That may be the biggest problem this House has to face. In any case, in regard to what Deputy Corish has said, I think this drainage scheme should be worked through the county council and not through the county manager. In every county council there is a representative from each district and there is not a single representative who has not his own trouble. I have been a member of a county council for more years than I should care to confess, and I know well all the troubles that members of those councils have. They have no greater trouble than this drainage question. I think that if the Minister accepted the advice of the general assembly here as regards the county councils he would be acting wisely. Of course, there might be a veto by the county managers. Deputy Corish spoke about the wage which would be payable. I hope the wage will be a little bit better than that paid on the minor relief schemes. I think that that wage is a disgrace—and I speak as a member of the Government Party. I hope that every member in this House will support me in that. I am sure they agree with me.

Deputy Gorry, speaking about engineers, said that men of ability and experience were required. We have a large number of men in this country who are fully trained as engineers. We have ten or 12 such men in Longford town at the moment. The services of these young men would be very much appreciated if they went abroad. But they have remained with us. They are in our Army and in our L.D.F. Are we going to turn down those young men? It would, no doubt, be well to have an old and experienced man in charge but these young men could work under him. I do not see why we should not avail of their services. I have no doubt that this Drainage Bill will prove itself and that it will be the greatest boon this country has ever seen. But I do say to the Minister that the members of the county councils have the best knowledge of drainage. It is not because I am a member of a county council that I say that; I shall never stand as a candidate for a county council again. The members of these councils are small farmers or labourers and they have a good knowledge of the drainage of their areas.

Tá an-oiread cainte faoi'n dréineáil seo le coicís— ach aon áit amháin nach gcuala mé mórán cainte air: an tIarthar. Cheapfadh duine ar bith nach raibh a leitheide d'áit leis an gCoirib agus a chuid aibhneacha ann. Seo Bille amháin a d'fhéadfadh maith mhór a dhéanamh don cheanntar seo. Ach, más fíor a bhfuil ráite faoi, tagann an sean-ráite isteach go geanúil anseo: "an rud a theigheas i bhfad teigheann sé chun roighneadas." Deir daoine go dtógfa sé seo dhá scór blianta; má thógann, gabhfa sé chun an-roighneadas.

Anois, o tháinig an Stát seo i bhfeidhm, isé an taobh thoir den tír a fuair chuile rud—leictreachas agus tionnscail agus chuile rud eile a raibh maith ann. Mar sin, déarfainn-se go mba cheart an bhróg a chur ar an gcois eile anois agus tosuighe sa taobh thiar den tír. Ní féidir a rá nach féidir an obair faoi'n mBille seo a thosuighe sa taobh thiar den tír—i gContaethe ar nós Gaillimh agus Muigheo. Dréineáil an Choirib amháin, shábhálfadh sé go leor talmhan i gceanntar a dteastuíonn talamh go géar ann i bpoibleacha ar nós pobal Ath Cinn, Anach Cuain, Baile an Chláir, Magh Cuilinn, Cill Aininn agus a leitheide. Le blianta gairide anuas díbreadh daoine as ceanntar an Mhóintigh; scuabadh a gcuid féir agus móna agus gach rud eile a bhí aca. Cuirfidh an Bille seo deireadh leis seo má déantar aon bhlas leis agus má táimid dáiríre. Nuair a bheadh an dréineáil seo déanta, bheadh an talamh le fáil le haghaidh féir agus móna agus eile—agus béidir le haghaidh na neiteallán féin. Dhéanfadh sé maith do Ghaillimh agus don cheanntar timpeall air agus do Chúige Chonnacht fré chéile—mar isé Gaillimh príomh-chathair Chonnacht.

I think it will be agreed on all sides of the House that the question of draining the flooded lands of this country is not one of keen political controversy here. All Parties are anxious that our drainage problem should be tackled comprehensively. There is agreement on all sides that the problem should be tackled with speed, vision and courage. If this Bill would approach the problem from the point of view of implementing the recommendations of the Drainage Commission in a speedy manner, I think it would have a warm welcome in the House. But the opening speech of the Parliamentary Secretary and the general acceptance of the viewpoint that it will take about five years to get the machinery going and, possibly, three decades before the scheme of drainage throughout the country is completed, has enshrouded the Bill in an atmosphere of despair.

It has led to the belief that nothing very speedy will be accomplished so far as this Drainage Bill is concerned. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department will get very considerable support for a policy of speeding up drainage in every possible way. The drainage problem which we have to-day is the result of years and years of neglect. It is because of the neglect of the past that the problem is so acute to-day. Any delay in implementing drainage schemes throughout the country will only intensify the problem which confronts us and will necessitate the expenditure of larger sums of money in remedying the position. Generally, it will be calculated to intensify the national loss which flooding inevitably causes in this and every other country.

Notwithstanding that I fear the Bill will be implemented in a rather slow-moving manner, I welcome it in its broad aspects. It is highly gratifying that we are getting away from the befuddled mentality which was responsible for the local drainage schemes, as we have experienced them in the past. For the first time, this Bill does make a real effort to deal with drainage as a national problem. To that extent, the Bill will be welcomed by all Parties and all sections of opinion. Existing arterial drainage machinery is hopelessly cumbersome. If any machinery were ever devised so as not to work satisfactorily, it was the arterial drainage legislation in operation to-day.

These Acts were based on two fatal errors of thought. The first was that they could only be implemented on the local initiation of affected persons, and, secondly, that folk who objected to being levied for the improved value of the land could torpedo completely any proposal to implement an arterial drainage scheme, no matter how beneficial it might be from the standpoint of their neighbours, the county in which they lived, or the country. I am glad, therefore, that this Bill gets us away from the local drainage districts and the local drainage Acts, because I think these were calculated to impede any serious attempt to tackle the drainage problem of the country. I welcome the setting up of a central drainage authority. I think that if the Board of Works, with the talent it is capable of applying, tackles this problem it should be possible, given adequate encouragement by the Government, to make a rapid impression on our drainage difficulties as they exist to-day.

I think that the State is wise in accepting financial responsibility for the expenditure to be incurred in carrying out drainage schemes. Any attempt to throw that responsibility either on the local authorities or on the potential beneficiaries in catchment areas was bound to result in failure. By breaking away, therefore, from the huckstering mentality which has characterised previous drainage Acts, and by accepting central State responsibility for financing drainage schemes, I think the State has taken a very wise step, one which later on will prove to be even wiser than it may appear now to be.

I was rather surprised at Deputy Dillon asking the Parliamentary Secretary to be draconian in his attitude towards mechanisation in regard to such drainage work as will be carried out. I am afraid the Deputy's passion for efficiency in this respect does not do him justice. I regard drainage as a type of work which will provide considerable employment for our people in the rural areas where employment is scarce, and where it may become much scarcer after the war. If we have a vast drainage problem to deal with we ought to utilise our idle man-power for its solution in the different areas. It might, perhaps, from a financial point of view be more efficient if these drainage schemes were highly mechanised. Frankly, I have no use for a concept of life in which we should buy elaborate machinery from other countries and utilise it for drainage schemes, while at the same time our local unemployed people were seeking out the home assistance officer or were travelling to the labour exchanges looking for the employment which they could not get, and all because of our passion for highly mechanised schemes of employment in rural areas on drainage schemes.

The implementation of the proposals contained in this Bill will provide a fruitful source of employment in the rural areas. I hope that aspect of the matter will be kept in mind by the Department responsible for its administration. If we are going to have any really satisfactory drainage scheme, and not constant cycles of drainage schemes with long periods of quiescence from the point of view of activity, I think we had better link drainage with afforestation. I have seen drainage schemes carried out in certain countries in Europe. The one thing about them that struck me was the manner in which the reclaimed land was utilised after it had been drained. Those countries recognised, apparently, that afforestation goes hand-in-hand with a satisfactory scheme of drainage because the land drained is usually low-lying land. It is often below sea level. One of the best methods of using it after draining it is to reclaim and plant it. In that way you obviate future flooding, because reclaimed land, which is planted with trees, is less subject to flooding than land which is merely reclaimed and left there. The flood water drains in on it, and usually the bad condition of the reclaimed soil is such that it is not capable of dispersing the surface water underneath.

I suggest, therefore, to the Parliamentary Secretary that the utilisation of reclaimed land for afforestation purposes ought to be examined from the standpoint of obviating the necessity of having to go back again to drain land on which a considerable amount of money may have been spent in the early stages. I think that drainage, apart from the utilitarian value of it, is a means of improving land and increasing the fertility of the soil. I think also that it has a very considerable psychological benefit from the standpoint of our people. I do not think there is anything more despairing for people who live in rural areas than to be subject to constant flooding for almost six months of the year. During that period they are looking on flooded land, flooded roadways and have to traverse flooded boreens. They are surrounded by that dreariness and bleakness which goes hand-in-hand with constant flooding. I think that probably the greatest barrier to progress is the flooded condition of land. Very often when you try to encourage people in those areas to engage in certain kinds of activity on their land they say to you: "Ah, what is the use; the land is of no use; it is always flooded" Inevitably, the flooded condition of those lands has a corroding influence on the mentality of the people who live in these areas.

As I have said, I welcome the Bill from the standpoint that it breaks new ground. It is calculated to give us a national drainage board and, if implemented with efficiency and with a desire to bring this problem of drainage to a satisfactory conclusion within a measurable distance of time, will enrich the national estate by improving our lands and improving our lives. At the same time it will provide our people in the rural areas with a fruitful source of employment. There is one point I would like to emphasise, and it is this, that the Parliamentary Secretary, instead of being satisfied with the mentality to spread this work over 30 years should see that an effort is made to implement the scheme of the Bill with the utmost expedition. Once having embarked upon a national scheme of drainage all the efforts of the central drainage authority ought to be concentrated on pushing the work ahead as vigorously as possible, recognising that the completion of that work will mean a better life, better land and better prospects of employment in those rural areas where drainage schemes must be undertaken.

I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on having introduced this Bill. I noticed a welcome departure in his introductory speech from that of other Ministers bringing forward new legislation. He invited suggestions from Deputies, and said that he would be prepared to accept improvements which they suggested. One important aspect of the Bill is that it proposes to deal with submerged land. A good deal of employment could be given in that direction. The Bill in its present form is going to impose some heavy burdens on the ratepayers. I appreciate the Government's difficulty in fixing the area of charge for the works that may be undertaken. The proposal to levy a county-at-large charge is going to inflict a heavy burden on people with accommodation land in urban areas. They may have ten or 12 acres on which they keep cows for the purpose of supplying the townspeople with milk. The owners of this land, unlike land occupiers in the rural areas, do not obtain any relief from the agricultural grant. They have to pay both urban and county rates. Therefore, if the extra burden foreshadowed in this Bill is going to be imposed on them, it will be more than many of them will be able to bear.

I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to make some effort, perhaps on the Committee Stage, to exempt the owners of land in urban areas— there is only a small number—from the county-at-large charge. I agree with other Deputies as to the desirability of a central authority. The question of maintenance is an important one. In the case of our main roads, there are grants of 40 and 50 per cent. given for maintenance purposes, and I think in the matter of drainage there should be some encouragement given to our local authorities. At the moment, with the county manager system operating, the position is somewhat different to what we were accustomed in the past. At the same time, I think there should be some inducement offered to county councils. We should encourage them to strike a rate for maintenance purposes and in that connection I suggest that there should be a contribution somewhat similar to that given in respect of roads. That might induce the councils to agree to take over portion of the maintenance. I think there should be some consultation with the county councils on this subject. When the demand for maintenance comes up, they will be asked to strike a rate and I think it would be well to consult them, on the matter beforehand. Unless you give them some inducement, I can foresee that when the demand for maintenance comes you will meet with considerable opposition.

In the course of the debate it was stated that there will be no control in this House over the expenditure on the drainage scheme. It will be necessary each year for the Government to introduce an Estimate, for £250,000 or whatever the amount may be, and there is nothing to stop a debate on the question of drainage and Deputies, if they are not satisfied with the amount of money proposed to be expended, will have every opportunity of asking the Government to increase the amount, if they consider there is room for further employment.

On the question of wages I suggest that, in order to get the co-operation of all Parties, and in order to make this national drainage scheme a success, we should have a consultation with every trade union, with the people catering for organised workers in the drainage districts. In that way we can reach agreement as to a reasonable rate of wages. I believe if the Parliamentary Secretary adopts these suggestions there will be no disputes, he will have the co-operation of all sections of the community, and he will be able to provide in each drainage area employment just at the time we require that employment, and we will be in a position to give reasonable wages to the men who will carry out the work.

It is with great diffidence, as a new Deputy, I address myself to a Bill of such dimensions as the Arterial Drainage Bill, which runs into 40 pages, contains 57 sections and which has been already responsible for a debate covering 100 columns of the Official Report. I have no desire to delay the House with any lengthy contribution to the debate. I fear if I did attempt to delay the House the Parliamentary Secretary might carry out his threat to flood County Louth, and that would be very disastrous for my constituents. The only spark of hope I see amidst the gloom that surrounds the observations of many Deputies here is that an Ulsterman has charge of the Bill and, if there are any people in the country who have a reputation for getting things done, even in their own dour way, they are the men of the North. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will utilise his energy, enthusiasm and skill in implementing this Bill in the most rapid manner possible.

Some Deputies who have spoken—I think Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney was one of them—have asked for co-ordination between the Electricity Supply Board and the board which will be in charge of arterial drainage. I think it is absolutely essential, owing to the importance of hydro-electric undertakings, that these two schemes should be related. I agree with what Deputy Norton suggested, that we should also seek for the co-ordination of the Department of Lands in a scheme such as this. It is strange, to my mind, that the Department of Lands is ignored in a Bill dealing with arterial drainage. Undoubtedly, they should have something to say in the matter, particularly having regard to the relationship between afforestation and drainage.

I do not wish to detain the House long on the subject of afforestation, because it is an exceedingly large subject, one on which much has already been said. But, when you consider this question as a whole, when you consider the principle, you ask yourself why there is a necessity in such a fertile land as ours for such a scheme of drainage as is adumbrated in this Bill. It would appear to me, as a simple layman, not as a technician, that there has been some upset in the balance of nature. I do not think the existing situation is natural. I think it has been brought about by man; it is a legacy of the past; it has a historical origin, and it might be as well that I should refer to it now.

I suggest that there is not only an economic cause for the need of drainage in this country, but there is also a political cause. Up to the end of the 17th century this country was very largely wooded. We were then, of course, a subject nation, and the powers that existed then were acting in every possible way detrimentally to the interests of our people. The landed aristocracy did not look after the economic interest of the country. They hewed down the trees, denuded vast tracts, and as a result we have to-day this need of drainage. They were supported in their actions by the political powers, because those woodlands were the natural resort and refuge of the Rapparees and the political rebels of the day. There was a double purpose served—cutting down the trees and leaving our mountain-sides bare.

The result was that in the catchment areas, with which we have now to deal, there are no trees to gather a large percentage of the falling rain and absorb it, nor is the soil left in the condition which would enable it to retain a great percentage of rainwater. The result is that there is a very large overflow in many places. Now that we are legislating for the benefit of the people, we should endeavour to remedy some of the ill effects of that policy. I would strongly urge the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the advisability of securing the co-ordination of the Department of Lands and to couple their afforestation plans with whatever drainage scheme is formulated.

While I am in favour of local initiative, and criticise the Government for taking too much power in local affairs, in a matter of national and widespread importance I think, on the whole, there should be central direction. In this respect, having read through many of the debates, I cannot see a reason for the differentiation between central control in regard to the initiation of schemes, and the local payment of maintenance charges. We might have made a good job of this while we were at it. While I should like to hear the argument to the contrary, I cannot reconcile any good case being made for making maintenance charges a local one. It would be better to have that a widespread charge and, in that way, avoid a dispute as well as agitation that will probably arise owing to the different interests involved, and the degree that localities consider they have benefited by this measure. In the same way there will be a conflict of principle between local autonomy and central control that can be investigated on other stages. One matter to which I want to direct attention will cause discussion. It is concerned with the section dealing with bridges. Section 49 gives the commissioners control over any existing bridges and over water courses. It is difficult to see why they wish to have such power over watercourses. I imagine their concern would be about watercourses relating to drainage schemes existing or pending. They take power to direct the authorities how they should carry out construction work or alterations on watercourses. It would appear as if they seek too much power there, by wishing to have too much control over industrial companies, railways and local bodies. I cannot understand what concern it is to the Drainage Board how a canal bridge in Dublin is to be reconstructed or altered.

In regard to the method of announcing proposals Deputy Corish mentioned defects regarding notification to do certain work on the part of the commissioners. That is to be done in such a way that it may affect smallholders detrimentally. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to look into the matter again, and to see to it that notification of intention to do certain works should be published in the local Press and read by smallholders who may be adversely affected. That should not be overlooked.

I wish to associate myself with the remarks of other Deputies regarding the wages to be paid. It is a serious defect not to mention in this Bill that standard trade union wages will be paid. There should be inserted in it what is known as the fair wages clause. Omission of that provision will react very detrimentally on the prospects of those who will be employed. The financial provisions have been referred to by other speakers. It is not necessary to say any more than to point out that there are no definite financial regulations. This Bill is just an attempt to show how work could be done, and speculation on the financial provisions would be beside the point. We could make a good case concerning the provision of national credit for such work, but I do not think it could be done by piecemeal methods. It could not be applied to drainage alone, but applied nationally and would require a complete review of our whole financial and economic philosophy. Until that day comes the object of this measure will fail in its final effects, as it will not produce the good that could be got out of it if we had men of good intentions to put them into effect.

This has been a fairly protracted discussion, and the number of Deputies who participated in it can be taken as a fair indication of the importance of this problem of drainage. I listened carefully to all the points made by the different speakers and I took a fairly elaborate note of them. Some were of a critical nature, and others were directed towards obtaining further information concerning certain provisions in this measure. I do not propose to cover all these points now, but I shall try to select those to which the greater number of Deputies referred.

One criticism I would not mind if it had been offered by inexperienced members of this House, but it came from members with long experience here. They complained that these were merely machinery proposals. This Bill was called a machinery measure, an enabling measure, and was referred to as a promise to drain land. That is the very thing we want to do. This measure was introduced because the machinery that was in existence was inadequate for the task. The Act under which we were operating for a number of years was found to be insufficient, and it was because of that fact that the Drainage Commission was set up. It was as a result of their inquiries, investigations and report, that this measure, which is, in fact, a machinery and an enabling measure was introduced. The criticism was carried a stage further by experienced Deputies who said that there were no financial provisions and nothing to indicate that, from the financial point of view, the Government is committing itself to anything. I think that criticism is unfair and misleading, for the very good reason that when the Government set up a commission to deal with a problem of this kind, when that commission reports, and when the Government, having carefully examined, not only the majority but the minority reports, deliberately commits itself to acceptance of the main outlines, and follows that commitment by the introduction of these proposals, and when the Minister for Finance, in the name of the Government, takes those steps and conveys those very positive indications to the public, there can hardly be any question as to the manner in which money to enable the drainage authority to give effect to the provisions of this Bill will be provided.

While I am on that point I should like to say that the manner in which the finances of this measure were to be provided should have been clear to Deputies because that is covered by Section 3 of the Bill. There has been projected into this discussion the suggestion that because the Minister for Finance controls the purse and provides cash, not only for the drainage authority but for all other Departments, he will not be anxious when schemes are submitted to him for his sanction by the drainage authority, because of the fact that there might be a strain on the public purse, to afford the necessary sanction. The further suggestion was made that when this measure receives the approval, in its present or in an amended form, of this House, the House will have lost all control and that we will have lost all initiative. When I think of the number of hours that have been spent, and wisely spent on the Second Reading debate, indicating as I said at the outset the importance of this problem of drainage, anyone can ask himself and find for himself the answer: how could any Minister for Finance, even if he had the desire, which is something that I am not prepared to admit, resist the demands that will be made in this House, having regard to the fact that the machinery for doing the job will be at hand? How could he resist the demands of the House to provide all the necessary money to enable that machinery to be fully operated?

To those then who criticise these proposals because of the fact that there is not, as they claim, any indication of the Government's commitments from the financial point of view, to those who criticise the proposal from the point of view that we are losing control and initiative and handing these over to the drainage authority, I would say that the method by which it is proposed to provide the money in Section 3 of the Bill gives to this House a control that this House should be very glad to get. It may be suggested, and it has been suggested, that the sums that would be required when the drainage authority has set up its organisation would be fairly large in any one year. In last year's Estimates for the Office of Public Works, £250,000 was provided for the reconditioning and the improvement of schools and the building of new schools. I think I am correct in saying that if the circumstances of the times permitted and if materials were available, the Minister for Finance—anxious and all as he would naturally be to protect the public finances—would be very glad indeed to provide a much larger sum for that very deserving and desirable work.

I say that if a sum of the magnitude of £250,000 was provided last year and almost £250,000 the year previously, for works such as school building and school repairs—work which is in itself no doubt important—then it is certainly unreasonable to think, having regard to the public demand that has been displayed in this House for the last couple of weeks in relation to the problem of drainage, that the Minister for Finance, whoever he might be, would have any qualms about providing £250,000 for that work, or even more, if it were possible to set up an organisation that would be able to spend that sum.

Some Deputies referred to the matter of the rate of progress to be made, and they seemed to have the impression that there was something vague in what I said. I have not since then read the report of my statement and I do not know how it may have read, but I know what I should have said, whether I said it or not. I did not commit the Board of Works, the central drainage authority, myself, the Minister, or the Government to expend £250,000 per annum. I merely gave to the House what was given to us in the report to which I have referred. There are many people interested in this drainage problem. I am personally as interested in it as any Deputy in this House. Apart altogether from the fact that I happen to be at the moment in the Office of Public Works and that, as a person charged with responsibility, I will try to discharge it to the best of my ability, I have an interest in this matter of drainage at least equal to that of any other Deputy from any part of the country, and I am anxious as a Deputy, apart altogether from the responsibilities to which I have referred, to see this matter of drainage being tackled in the most energetic manner. But, there is no use in going out to the country and allowing a feeling to be created and to get abroad that something can be done which you know cannot be done.

I believe that in a matter of this kind the wisest and best course for a public man to pursue, especially a person who has well, a limited amount of responsibility, is to ensure, if possible, that he will in performance exceed that which he promises. No Deputy will be more pleased than I if, with the passage of time, we find ourselves in a position to reach a much greater speed than has been indicated as possible in the report of the commission.

I had another purpose—and I tried to make that clear also—in giving that warning, as I intended it to be, to the House. As a person with experience equal to that of most lay people, I knew that many of these flooded areas were suffering largely because of the amount of neglect that had resulted from the failure of the authorities responsible to maintain them in a proper condition. And, knowing that on the appointed day these boards and trustees would be abolished, and knowing that as and from that day these areas would be transferred to local authorities for maintenance, I was anxious to secure the support of all those Deputies in this House who are members of local authorities, so as to press those local authorities for a much higher degree and much higher rate of maintenance than had prevailed for a number of years. I deliberately set out to give the House and the country an idea of the enormity of this programme of work. No matter how energetically or expeditiously it is tackled, the time factor is there and cannot be got over. It was because I realised that that I gave that warning, in the hope that it would result in securing on the part of these local authorities a much higher degree of maintenance than had obtained when these drainage districts were being looked after by the drainage boards and trustees.

During the course of this discussion I was asked a number of questions, such as, what is an arterial drain. I was asked also to give an idea of what would be the cost per acre of all lands that would be improved under these proposals. I have told the House already that, like most members of the House, I am a lay person. The Drainage Commission was composed of engineering experts of the Board of Works, experienced and competent county surveyors and men who were competent farmers and, taking them all in all, they were a body of men and women who, if a question of that kind could be answered, would be likely to produce an answer.

They, apparently, were not able to define an arterial drain and, if Deputies look at the report, they will see that they said they had given some thought to it but that in a matter of that kind it would have to be left to the judgment of the engineer who was in charge of the preparation of the proposed scheme for the catchment area. The general approach to the question of what is an arterial drain and as to how far drainage should be carried out is that the object of a drainage scheme is to carry out such works as will enable all the landowners in the drainage district to make contacts with these main rivers. That is as near as you will get to a definition of what is an arterial drain—a question that I was asked by many Deputies.

On this matter of what it would cost per acre, the same difficulty arises. A Parliamentary Question was addressed to the Minister for Finance to-day seeking information as to a more up-to-date estimate of what the drainage proposals envisaged in this Bill would cost, having regard to a number of factors that have entered into the situation since the report was prepared. Again, if the report of the commission is carefully read, it will be seen that there is nothing firm about the figure given there by the commission. They went out of their way to protect themselves in their estimates as to cost and as to the amount of land that was likely to be relieved as a result of the expenditure of that sum of money.

Although there is nothing positive about the figures, to show the House how correct they were in taking that attitude, I will refer to the Brosna area which is at the moment being surveyed. The Minister for Finance was to-day asked a question in that connection, and the reply was that survey work has been proceeding for the last 12 months in the Brosna catchment area and that some 600 miles of rivers had been surveyed, affecting in all 300,000 acres. When our engineers went down there, the area which was estimated to benefit as a result of the drainage scheme on the Brosna was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 30,000 acres, and, while I cannot give any firm figure as a result of the investigations and the survey work done there, I can say that in all probability that acreage will prove to be in the neighbourhood of 40,000 when the scheme is carried out.

It would not then be either feasible or wise that a meticulous survey of the whole country should take place, having regard to the fact that when that survey, which would extend over a great number of years, had been completed, there would not be the organisation necessary to tackle the work and that by the time the end of the work had been reached, some of the reports, some of the surveys would be out-of-date and it would be necessary to have them all done anew.

You could change Irish into statute acres, could you not?

I have not set myself any such problem. That is not how I arrive at the figure of 40,000 acres, of course. Some members of the Labour Party and, I think, one member of this Party also, referred to one matter with which I should like to deal, that is, the insertion somewhere and somehow in these proposals of a fair wages clause. I do not know what they meant by that. I will tell the House what I think about it. Just as I should like to see drainage undertaken so, too, would I like to see every man in this country getting a living wage, just as well as Deputy O'Leary and Deputy Carter, but soft talk about living wages does not get anybody anywhere.

But if you had——

Now let me deal with this matter and the Deputy can deal with me if and when his opportunity comes along. There is one thing which I cannot, and never could, understand about these demands for certain standards of wages on arterial drainage works. I never could understand how you could justify paying to an unskilled labourer a higher wage for reclaiming land so as to put it into production than is paid on land which is already fertile to a worker who is engaged in producing the things we eat, the things which keep soul and body together. I can see that when you bring workers together, when you group them together, whether on bogs or on arterial drainage schemes, you will always give an opportunity to somebody to agitate and organise, but if any man can show me how you can justify paying a higher rate of wages for trying to bring land into a condition in which it can be used for the production of food than you can pay on the uplands which are already fertile to men who are engaged for longer hours, I should like to hear him make the case.

That is not the point which was raised.

It is not the point at all.

I know it is not the point which was raised, but it is the angle, and the only angle, from which this matter can be fairly and intelligently approached.

Read Section 43.

I am not talking about this question of machinery at all. I am talking about those who get up and make these demands. It is, of course, a grand thing; I have heard it not only in this House but at meetings of local bodies where men stand up and say: "We will give them this and we will give them that," but if the Agricultural Wages Board decides that agriculture is in a sufficiently prosperous condition to enable it to pay £3 per week then I certainly say that unskilled men employed on drainage are entitled to that wage, and, as the agricultural wage goes up, I will admit that men employed in the reclaiming of land in this manner are entitled to a similar wage: but it is nonsense to suggest that a higher rate of wage should be paid for the reclamation of land which perhaps can never become as fertile as the land on which only the standard rate of £2 per week is now being paid.

Surely the Parliamentary Secretary will admit that £2 per week is not sufficient?

It is not for me to admit anything. This Dáil has set up machinery for the examination of that question and for determining from time to time what should be the wages payable to agricultural workers. If, as a result of their examination tomorrow, they find that agriculture can afford to pay a higher rate of wages than the present rate, well and good. If you are trying to convince me that it is sound economics to pay a higher rate of wages for trying to reclaim rather doubtful land than can be paid on the fertile lands of this country in the production of food, etc., you will never succeed in convincing me that that policy could be sensibly pursued.

You are not dealing with the point raised. The point is the wages on contract work, building bridges, etc.

I do not propose to deal with the building of bridges, or the building of this or that. I am talking about the wages to be paid to unskilled labourers employed on drainage works. I say, not only in relation to men employed on drainage works, but in relation to unskilled workers employed by local authorities throughout the country, that the agricultural rate of wages should determine the wages to be paid to men engaged in such work.

By a contractor?

By anybody.

That is the point. We have you now.

There were a number of other matters raised, such as the position of the drainage authority, arrears of maintenance, the amount of survey information available, the amount of survey work done during the last nine or ten years the result of which is available in the Office of Public Works and the authority that is proposed in this measure. I have not time to go into all these points, but any I have not dealt with can be covered during the further discussions that will take place on the Committee Stage. There are some sections of the Bill upon which Deputies may wish to get information and some sections which Deputies may try to have amended, and whatever has not been dealt with by me during the few remarks I have had time to make, I will be only too glad to deal with during the discussions on the further stages of the Bill.

On the point raised by members of this Party——

If the Deputy wants to ask a question, he may do so.

——in relation to Section 43, if the Parliamentary Secretary does not want to answer the point, the Minister for Finance, who has to find the money, may be willing to do so. Is it the intention of the Parliamentary Secretary, or the Minister for Finance, who provides the money, that the fair wages clause in relation to Government contracts will be applied so far as contracts are given out by the central authority under Section 43?

The Deputy will have an opportunity on the Committee Stage of putting that question.

Section 43 is inserted for the purpose of giving us, if we so decide, the right to have some of this work carried out by contract and, in so far as the conditions that will govern the giving of such contracts are concerned, whatever policy the Government has pursued up to now will be pursued in future.

That is better; that is an improvement.

We have not been so bad after all.

With regard to outstanding liabilities of local authorities, drainage boards, or trustees, the Parliamentary Secretary realises that if a Deputy puts down an amendment the Chair may rule it out of order.

We have made provision for this already.

The matter was raised by a few Deputies and the Parliamentary Secretary has not adverted to it.

You can ask us to accept these liabilities; you can ask us to accept responsibility for future maintenance. In my introductory statement I tried to safeguard myself in inviting Deputies to put down amendments and to give them an indication as to the type of amendment we might accept inside the financial framework.

I am making no advance pronouncements in relation to possible amendments.

We have a fair idea.

Question put and agreed to.

When is it proposed to take the Committee Stage?

Tuesday, 14th March.

Might I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that this is a very big Bill which is being followed with great interest and that the time suggested is too short?

We shall not press the House on a matter of that kind.

The Committee Stage will be fixed provisionally for that date.

Yes, if Deputies are not ready to take the Committee Stage then, a week's delay does not matter.

Committee Stage Fixed provisionally for Tuesday, 14th March.

The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 3 p.m., Tuesday, 14th March.

Top
Share