On a point of order, the Parliamentary Secretary has not yet intervened in this debate.
Private Deputies' Business. - Drainage Policy—Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:—
That in view of the extent of flooding throughout the country this year, the Dáil expresses its disapproval of the Government's inaction in failing to operate the Arterial Drainage Act passed in March, 1945, and calls for an immediate statement of the Government's policy in the matter.—(Deputies Thomas F. O'Higgins, James Hughes.)
The Parliamentary Secretary moved the adjournment of the debate, I understand.
He has not yet made his contribution to the debate. There is no desire to restrict him in any way. Normally there are only 20 minutes to go and Deputy Hughes is entitled to reply. Could we have an agreement that the Parliamentary Secretary will make his contribution to the debate at whatever length he likes and that Deputy Hughes will have the normal time in which to reply?
That will be 20 minutes. If there is general agreement, that could be arranged. No objection?
Agreed.
Deputies opposite have been insisting on a statement of Government policy with regard to drainage. That statement is very easily made. It is enshrined in the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, which was based on the Report of the Drainage Commission, 1938-40, paragraph 107 of which states that
"All future arterial drainage operations should be conducted on the basis of comprehensive schemes embracing entire river catchment areas and not otherwise"
and it is proposed to implement that policy as speedily as possible. But we will not be stampeded into ill-considered action, nor forced to take steps which, perhaps, would lead to the condemnation which we have seen in paragraphs 40, 83 and 84 of that report. In paragraph 40 of the Drainage Commission Report we are told that the Act of 1924, about which strangely enough speakers on the Opposition Benches were discreetly silent, did not achieve the results expected from it. It had been hoped that all the existing districts requiring overhaul would have been put into good order and handed over to the county councils for future management. It goes on to say:—
"Many complaints have been made to us in the course of oral evidence that the work was done in an arbitrary way without consultation with the local occupiers, that some of the work done was inefficient, that proper supervision and control was not exercised over the labour employed resulting in an uneconomic work and high repayment charges."
In paragraphs 83 and 84 they go on to say:—
"The outstanding feature of the Arterial Drainage Act in the past is the piecemeal manner in which the work has been planned and carried out,"
and—
"The Act of 1925 did nothing to alter the position. It continued the haphazard creation of individual districts without consideration of the interests, problems and requirements of river basins as a whole. The very method of initiating schemes introduced by the Act by which any six ratepayers could set the machinery of the Act in motion was repugnant to the idea of a planned drainage policy and facilitated piecemeal development."
That is a thing we want to avoid in the future and that is why the measure passed in 1945 makes it obligatory on the commissioners that all future schemes will be of a comprehensive nature. At this stage it might be well, perhaps, if we were to outline the procedure necessary under that Act.
In anticipation of the passing of the Act an engineering and valuation survey of the River Brosna was taken up in August, 1942, embracing an area of 95,000 acres and extending to rivers and tributaries for a total distance of 530 miles. That survey was completed in July, 1944. The designing of the scheme was taken in hands and a comprehensive scheme for the entire area was placed on exhibition on the 11th November, 1946. In accordance with their right some 50 persons have submitted observations which must be considered by the commissioners and any other observations submitted by the local authorities within a period of three months must also be considered in consultation with the Ministers for Industry and Commerce, Agriculture and Local Government. It may be necessary to amend the scheme in certain respects after that consideration and then the scheme will have to be submitted for the approval of the Minister for Finance. Added to that a survey of the rivers Glyde and Dee in the Counties of Louth, Meath, Monaghan and Cavan was begun in July, 1944, and was completed in November, 1945, involving a mileage of river and channels of 550 and embracing an area of 27,000 acres. The designing of the scheme is still in hands and it is hoped to place it on exhibition this year. As well as that the River Feale——
Would the Parliamentary Secretary make that clear? The survey work in these counties has been done—is that what you mean?
Yes.
No drainage?
No drainage—certainly not. As well as that the River Feale, including the Brick and Cashin, is also in hands. The survey was begun in July, 1945, and ended in August, 1946. There they are confronted with a difficult outfall problem. At the same time the opportunity was taken by the engineers in the district to survey other smaller areas—the Maine, the Lee at Tralee, and the Akeragh Lough and Banna.
The next point with which I would like to deal is the maintenance inasmuch as allegations have been made that the maintenance of existing schemes has been neglected. The appointed day under the Act was March 31st, 1945, when the drainage rates were abolished in favour of a poor law rate on the county at large. That, I might mention, relieved a great many of the alleged beneficiaries under the Act of 1925 of the blister that was imposed on them owing to the inadequate provisions of the Act to which Deputy Hughes, in the course of his remarks, referred. The control and management of these rivers were transferred to the county councils and, in accordance with Section 30 of the Act, the county councils have to submit reports to the Commissioners of Public Works annually. I have seen these reports and I am satisfied that the maintenance of these rivers is being carried out now in a much more satisfactory way than was ever possible in the past.
Reference was made to the negligence in regard to the Barrow. Deputy Hughes will be interested in this. In the year 1945-46 a sum of £7,184 16s. 1d. was expended on maintenance and in the current year 1946-47 a sum of £7,882 has been provided. With regard to the question of plant and machinery to which various speakers referred, since March, 1943, the Commissioners have been endeavouring to secure machinery adequate for the major problems confronting them, but so far with very little success. To date they have secured only two medium-sized dredgers but it is hoped to obtain two more fairly soon. Owing to the Government control in Great Britain where priority is given to firms engaged in housing, the excavation of coal, and the manufacture of cement and bricks, it will not be possible to obtain supplies of these dredgers before 1948. The position in the United States is somewhat similar.
Despite that handicap, however, it is hoped that as soon as the necessary legal formalities have been complied with, operations will be commenced on the Brosna. As an example of the unnecessary work imposed on the Commissioners under the 1925 Act no fewer than 669 petitions were submitted under that Act and of these only 60 were approved by the occupiers. The consideration of these petitions involved a considerable amount of unnecessary work on the part of the staff of the Board of Works. Of these 60 schemes approved by the occupiers 51 have been completed. In passing, I would say that of these 51 schemes not one of them was completed within the period of office of the previous Government, despite all the allegations that have been made about the delay of their successors in office.
It is obvious to any impartial observer listening to the debate that when Deputy O'Higgins approached this question of the motion standing in his name, he came to the House unprepared to deal with it and, on looking around, he saw that there was no member of the Party sufficiently interested to enter into the discussion. Then he sought to cajole me by an old Parliamentary trick to step into the breach and carry on the debate until such time as he would be ready. Because I did not do so, Deputy O'Higgins became angry. He was angry with me because, after six weeks in office, I had not completed the entire drainage of the country. He was angry with the Government because they kept his Party out of office for 15 years. He was angry with the people because they did not take him seriously. Who would take the Deputy seriously if we are to take his remarks, as reported, as a sample of his intelligence? I shall just quote a few of them. He told us in the course of his remarks that the previous Government had carried out the drainage of the largest river in Ireland —the Barrow.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary give the reference?
I shall. If the Deputy will look at column 1461, Volume 104, No. 10, down about the twentieth line, he will find this:—
"Despite all the trouble and turmoil of the times, during their short period they carried out the drainage of the biggest river in Ireland—the Barrow."
He went on to refer to that portion of the River Shannon at the confluence of the Brosna and the Shannon and said that he had paid a visit to that area. He added:—
"I happened to inquire down there how many people had left, how many young people had gone from that immediate area because of the lack of work, because there were no wages and no living for them there. The number was amazing and it was enough by man-power alone to drain that immense river."
Deputy O'Higgins seriously asserts that whatever the number of men, let it be 100 or 200, they could by man-power alone drain that immense river. Yet, while making a statement of that kind, that a few men like that, without any other assistance, could drain the River Shannon, he wonders why the people are not taking him seriously. I think the titbit of his remarks, which you will find reported in column 1462, was this:—
"The late Mussolini took over responsibility for Italy many years ago when portion of Italy was suffering from the same disability as we in this island."
He goes on to refer to the magnificent achievement of the great Mussolini in the drainage of the Pontine Marshes.
I thought it rather intriguing to hear Deputy O'Higgins in a moment of mental aberration falling back on the old ideas, giving an indication of the real mentality of the leaders opposite. He told us, incidentally, that that was the first operation of the great Mussolini. I think his memory is somewhat defective in that. My recollection is that the first act of Mussolini's political career was to march on Rome. If Deputy O'Higgins had been taken seriously some years ago in his efforts to found a similar organisation in this country, probably we would have seen a similar march in this country.
I think I have said sufficient to indicate that this problem of drainage is one that cannot be solved overnight. Statements were made from the Opposition Benches that my predecessor in office gave the impression in introducing the Bill that the problem was so urgent that we wanted the Bill forthwith and then that, having got the Bill, he did nothing to implement it. If there was one criticism that could be levelled against my predecessor it was that he had too pessimistic an outlook in regard to drainage. In my opinion, that was a realistic outlook. It is very easy to say that you can get all these things done overnight but, as anyone who has experience of drainage knows, unless the drainage scheme is properly planned and executed, your last position is going to be worse than your first. It is precisely because we do not want to commit the mistakes of our predecessors that we, in future, will be careful to ensure that every drainage scheme will be comprehensive and embrace the entire river catchment area.
With regard to the allegation of delay which is the obvious inference to be drawn from remarks of Deputies opposite, if any of them is interested enough I have a table which will give the facts in regard to the 1925 Act, the dates of commencement and completion of schemes, and it will be seen that both that Act and the 1924 Act were so defective in their financial provisions as to render the operations under them utterly useless. I say that it took the Drainage Act of 1945 to remedy that situation and to remove from the shoulders of the unfortunate people who were affected by these Acts, the blister imposed by such financial arrangements.
Has the Parliamentary Secretary not a word of hope to offer to the people of Kilkenny or are we to wait until there is a holocaust of human lives before anything is done?
I have already informed Deputy Coogan in reply to a Parliamentary question that I am not in a position to state when the drainage of the River Nore in Kilkenny can be undertaken. A similar question could be put down in respect to every river in Ireland as a result of the unprecedented weather we had recently. Flooding has occurred in nearly every river in this country, and not merely in this country but across Channel and on the Continent of Europe. I cannot give a categorical answer to the Deputy's question as to the exact date on which the work can be started or anticipate the decisions of the commissioners in this matter.
I do not know whether I should say that I was astonished by the Parliamentary Secretary's speech because, to be honest, I did not expect much from the Parliamentary Secretary. But one would expect that a man in his position, charged with the responsibility of looking after drainage, under the particular Act to which he referred would deal with the matter in a more constructive way. The motion before the House in the names of Deputy O'Higgins and myself reads:—
"That in view of the extent of flooding throughout the country this year the Dáil expresses its disapproval of the Government's inaction in failing to operate the Arterial Drainage Act passed in March, 1945, and calls for an immediate statement of the Government's policy in the matter."
So far as getting information is concerned, we got none from the Parliamentary Secretary. He merely indulged in abuse and vilification. He knew that was the only defence he had to a reasonable request from this Party for information as to what was happening in regard to national drainage and what was the Government's policy in regard to it. If the land of the country were as dry as the Parliamentary Secretary's speech, we would have no drainage problem at all.
The Deputy can be very entertaining.
At least I have some appreciation of the problem, and I am certainly realistic about what the people have suffered in the last few days. The Parliamentary Secretary is utterly callous and disinterested in regard to this whole matter. His attitude to this reasonable motion was wrong from the very beginning. When he was asked in a reasonable way by Deputy O'Higgins to speak after me, he refused to do so. Obviously, on a motion of this kind, the House would be anxious to know what Government policy was so that we could discuss and make suggestions with regard to the policy announced by the Parliamentary Secretary, but the Parliamentary Secretary refused to accommodate the House in any way. As a matter of fact, it was only with extreme reluctance that he took part in the debate, and we are speaking overtime now because he failed to come in when he should have come in and should have insisted on doing so.
I should like to explain that, during the latter portion of the debate, I was engaged in other business in the Seanad and could not possibly have been here.
The Parliamentary Secretary sat for a considerable time——
And, as the Deputy knows and admitted to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle less than half an hour ago, I attempted to speak on two or three occasions, but was not called by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
I said that the Parliamentary Secretary should get all the time he required to speak on this important motion.
Yes, but when?
Before we started this evening. Instead of dealing with this matter in a constructive way and bending whatever ability he has to giving useful information to the House, he indulged in abuse of Deputy O'Higgins. Deputy O'Higgins had good reason to feel annoyed, because the Parliamentary Secretary refused to announce, after my introductory remarks, what Government policy was. The Parliamentary Secretary's technique in the matter was to hold his hand, to withhold information from the House until the last moment. He is compelled to come in now, and, to accommodate him, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has to grant him overtime.
The Parliamentary Secretary indulged in most extraordinary remarks regarding what was done under the 1924 Act. Whatever was done under that Act was done. Nothing whatever has been done under the 1945 Act.
That is not true.
The Parliamentary Secretary told me a moment ago that no drainage work had yet been done under the 1945 Act. Survey work could have been done any time within the last 15 years. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that and he knows that we did not need an Act of Parliamentary to carry out survey work. It could and should have been carried out any time since the Drainage Commission Report was submitted and, in fact, that report recommended that that work should be carried out. There is no use in the Parliamentary Secretary attempting to give that type of excuse when the problem is a real one. Let us realise that we are living in a country which has almost the highest rainfall in the world. We should lead the world in national drainage policy and technique. I venture to suggest that we have not got an expert on national drainage in the Parliamentary Secretary's Department because they have no practical experience. We have neglected drainage so much that we have not got a man fully qualified and I am not reflecting on any of the technicians in the Department in saying that.
It sounds might like it.
They got some experience on the Barrow when that scheme was in operation and the Barrow scheme was practically completed when Fianna Fáil came into power. There is no use, again, in trying to suggest that nothing was done under the 1924 Act. Whatever was wrong with the 1924 Act —and no Act that was perfect ever passed this House or any other Parliament—we ought to appreciate that our ideas ought to improve as we grow older and that the experiences we glean from the operation of Acts ought to be an advantage to this Parliament and the country. I did not hesitate to refer to what I thought was wrong with the financial provisions because it was not my purpose to make any political capital. I am more concerned with getting real work done than in trying to make the mean political capital the Parliamentary Secretary indulged in. I have nothing but contempt for that sort of mentality, and it is the reason the country is in the rut it is in to-day, from the point of view of production and better standards for the people.
The Parliamentary Secretary, as I say, is utterly callous to, and disinterested in, the hardships the people have to suffer. He referred to the Barrow and the Nore and told us about some of the survey work done. The Barrow and the Nore flow through the finest land in the country, fine, fertile, arable land, and destruction and erosion are taking place there every day. We are permitting flood water to destroy valuable assets in the form of arable land, and that is not the greatest damage, because the damage being done to the health of the people is incalculable. I have witnessed in the last couple of days conditions in the town of Carlow and Leighlinbridge that are appalling. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary thought it worth his while to go down to Carlow, Leighlinbridge or Kilkenny to inform himself as to what the people were suffering, or does he feel that, now that he is a Parliamentary Secretary, it would be infra dig. for him to go down there to see what the poor people have to put up with and what they are putting up with silently?
No one can measure the loss which these conditions mean to the country in the matter of the health of the people —the appalling condition of their homes, left in a slimy, dirty and filthy condition, with sewage matter flowing through the doors. No one can measure the repercussions which those conditions have on young families. The attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary, the man charged with responsibility, is that we are not going to be stampeded into ill-considered action. For 15 years, they have done nothing in regard to drainage.
That is not true.
They have not thought of it in a constructive way.
Who carried out the 51 schemes under the 1925 Act?
Does the Parliamentary Secretary not know that there are rivers like the Nore, with which Deputy Coogan and the Minister for Education are concerned at the moment? The Minister went down there and saw for himself the conditions arising from the events of the past few days. The Bishop of Kilkenny and the leaders of society have shown extreme concern for the shocking conditions that have occurred there in the last few days. The Parliamentary Secretary knows well that it is unprecedented. That has occurred, not so much because the weather was unprecedented and the rainfall very heavy, but because the river has been neglected for years. The bed is silted up. There is vegetation in the centre of the river. Trees that have fallen across the river are lying there, blocking the flow. Then when the heavy rainfall occurred, we are surprised that we have the City of Kilkenny and Thomastown flooded and we are surprised that the same conditions obtain is Carlow and Leighlinbridge, on the Barrow. The Barrow has been drained as far as Athy and the job was a good one, but does not the Parliamentary Secretary appreciate that the waters are allowed to flood all the quicker on the town of Carlow and Leighlinbridge on the lower reaches? Does not the Parliamentary Secretary realise that there is valuable land at New Ross which, a few years ago was arable, and where shows were held, which has been a quagmire for some years past?
We talk about our resources and the development of the country while we allow valuable assets to disappear. The Parliamentary Secretary sits back and his defence is, we want to avoid in future schemes the mistakes that have occurred in the past. We must avoid them but I say to the Parliamentary Secretary, so far as the 1945 Act is concerned, of which he is boasting, that it contemplates carrying out the work on a comprehensive basis, an entire catchment area basis and completing the job. He must amend the Act in order to deal in a temporary way with the real problems that exist and that are causing flooding. If all the schemes are put on a list and we have to wait until the Barrow and the Nore are reached on the list, the people will have to suffer on for years. Temporary relief must be provided for these people and, if we cannot provide that temporary relief under the present measure—and I believe we cannot because it provides for a comprehensive scheme on an entire catchment basis —the Act must be amended.
One of the most important things that we must do in this House is to push this work forward and to get a very big scheme of national drainage put into operation. There is no use in doing it river by river on the basis of doing a complete job over a period of possibly 50 years. That is not good enough. We are exporting many of our young people. Great Britain reclaimed 1,000,000 acres during the emergency and brought them into production.
By drainage?
Great Britain reclaimed 1,000,000 acres of land. Does the Parliamentary Secretary know what that means?
I do quite well, as well as the Deputy, but it was not by drainage.
Definitely by drainage.
Definitely not by drainage.
It includes drainage. There are pictures of it, and I can give the Parliamentary Secretary some of them to look at in his spare time, if he wants them, where it was done by drainage, and by equipment, and by man-power. Irishmen worked on that job. Why cannot we keep those men at home and put them into employment to increase the wealth of this country? We prefer to give them as an asset to Great Britain. They are a liability on this country while they are being reared and educated and when they become an asset we export them to build up sterling assets that we will never be able to cash.
That is the policy. It has been a policy of neglect and the Parliamentary Secretary was not in a position to defend it because, he said, he is only a few months there. His predecessor was there. There are any number of rivers in this country that could be relieved to a great extent by manpower alone, without any machinery, and nothing has been done about it. If the Parliamentary Secretary will face up to his job, he will have put before this House immediately a substantial Supplementary Vote for this purpose and let us get on with the work and, if necessary, have the Act amended to provide temporary relief. If the Parliamentary Secretary has any appreciation of the problem he will realise the long period it must take to do the work on a complete catchment area basis and that very acute problems will be put on the long list. We cannot afford to put these problems on the long list. The Parliamentary Secretary must face up to his responsibilities and to the realities of the situation. I feel that the Act must be amended to provide temporary relief.
What does the Drainage Commission say on that matter?
I do not care what the Drainage Commission say, and I am quite sure the Minister for Agriculture has his own ideas about it also.
They know nothing about it, according to Deputy Hughes.
I never suggested they knew nothing about it.
But you do not care what they said about it.
So far as this is concerned, they did not refer to it. I am a practical man, and I use my eyes.
Read paragraph 107 and see what it says.
Possibly, the Parliamentary Secretary is over-studying the report, and is not giving enough of his attention to the problems. I give him this bit of advice: having studied it for so long, leave the report aside for a while and get down to the job of relieving the unfortunate people who have suffered so much and, if you have not the power in the Act, have the Act amended, and get the money that is necessary. The money cannot be spent to better purpose in the interests of the health and comfort of the people and in the interests of production. Appalling conditions have been created and in many cases finance has to be provided locally to help the people and to tide them over their difficulties. The Parliamentary Secretary has not attempted to deny that there has been neglect and that this matter has been put on the long finger. I hope he will make up his mind here and now to face up to his responsibilities and to get a move on.
Motion put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 30; Níl, 44.
Tá
- Beirne, John.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Cafferky, Dominick.
- Coburn, James.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Commons, Bernard.
- Coogan, Eamonn.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Everett, James.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Halliden, Patrick J.
- Hughes, James.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Norton, William.
- O'Driscoll, Patrick F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Sullivan, Martin.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Sheldon, William A. W.
Níl
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick (Co. Dublin).
- Butler, Bernard.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- De Valera, Vivion.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Healy, John B.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, James.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Loughman, Frank.
- McCann, John.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Ua Donnchadha, Dómhnall.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Giles; Níl: Deputies Kissane and Breslin.
Motion declared negatived.