To whatever extent local authorities are found to be in need of the powers that are sought in this Bill, an excellent case can be made for providing them with such powers, but, just as did Deputy MacEntee on Thursday last find it difficult to justify the section which proposes to confer such powers, I find myself more or less in the same difficulty. I have, it is true, only a limited knowledge of local bodies. I was a member of a council for a number of years and also chairman, and I confess that, while the conditions there might not be analogous with the conditions in other areas, during my period we never as a council found ourselves unable to tackle any of the problems that are mentioned in this Bill. It may be that we had those problems and it may be, too, that those who were responsible for attempting to solve them saw that there were legal barriers that made it impossible for them even to approach the matter; but I, like Deputy MacEntee, must confess that while I see the need for providing local authorities with such powers, in my experience I have not met with any case where the local authority was prevented from carrying out any improvement for the purpose of safeguarding a road, bridge or any other property that happened to be owned by the local authority with which I was associated.
The strange part about this matter is that, while I have for years experienced trouble as a result of the flooding of roads—and I am sure that we have had as much suffering in my own county as a result of the flooding of roads in the winter months as any other county—I find it hard to reconcile my own limited knowledge of that problem as a layman with the proposals that are contained in this measure and with the proposals in the circular which was issued by the Department of Local Government, with the authority of the Minister, and sent to county councils, suggesting to them the sort of work that they should undertake when this measure becomes law.
Even before the introduction of this Bill county councils have had to decide to raise the level of a stretch of road in order to eliminate flooding. They have done that sort of work for many years to my own knowledge, in some cases with success. Suppose they were to continue to raise the levels of certain stretches of roads subject to flooding and at the same time proceed, as the Minister in his circular has instructed them. My understanding of their doing these two things at one and the same time leads me to the belief that while a county council might be engaged in raising the level of a road adjacent to a main artery in order to relieve the flooding on that road and remove any impediment to public traffic, some confusion might arise from the instructions contained in this circular, where the Minister invites councils as follows:
"In selecting works preference should be given to the less elaborate types of schemes which can be expeditiously undertaken with the consent of all parties concerned and which have the added advantage that the employment given on them will be more widespread."
From the point of view of employment I can quite easily see the force of that argument and the weight of that advice. But I can also see that a county council engaged on minor works of that type might quite easily, as the saying goes, add fuel to the fire, because a county council might be engaged in raising the level of a county road in the lower reaches, in order to prevent flooding in the winter months, while ignoring the effect of small minor drainage works in the upper reaches.
Without attempting to paint an unreal picture, I can quite candidly say that there are areas in my own county where, if the suggestion made in the circular is given effect to by the county council, while at the same time taking advantage of the powers that have been conferred upon them to carry out works for the protection of roads and buildings from flooding, the county council will undertake the impossible; because, while in one place they will raise the level of the road, in some other place they will carry out work which will have the effect of increasing both the speed and the volume of water flowing to the low-lying parts.
There is another point to be considered in relation to the relief of flooding where public buildings are concerned. I have no particular building in mind that might be affected by flooding. We have not got such buildings in my county. But I know quite a number of bridges and I know quite a few stretches of public road. Apart altogether from the question as to whether or not the county council has at the moment the legal right to go in and carry out works on the eyes of a bridge or adjacent to the eyes of a bridge. I cannot for the life of me see how the flooding caused by the obstruction can be removed without in many cases carrying out works not only adjacent to the bridge but many miles away from the bridge.
Here is another difficulty that I see. No provision is made here for consultation as between local authorities. One Deputy supporting this Bill suggested that we are going to have 27 different authorities dealing with drainage. It is because of the confusion that will result from that that we are critical of this measure. I cannot see why there should be any complaint made against us on that head. Speaking on a drainage motion recently, I admitted quite frankly, to the extent of my observations on that motion, that I was confining myself to the particular kind of drainage problems about which I had personal knowledge from watching them through the course of my life and from very often finding myself embarrassed by them. Let me emphasise that, while we see in the powers that are being sought, there is nothing to oppose in principle in conferring these powers on the local authorities, I can at the same time visualise occasions on which these powers might be improperly used for the purpose of conferring benefits upon some to the detriment of others. That is all I wish to say on that portion of the measure which purports to arm local authorities with the powers specified in the Bill.
I come now to the second section, which purports to give to local authorities the right to carry out other types of work when it is in the public interest that these works should be undertaken. Some years ago, when discussing the Arterial Drainage Act, I made the point that drainage is such an important matter and so many people are affected by it that it is an excellent subject on which both Deputies and public men can make flowery speeches calculated to create the impression that this is a simple problem and that men down the ages were so stupid in relation to it that they failed to grasp its simplicity. The suggestion is now made that we have discovered in this Bill of five sections—described by one enthusiast in this House as a neat Bill —a solution to all the problems affecting those who own land subject to flooding. Now, if I were Minister for Local Government and having listened to some of the speeches that were made in support of this Bill, I would certainly feel embarrassed.
When talking about this question of drainage is it not a wonder that Deputies would invite not only those who listen to them but those who read them, either in the official records of this House or in the papers down the country, to think for a moment and ask themselves what has been said of this subject, even as recently as the last few months, by a man who has been employed and paid by the present Government for the purpose of making a report to this House and country as to the best means by which the waste lands of this country are to be rehabilitated? The most extraordinary attitude is taken up by those who support this measure. In their desire to take advantage of the popularity of drainage they seem to want to ignore the recommendations of this individual, from whom I shall quote in a short time. Further, we are told that it is on the basis of this report that not only under this scheme which is envisaged as a result of this Bill but under a scheme which is proposed for the rehabilitation of land by the Minister for Agriculture we are going to get those new proposals from the other Minister to which I have referred. What has Mr. Holmes, whose report, we understand, has cost the modest sum of around £400, to say about drainage? I do not want to pretend that everything stated by an expert must of necessity be accurate, but after all we must have some regard to the opinions of these people when we talk about problems such as these we have been discussing all day. I am now quoting from the report of Mr. Holmes, "On the Present State and Methods for the Improvement of Irish Land." In the paragraph dealing with marsh land he says:—
"A great deal of the marsh land on the river flats and around the loughs remains unproductive because of periodic flooding caused by lack of proper clearance further down the river.
It would, therefore, seem obvious that any scheme for straightening, deepening, and clearing a river should work up from the mouth. I understand that the Barrow scheme was begun in the middle and resulted in more serious flooding of the land on its lower reaches."
There may be something in that or there may not. I think there is a great deal in it. When we talk, as Deputy MacEntee and other speakers from these benches have during this debate, of the rights of private owners I want it to be understood that I would be the last person in the world to place the private person in a position to obstruct any national scheme to which adequate consideration and adequate time for planning had been given. My concern and the concern of my colleagues in regard to this matter result in our inability to see in those proposals the protection that we think the private owner is entitled to. For example, with regard to the question of giving an individual seeking compensation the right to go before a district justice, solicitors, lawyers, barristers and so on have disputed across the floor of this House as to what that particular section means. I do not know which point of view is right. The attitude I take up, as one who, I think, can properly claim to speak the mind of those who are likely to be affected by work under this measure, is that, if the scheme is felt to be desirable in the public interest—if there is a proper means of determining what the public interest is—I certainly would be the last not to arm the local authorities with adequate powers to deal with that problem.
Even the section seems to contemplate that the claim would be made in the area of the district justice where the work is being carried out. That suggests to me that the claim will be limited to damage that may result following a particular work, to any individual who may reside in that particular area. However, as I have shown in the case of the flooded road so a number of cases could be demonstrated in which harm would result not only as between one district and another inside a county boundary but as between work carried out say in County Monaghan having an adverse affect upon certain farmers and people in a neighbouring county. I should like to know how farmers whose lands adjoin the banks of a river flowing through two, three or four counties are to know when their rights are being interfered with as a result of the activities and the work being undertaken by a local authority of a neighbouring county. Again, because of the lack of provision in this measure for co-operation as between neighbouring local authorities. I can see problems arising as a result of which work that might be carried out in one county would cause damage in another. The damage following such work might seriously injure the property of people living well into a neighbouring county. There is no use, therefore, in our attempting to give the impression, in the course of the discussion here, that because this is a five section Bill and because it is a Bill drafted in such simple language, we can just sit here and let it pass without seeing what are its implications when it becomes law. From reading the Bill or the explanatory, memorandum I certainly have not the information one would need to have to stand up in this House and outside it to declare properly what one's attitude as a Deputy was towards this measure.
I am as anxious as any other Deputy to see this problem solved. I am certainly going to strive as best I can to ascertain what hardships may be endured by those who are affected by the measure. I have sat here during the whole course of this debate and I have heard Deputies speak of certain individuals who unreasonably withheld their approval to the carrying out of some particular work. They spoke of them as "cranks" and they talked of the benefits of which such "cranks." because of the stand they had taken, were depriving their neighbours upstream. But nobody once referred to the damage that might result to those who were downstream. Is it any wonder then that a layman like myself would feel dissatisfied on hearing from one side of the House the accusation from a legal person that this Bill contained only certain provisions as far as compensation was concerned, and, on the other side, a tendency not to discuss the matter as thoroughly as I should like to hear it discussed before I as a layman would be prepared to agree to it?
I have here a number of other quotations that I could give to the House in addition to the more recent one to which I referred from Mr. Holmes in connection with this matter of piecemeal drainage. I think it would be no harm to give these quotations in view of the sweeping statements that have been made on the benches opposite, not only by Deputies but by Ministers from whom one would, at least, expect caution and a certain amount of reserve in these matters. I do not want to give these quotations just to convey to the House that I am in any sense a worshipper of what these gentlemen have to say but, if you look at the names of those who were associated with the Drainage Commission, you will find on that body a very large number of men who, not only because of their technical training but because of their wide experience, had every right to speak with authority on the subject that we are now discussing.
In the Drainage Commission Report, at page 27, under the heading "Review of Past" here is what they have to say:—
"The outstanding feature of arterial drainage in the past is the piecemeal manner in which the work has been planned and carried out. The Barrow was the nearest approach to large drainage works designed and carried out in a comprehensive way. The Barrow Scheme entailed a consideration of the drainage problem affecting the entire catchment area.
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 get the machinery of the Act in motion, was repugnant to the idea of a planned drainage policy and facilitated piecemeal development.
The fact that drainage on this basis should have continued all through the years is the more remarkable in view of the recommendation made by previous commissions on this aspect of the problem.
In 1887 the commission presided over by Sir James Allport reported:—
‘We find drainage districts formed without any regard to the interests of the larger river basins in which they lie and so arranged as to escape their share of what should be a common responsibility. On the other hand, the boundaries of such districts are often so arranged as to impose on their promoters responsibilities which ought to be shared by others and to force these promoters to confer benefits on their neighbours towards the cost of which the latter contribute nothing. Instances occur in which some physical obstruction, which is, in an engineering sense, the key of the position, is left outside the boundary of a district, the board of which has no power to deal with it.'"
That is a quotation from the Report of the Drainage Commission of 1938-40. These reports were made by men who have some knowledge of the problem of drainage; yet one would gather from the discussion that there was no obstacle to just starting up and, as one Deputy said, having 27 different local bodies operating as drainage authorities without any plan or any approach to this problem in a constructive way. I want to say to the Minister for Local Government—and I am saying it in no sense of trying to be obstructive or unreasonable—that if the policy he has enshrined in the document which he has issued to local bodies, is followed in a very large area of the country of which I have considerable knowledge, I can see that enormous damage will be done miles away from the actual work on which the local authority might be engaged. I want to remind him that if, say, the local authority were, as a result of its consideration on a matter of that kind, to decide that because of the danger to which certain people on farms removed from the proposed work might be exposed, not to go ahead with the work, I am naturally sceptical as to the powers which are conferred on the Minister here to take action himself. I am not expecting that the Minister would be unreasonable in a matter of this kind, but he might have it conveyed to him to take certain action.
I think a Minister of this Government had it conveyed to him that a certain local authority was not doing its work as energetically as it might regarding housing and the Minister in question fell for the advice and afterwards, of course, more or less withdrew the attack which he felt he was justified in making on that particular local authority. I can see the possibility of a local authority, as a result of its belief that damage would accrue from a certain work, refusing to carry out that work, and I can see the Minister forced to take action over their heads and have the work carried out. Unfortunately, a considerable time must pass before the public would appreciate the extent of the damage and injustice done as a result.
I think I understand the point Deputy Maguire was driving at. If my interpretation of his remarks is correct, his warning was quite sound. According to the Act of 1945, all drainage districts have been transferred for maintenance purposes to local bodies. The law provides that these local authorities are expected to maintain these districts only in a condition similar to that in which they have been handed over to them. The land owners inside those districts have a legal right to compel the local authority to maintain the district as it was handed over. Suppose that the Minister, through the local authority, carries out under this Bill a number of small drainage works, such as those to which he has referred in his circular to county councils. Those works are not included in any drainage district, but are naturally flowing into drainage districts. Since many of those drainage districts are in such a condition that a local authority could not recondition them until a new scheme is prepared, the local land owners inside the district will have a claim against the council, as the position will be worsened if small schemes are carried out which flow into the area.
Members of this House, and Ministers as well, proceed to lecture us as to the duties of an Opposition, and give the impression that we are obstructing a Bill introduced a week ago. When the Bill affects the people in a way that we have made clear, and possibly in a way to which none of us have referred at all, surely it cannot be contended that it is unreasonable to have a fairly protracted discussion? The importance of this measure is appreciated by people whose lands are flooded and by many farmers who know that they have land in a place to which you cannot go to give relief as a result of this measure, no matter how anxious you may be to do so.
Certainly, if some of these new works are carried out on any kind of elaborate basis, they will not bring the relief that has been spoken of by Deputy Madden and others. He referred to districts that I know and saw myself—districts to which relief cannot be afforded by the passage of this measure. Many farmers living along those river banks cannot be as enthusiastic for this Bill as some Deputies would have us believe. They are the other way about; they see quite clearly that, if these small schemes are carried out in an extensive fashion, much harm will result to them.
Apart altogether from any criticism that might be levelled against this measure as to the absence of any provision for financing it—other than the Minister's assurance that free or full grants will be given to local bodies— there is ground for comment on the fact that the responsibility for the payment of compensation is being placed upon local authorities. I do not know what reason the Minister may have had in deciding that this burden should be carried by local bodies. The Minister must have received certain advice from his legal advisers, and also from his technical advisers on the engineering side, and I would like to know what that technical advice was, in both the legal and the engineering sense. Perhaps some of those who advised him have made clear the dangers of a measure of this kind.
It is spoken of by supporters of the Government as a simple measure and yet, to be candid with the House and candid with the Minister, and irrespective of any assurance I may get to the contrary, I can see in it only rush and haste and lack of consideration. Whether I am right or wrong in making this allegation, all I can see is a charge to get through the House some instrument which will serve as a stop-gap to cover an awkward situation. This is an attempt to plug a gaping wound that was created by the policy of the present Government in regard to road grants.
That may be wrong, but, believing that I know something about this problem, as do dozens of other rural Deputies, believing I know something about the damage that can result from ill-considered work of this kind, this measure to me shows evidence of haste and lack of consideration. I would be prepared to make any wager that those who we naturally regard as authorities on this subject, from both the legal and the technical angle, if we knew their minds, could not possibly stand behind the provisions of this measure and time will show to what extent the magnificent reception extended by some Deputies to this Bill is justified.
I say that not only because of the statements made by those who were employed by the State to recommend a policy and an approach to the solution of this as one of our greatest national problems, but because of the personal experiences of men who live in flooded areas, who have watched the effects of water and the results which a certain type of activity in one district may have on another. They believe, and I believe with them, that those who can see in this measure, if its provisions are made use of to any great extent, any solution of our problems are fooling themselves and time will establish the truth of that statement. While I admit that undoubtedly it is possible to bring relief to certain districts by following the sort of policy outlined in the circular sent to county councils by the Minister—I take it that will be the policy of the Department and the policy which local bodies will be encouraged to follow when the Bill becomes an Act—you will certainly create havoc in some other districts.
It is because I can see, apart altogether from what assurances we have got from Deputy Cowan and Deputy Esmonde as to the legal provisions of this measure, farmers with mill rights, with drinking rights for cattle and a thousand and one other rights who will be affected by its operation, that I, as a member of the Opposition Party, however much I may sympathise with those who seek in, in my opinion, this rather foolish way a solution of one of our most trying problems, will in this House see to it that, by voice and vote and otherwise, these rights are protected, while, at the same time, not in any way attempting to put the private individual more or less on a pedestal above the interests of the community. I feel that it is our duty to take that course and there should not be any question of trying to create the impression that a Bill like this should go through in a few hours. This is a long-standing problem, and there is no reason why, in order to make sure that these rights to which I have referred will not be tampered with, we should not give an extra week to its consideration.
