I move amendment No. 1:—
To insert after line 13 the following definition:—
"the word ‘land' includes all privileges, easements, profits, rights and advantages whatsoever appertaining to, enjoyed with or appurtenant to land."
Committee on Finance. - Local Authorities (Works) Bill, 1949—Committee.
Will the Deputy consider whether that is met, and to what extent, by amendment No. 21 which he might have looked for?
I have seen that. I think that the Minister will agree with me that to put a long definition within the section itself is rather a clumsy way to overcome the amendment I have put in my name and in Deputy MacEntee's. I think the Minister must well appreciate that the usual method of defining a word and what a word is intended to connote is in the definition section and it would be more properly done in the amendment I have submitted. I also wish to point out to the Minister that his amendment, No. 21, is not as wide as the amendment I have submitted.
It is a matter for the Deputy.
He uses the words "or other rights," and if I took it that that would apply to such rights as conacre lettings I would be satisfied, but I put it to the Minister that the method in which I have submitted the amendment is the more usual way and that his amendment is a more clumsy way of meeting a situation like this.
Apart from the fact that land is not defined in similar Acts, I think the Deputy need not have any anxiety as far as the definition which is intended in this Bill. Land is defined in the Interpretation Act, 1937, and I think that as far as compensation is concerned the Deputy need not have any worries in view of amendment No. 21 which will be introduced. Land was not defined as widely as the Deputy would have it defined in the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, nor in the Relief Works Act, 1940. He raised the question of conacre rights and that would be included under amendment No. 21, but as far as compensation is concerned—and I think that is the Deputy's main anxiety—he need not have any fear in view of amendment No. 21.
Amendment No. 21, however, seeks to declare that the compensation is to be paid by the local authority concerned and that is mixed up with a definition of land. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle wants to know if Deputy Lynch wants to move his amendment in view of amendment No. 21. Amendment No. 21 includes as well as the definition of land the authority by which compensation is to be paid, two different things.
We are in the very fortunate position of having in the Government a number of Ministers who have a very extensive knowledge of law and this amendment of Deputy Lynch's is an important legal amendment. This is an important Bill which will affect rights and which is required for the purpose of easing a difficult situation all over the country and I think it would only be right if, in addition to the Parliamentary Secretary who is handling this measure, some of the other Ministers, particularly those who have a good knowledge of law, were present in the House.
Yes, but that does not arise peculiarly on this amendment.
It is a matter for the Government and does not arise peculiarly on this amendment, but I do not see why this discussion should be left to a handful of Deputies. If there is a vote on it we will have voted without having had the benefit of the best advice which is available to the Government.
The Deputy is not short of advice.
Since amendment No. 21 is bound up with another matter in respect of which there is at least one and possibly more amendments, I seriously suggest that the Minister accept this amendment. It is simply a definition and since there are other definitions in Section 1 of this Act he should accept it. It does not widen the scope of the Bill and in case amendment No. 21 is not accepted I think he ought to accept this definition of the word land.
I think it is adequately covered in amendment No. 21. In any case, there is no proposal to acquire land and the only question with regard to land is the question of compensation. That is covered by amendment No. 21.
The mover of this amendment might consider whether by actually defining land he does not thereby defeat his own purpose. The purpose of a definition is to restrict the application of a word and, if he seeks to broaden the scope of the compensation that may legitimately be claimed by those who suffer damage under the operation of any section of this Bill, surely his purpose would be to have the idea of land as broadly based as possible and to have it open to the widest possible interpretation. As it stands it is restricted to "all privileges, casements, profits, rights and advantages whatsoever appertaining to, enjoyed with or appurtenant to land". That seems to be very extensive to the lay mind, but perhaps when the legal gentlemen get it, it may be found that some set of circumstances may arise under which certain damage will not come under this very wide definition; whereas if the word "land" itself is understood in its normal meaning the lawyers can extend its definition to include probably any given case that arises requiring the operation of any clause dealing with compensation. It appeared to me, from that reasoning, to be unnecessary. I suggest that the Deputy would achieve his purpose by considering that aspect of it and, if he is so convinced, it might serve his purpose better to withdraw the amendment.
That advice would be all very well were it not for amendment No. 21. The mere fact that the Minister has seen fit to insert amendment No. 21 indicates clearly that there is something in this amendment No. 1. This amendment may or may not be defeated. In any case, it is bound up with the question of liability for payment of compensation and, therefore, I ask the Minister to accept it.
Would the Deputy not agree that the definition in amendment No. 21 goes farther than his own?
Would it not be possible to leave it over until we come to amendment No. 21, which seems to be the major issue?
In the case of the Arterial Drainage Act and the Relief Works Act, it was intended, under the provisions of the Arterial Drainage Act, to assume that damage would be done to land, and land was not defined in that Act. I do not think it is necessary to give any wider definition to "land," as it is clearly covered, as far as compensation is concerned, here. There is no definition of "land" here at all. I presume the definition is as it was given in the Interpretation Act of 1937.
One can appreciate the position in regard to this amendment. I think Deputy Lynch himself, from his own knowledge, should be able to tell the House what "land" means. I do not presume to have the knowledge that he has, but "land" is a very wide interpretation. Deputy Lynch should be able to tell us where in any Act, for the purpose of Acts of Parliament, the word "land" includes these things that he wants to bring in. That is why I made the suggestion when speaking a few moments ago. I intend to follow the advice of Deputy Sir John Esmonde on the previous stage of this Bill in regard to it. I would suggest to Deputy Lynch that he might say, for the information of the House, what the word "land" connotes in Acts of Parliament.
The Parliamentary Secretary has given us, as an excuse for not accepting this amendment, that the word "land" is defined in the Act of 1937. I would like him to give us the quotation, if he has it.
It is as follows:—
"The word ‘land' includes messuages, tenements and hereditaments, houses and buildings, of any tenure."
This covers more than that.
So does amendment No. 21.
Irrespective of the Arterial Drainage Act, this Bill may interfere with certain rights by the very nature of the Bill itself and, in particular, may interfere with rights that are very valuable to the small farmer. I have in mind, in particular, easements of different kinds affecting their rights to water and so forth. Any definition of "land" in any previous legislation. I respectfully suggest, does not cover casements and prendres of different kinds. There is no definition of “land” in this Bill except the one which the Minister is suggesting in amendment No. 21. As this is a Bill in which these small matters will arise, what is the objection to making the definition as extensive as possible to cover any matters that may arise?
The Deputy mentioned two matters—easements and profit-a-prendre. These two words are included in amendment No. 21. It is even wider than that.
This is bound up with the question of compensation. There is a further amendment down at a later stage to give a wider definition.
Amendment No. 41.
Compensation is the only thing concerned. There is no proposal in the Bill to acquire a square inch of land.
I know that, but there are proposals to interfere possibly with many of the rights that are pertinent to land. Therefore, whatever definition we put in this Bill must envisage covering all the different rights that may be interfered with. I must ask the Minister to accept this amendment or give an undertaking to the House that he will further amplify the amendment he himself has introduced.
Surely the Deputy does not suggest that because it might be tied up with compensation it is limiting the scope of the definition within the walls of the Act itself?
Of course I do. There was no definition in this Bill originally. This definition is brought in by way of amendment. Whatever artificial definition we give to the word "land" in this Bill is going to be the definition that will count. Any previous definitions of "land" will not cover some of the matters that may arise in the way of damage to easements, rights of water, rights of way, and so forth. Therefore, you have to give a very special definition to the word "land" in this Bill, so as to cover the different matters that might arise in connection with claims to compensation.
I do not know if Deputy Moran is being mischievous or just a little bit stubborn on this issue. Surely, if amendment No. 21 is to go through the House and become embodied in the Act, the definition of "land" there is as wide and as broad as any definition you can get? Surely any matter that is tied up with land as a whole will come within the definition?
There are a lot of people in the House who would be prepared to accept the definition of "land" in amendment No. 21 who would not be prepared to accept that the compensation is to be paid by the local authority. They might want the compensation to be paid by somebody else.
I suggest that Deputy Lynch should withdraw this amendment and allow it to hang on amendment No. 21, because, if you put a definition of land in the definition section, it gives rise to all sorts of complications. Obviously, the Deputy's intention is in regard to compensation, which is covered in Section 5 and amendment No. 21. If his amendment were accepted, it would throw entirely out of gear the right of entry in Section 4. Land is visualised in Section 4 as land in the accepted meaning of the term, and, if you try to read Deputy Lynch's amendment in with the wording of Section 4, it would obviously be ridiculous. I think the Deputy intends it to apply only to questions of compensation and consequently it should be dealt with on Section 5.
There is this difficulty tied up with the amendment introduced by the Minister that, in accepting that amendment, we accept not only his definition of land, but another principle altogether in connection with compensation. There are other amendments to be discussed dealing with the liability for the payment of compensation. The Minister's amendment, in addition to defining land for the purposes of the section, provides that a claimant will be entitled to be paid by the local authority concerned, but there are other amendments designed to provide the very opposite—that local authorities will not be called upon to pay compensation under the section, so that in accepting the Minister's definition of land, if we are prepared to accept it, we are automatically driven to accepting this other matter which we cannot accept.
The whole question of compensation will have been discussed and dealt with before we come to amendment No. 21.
I think the Deputy has missed the point altogether. His anxiety is to have the word "land" defined to include certain things, such as an easement or a profit-a-prendre, with a view to making the position quite clear when it comes to the right of compensation in Section 5. Amendment No. 21 goes much further than defining the word “land”—it gives a specific right to any person who owns a profit-a-prendre or easement to compensation, and, when the Deputy refers to the Minister's definition, he is not quite correct. Amendment No. 21 is not a definition. It gives the owners of certain properties, such as an easement or profit-a-prendre, a right to compensation, and, in these circumstances, it is not necessary to define the word “land” to include an easement or profit-a-prendre, apart from any other consideration whatever.
I would be prepared to accept amendment No. 21 as covering my amendment, with one reservation. Amendment No. 21 proposes to substitute a new sub-section:
(1) Any person who suffers damage by reason of any interference, caused by the execution of works pursuant to this Act or Order made thereunder, with any land owned or occupied by him or any easement, profit-a-prendre or other right belonging to him shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be entitled to be paid by the local authority concerned compensation in respect of such damage.
The reservation I suggest is that the sub-section should end:
... shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be entitled to be paid compensation.
I suggest it should stop there and, later on, the body by whom the compensation is to be paid can be defined. I will not dispute the argument that the Minister's definition may be wider than mine, but I certainly will dispute the insertion of this amendment in toto in substitution for my amendment.
There will be an opportunity on amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 to discuss who is to pay the compensation.
Could we leave it over until amendment No. 24?
Does the Deputy propose to withdraw amendment No. 1?
Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In line 20 after the word "thereof" to add the words "and shall also include any road (whether vested in a local authority for maintenance or not) over which a public right of way exists.
The amendment is designed to widen the definition, such as it is, of roads in the Bill. We can visualise different roads which may not be roads maintained by a local authority, on which there may be serious flooding, or a subsidence, or other matters that may have to be dealt with. There are other amendments suggesting that the definition should include bog roads or cul-de-sac roads, but I think that the definition of roads should be as wide as possible in order to leave a local authority free to deal with this particular type of flooding on roads. I think the Minister should accept the amendment.
If I thought it necessary I would accept the amendment, but I do not think it is at all necessary. The definition of "road" is taken from the Local Government Act, 1925, and it is as set out in the Bill. The Deputy would limit the work which local authorities could undertake in this respect, because his amendment refers to a road over which a public right of way exists. If it is not a road which comes within the jurisdiction of a local authority, or which a local authority has responsibility for maintaining, it can be regarded as land. Any road which is not a public authority road may be regarded as land and it may be relieved of flooding under sub-section (3) of Section 2. In short, a road which is not a road may be considered as land.
I do not accept the Parliamentary Secretary's interpretation. In the first place, in the definition section, the word "road" means a public road and a public road only. You may have just as difficult and just as urgent a problem with a bog road which serves quite a number of people—it may be subject to annual flooding, with the result that people cannot use it— or with a cul-de-sac road or other types of roads which would not be classified as public roads. I am not prepared to accept the argument that, if it does not come in under "public road", it can be regarded as land. I cannot see, in view of the other terms of the Bill, what the objection is to bringing in all roads, because there is still the discretion of the local authority and the discretion of the Minister to deal with the matter, as well as the different checks and safeguards provided further on in the Bill.
Why should we limit ourselves, as I suggest we are limiting ourselves, by tying ourselves to public roads? Why not be able to deal with every one of these problems, which may be just as vital in case of a bog road as in the case of a public road? I do not see how the Parliamentary Secretary can convince me that these roads can be dealt with under the definition of land, and, even if that were so, if the Parliamentary Secretary accepts that position, what then is the objection to the definition of roads which I suggest? If the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to agree that this kind of work which I have in mind can be done under the definition of land, why then should there be this objection to defining roads to include all types of roads as I suggest?
I am suggesting that the definition would be much wider than the Deputy would have it. His suggestion would confine it to roads over which a public right of way existed. It is not necessary to have grass growing on a road to make it land—it is land, if it is not a public road.
It does not seem to make a lot of difference one way or the other because, as I read the definition of permanent construction in the Bill and the provisions of Section 2, sub-section (3) (b), it appears to me that there is already provision in the Bill to provide for what the Deputy has in mind. In sub-section (3) (b) provision is made whereby these works can be constructed on any permanent construction in the functional area of the local authority which they are not under any liability to maintain if they consider it is in the public interest and "permanent construction" is defined by the Bill as including any public road. A public road is not necessarily a road in respect of which the local authority have any liability to maintain. It is merely a road over which the public have a right of way, whether it is a bog road or a mountain road, as another amendment already suggests. In my view, the matter being dealt with by the Deputy is already provided for in the Bill. I do not exactly follow the reason given by the Parliamentary Secretary but I assume it could also be treated as land. In any event, the road could be dealt with under the provisions in that sub-section.
I agree that the amendment suggested by Deputy Moran is unnecessary, that the very things that he wants done can be done under the Bill as drafted. I am satisfied as to that. If that is so, it is only surplusage to put in unnecessary phrases or sub-sections. That is my view in regard to it.
Surely the definition of "road" narrows the meaning of the word "road" in this Bill to a public road and a public road is a road that is maintained by a local authority.
Not at all.
A public right of way.
If "public road" in this definition means what is normally known as a public road, one maintained by a public authority, Deputy Moran's amendment would at least give the authorities under this Bill the powers to repair non-public roads but roads over which the local authorities or the public have a right to travel. We all know that extraordinary steps had to be taken in order to enable people in backward localities or living at some distance from what was known as a public road on cul-de-sac roads or roads which were not maintained by the public authority to get these roads put into a state of repair and up to now it had to be done out of the unemployment relief scheme. I think the Parliamentary Secretary, unless he can produce for us now what is the definition of "public road," should accept the amendment.
Is not it still covered by the permanent construction definition?
There is a great deal of confusion here and perhaps I might make a suggestion so that the House would appreciate exactly what is referred to as a public road. Deputies may be under the impression that the local authority owns the road in question if it is a public road. The local authority has power to acquire the property in a road but the majority of the roads referred to as public roads are only vested in the local authority for the purpose of maintenance and the ownership of the soil of the road remains in the particular person upon whose land the road was built and, therefore, so far as public roads are concerned, namely, those roads the maintenance of which is a charge on the local authority, they are covered by the particular section in the Bill. So far as any other road is concerned, if it is a road over private land on which there is a public right of way, that is covered by the definition of the word "land." In other words, the fact that there is a public right of way over a person's land does not mean that the ownership of that land is taken away from the person who owns it. Therefore, an entry on the land would be an entry on the public right of way over the land. I do not see any difference whatsoever between that and entry on the land which happens to be the subject matter of a right of way.
Let us get this clear. Where is the definition in this Bill, under which you can bring a road within the definition of land? As Deputy Sir John Esmonde has pointed out, land has not been defined in this Bill but a certain right of compensation has been given in respect of lands owned or occupied by somebody, or any easement, profit-a-prendre or other right belonging to him, who shall, subject to the provisions of the Act, be entitled to be paid compensation. That does not and cannot deal with the matter that we are dealing with in this amendment. That deals with the specific matter of compensation in connection with land. How it can be argued by the Parliamentary Secretary that this definition of land would cover roads outside public roads is beyond me. I cannot see it. I do not understand it. If you limit your definition here to public roads you are limiting it to roads vested in public authorities for the purpose of maintenance. The effect of my amendment is to put a local authority in a position to deal with all roads. I do not see why that should not be accepted because, as I have said, many of these matters possibly would be much more urgent in connection with some of these roads to relieve flooding than some public roads that we will be dealing with.
It appears to me that the main question on this amendment is as to whether there is in existence a well-defined definition of what a public road is, if that definition is clearly understood and expressed in certain terms in a code of law and it is understood that where compensation lies the term "public road" carries a certain connotation, one that can be quoted within the local government code. I suggest that Deputy Moran's amendment would be restrictive in character if, as I say, there is a widely understood and well expressed definition of what a public road is. Is there?
I cannot find a definition of "public road." There does not seem to be such a definition of "public road." There is a definition of "a road," of course, and it is as defined in this Bill. Again I would suggest that, if it cannot be ascertained that a road is a public road or if it is not a road where the local authority have responsibility for its maintenance, it still can be regarded as land because, inasmuch as the local authority does not own it and has no responsibility for it, it must belong to somebody; it could be regarded as a field. In many cases we have roads that are merely tracks across fields. They are in some, cases accommodation roads, in some cases bog roads, and can be treated as land, being part of the field.
What the Parliamentary Secretary does not seem to quite accept is that the first part of this Bill is dealing in the main with local authorities' own property and the relieving of flooding, landslide, subsidence and so forth. If there is this doubt—and the Parliamentary Secretary appears to accept that there is this doubt about the question of defining a road—what is wrong with giving this definition to it for the purpose of this Bill? As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, the definition will be limited to the Long Title of the Bill. It will be for the purpose of doing particular work—affording relief or protection from flooding, landslide, subsidence and so forth. The definition of a "public road" at all events has been accepted by local authorities as a road that is maintained by the local authority. That is the definition that county surveyors throughout this country and local authorities have been going on as a matter of practice. If we are prepared to bring in the bog roads and the accommodation roads and the cul-de-sac roads that are subject to flooding, why not accept this definition which is confined to work to be done in this particular Bill? What is the objection to the inclusion of all these roads where flooding and so forth may occur?
The Deputy is anxious to give us the widest possible scope for operating this very useful measure. I think he should see that if his amendment were accepted it would not be helpful. If it were accepted, roads other than public roads would be defined, whereas in the measure they would be left untouched—perhaps roads that would not be covered by the amendment. Anything that is not a public road will be treated, whereas the Deputy makes a specific definition of roads and rights of way over them. In the measure there is wider scope. I think it is much safer as it is.
I am at a loss to follow the arguments advanced by the Parliamentary Secretary and by the Minister. We are agreed, I think, that the term "public roads" is interpreted everywhere as meaning roads for the maintenance of which local bodies are legally responsible.
We are not.
That is accepted everywhere.
Not at all.
Deputy Collins would find that out quickly if he were on local bodies.
Stupidity.
It is not stupidity.
Is the point being made by the Parliamentary Secretary and by the Minister—I take it that it is being advanced by Deputies supporting them —that the interpretation of the term "public roads" is not the interpretation I have placed upon it. I maintain that the interpretation of "public roads" means roads for the maintenance of which local bodies are legally responsible. If that is the case, then——
That is not the case.
I do not accept Deputy Collins as an authority on the matter. I am asking this question of the Minister or of his Parliamentary Secretary. If that is the case I say that the amendment that is moved from these benches certainly is designed for the purpose stated by the mover of the amendment, namely, to give to the local body a wider power and greater discretion to cover a type of problem that arises in many places and that they would not be free to deal with if we were to take the interpretation I am legitimately entitled to take from the section as it now stands.
A test could be made as to whether there is already power in the Bill to cover roads other than roads maintainable at present— roads to which Deputy Smith has applied the term "public roads". Take Section 2 (3)—having first looked at the definition of "permanent construction"—and taking merely the word "roads" in what is included in "permanent construction" we have the following:—
"3. Where a local authority to whom this section applies are of opinion that—
(b) any public road in their functional area, not being a public road which was constructed by them or which they are required by law to maintain,"
they may then go on to do certain works on that public road. I think Deputy Moran will agree that that shows clearly that public roads not maintainable by the local authority may still become the subject of works under this Bill. That is in accordance with the definitions already contained in the Bill. I appreciate quite clearly what Deputy Moran and Deputy Smith have in their minds. However, it seems to me, from reading the definitions of the Bill, that provision is already there, and I think we are wasting time.
The peculiar thing about it is that although "road" is defined in Section 1 it is not used in the Bill, as far as I can see, in any other section.
It is included in "permanent construction" just before the definition of the word "road" That is the only place it is mentioned.
Line 17 of the Bill.
I know, but that is in the interpretation section.
Well apply that then.
But that means that neither "public road" nor "road" is used anywhere in the Bill, because the definition is unnecessary.
They used the term "permanent construction" then.
I see that it includes roads.
The whole difficulty arises here as to what class of property the local authority is given power to enter on and do certain work, not having that power at the present time. If Deputies will look at Section 2 they will see that the local authority is given power to enter on land, not being land owned by them, or on any permanent construction in their functional area, not being a permanent construction which was constructed by them or which they are required by law to maintain. That means that they are entitled to enter on land which they would not heretofore be entitled to enter on and, secondly, that they are entitled to enter on a permanent construction which they were not entitled to enter on before. In order to find out what they are entitled to do with regard to "permanent construction" you must come to Section 1. You find the expression "permanent construction" defined to include roads. Then you come to the next paragraph to find out what "road" means and you find it means a public road. Accepting the proposition put forward by Deputy Smith and other Deputies that the generally accepted meaning of "public road" is a road for which the local authority is liable for maintenance, you have all those categories covered. Then you want to know what is going to happen and what right you have to enter upon a road which is not a public road in the accepted sense of the term, namely, a road maintained by the local authorities. For that, there is clear and obvious authority given in this Bill under Section 3 (a). And, because there is a public right of way over land, I think Deputies opposite who know something about this will agree with me that that does not cause land to disappear. It still remains land. Therefore, the two classes of cases which are envisaged in this Bill are completely covered.
Having listened to the very interesting observations by Deputy Esmonde, it occurs to me that the lawyers are going to have great fun over this Bill. As mere laymen, we hear that under this Bill a local authority has a right to do something in regard to a permanent construction and that is dealt with in Section 2, sub-section 3 (b). Then we go back to find out what is the meaning of "permanent construction" and in Section 1 we learn that a permanent construction includes many other things than a road. We then go further to the interpretation to find out what "road" means and we find that it means public road and several other things. It appears to me that the draftsman should have gone a little further and given us an interpretation of what a public road means. If he had done that, we would have had no discussion on the matter at all.
I suggest to Deputy Moran that, in the interest of getting the work started for those who are waiting anxiously to get this work done, instead of adding a few more words to it, even with the best of motives, he should subtract some so that there would be less work for the lawyers and more work for the men who urgently need it. It appears to me that the amendment is a restrictive, as well as, in a sense, a broadening amendment. If it were to say it shall include "any road" and leave it at that, whether vested in a local authority for maintenance or not, it certainly would have a broadening effect to include much more than is intended in the interpretation in the Bill itself.
Bringing in the question of a public right of way restricts it so that public authorities evidently will not be able, even if necessary for the performance of the work, to enter on private roads or roads over which a public right of way does not exist. In some places, in order to carry out the work that is to be done, they may require to go over a road on which no public right of way exists and, therefore, the restriction in the amendment seems to me to defeat the object which Deputy Moran had in mind, namely, to give it a broader definition. We would have to have another amendment to define what a public road is.
If the Parliamentary Secretary in his definition of road dropped the word "public" and left it to read "the word ‘road' means any road" and includes bridges, etc., that would meet any objections I have to make. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will find out on inquiry in his Department that public roads have always been regarded by county councils and others as those roads maintained by county councils and not any other road. Members of local authorities have been told that time and time again. If you want to get in these other roads suggested by Deputy Esmonde, you are still driven back to this definition of road in the Bill. It is defined as a public road. The definition of public roads applied by local authorities and county surveyors all over the country is roads that are maintained by the local authority. If the Parliamentary Secretary will give an undertaking to do one thing or the other on the Report Stage in order to remove doubts, I would be prepared to withdraw the amendment; I mean if he is prepared to go into it from the point of view of ensuring that those roads which have been mentioned will qualify under the Bill.
I am not a legal man and I have not a legal mind. I think we are creating a lot of difficulties for ourselves. As far as I can see, every square inch in this country is land. Public roads are roads, in my opinion, which are dedicated to public use. If you want to define a public road as a road over which a local authority has responsibility, I think the definition as expressed by Deputy Smith is correct also. Under one sub-section the local authorities have power to relieve flooding and do other things so far as public roads are concerned. Anyhow, public roads are land and houses are land, according to the interpretation Act of 1937. Therefore, what is left, in my opinion, would also be regarded as land and that would include an accommodation road or any other type of road that you care to mention. But if the Deputies opposite think that it would make it simpler, I am prepared to delete the word "public" before road.
That will get over my difficulty.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary for simplification say that the word "road" means "any road"?
Yes, substitute "any" instead of "a public".
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary before the next stage to consider making it read "the word ‘road' means any road and includes bridges, houses, buildings, walls, embankments, pipe, arch, gully, footway, pavement, fence, railing or wall forming part thereof", in other words telescoping the two into one.
If we go on to define the word "road" it is entirely unnecessary. Perhaps the House would be prepared to make the suggested amendment now.
Better bring it in on the Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 1 put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I think amendments Nos. 3 and 4 could be discussed together.
On behalf of Deputy MacEntee I move amendment No. 3:—
To delete sub-section (2) and substitute therefor:—
( ) Where damage has been sustained, or where a local authority to whom this section applies are satisfied upon a report from their chief engineering officer that damage is likely to be sustained from flooding, landslide, subsidence or other similar occurrence by—
(a) any land owned by them, or
(b) any permanent construction which was constructed by them or which they are required by law to maintain,
the local authority may execute such works as they consider reasonable for the purpose of affording relief or protection from the damage.
The amendment is designed to ensure that before a local authority arrives at a decision they will have a report from the chief engineering officer to show that damage was likely to be sustained from flooding, landslide, subsidence or other similar occurrence. I think it should be provided that the local authority would have this information before them in a formal way from the chief engineering officer before they arrive at a decision that there is likely to be damage. Otherwise it will simply mean that a member will say that it is likely that damage will be caused and other members may not know anything about it. But, if they have a report from the chief engineering officer, there will be no doubt about the matter.
The general principles of amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are the same and I take it they will be discussed together.
Yes.
I am not prepared to accept the amendment, as such provisions are not included in other legislation of this kind. I do not think it is necessary for us to embody in legislation the administrative duties of any officer of a local authority, because the duties of a chief engineering officer are defined on his appointment the same as the duties of any other officer. In this particular case I think the duties of a chief engineering officer broadly are to advise the county council on any schemes or works which they propose to undertake. I am prepared to believe, as I have always believed, that the local authority will act, especially in cases like this, in accordance with public interests as they always have done. It is not usual in legislation of this kind to provide for such duties for any officers of local authorities. As a matter of fact in their conditions of appointment, the duties which are given to them by regulations, such matters as these are very well covered.
I should like to say that in my opinion these two amendments contain very dangerous conditions. I do not know what prompted the Deputy to put down these amendments or what his intentions were. First of all, I agree with what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, that it may be assumed before a local authority comes to any decision concerning any works under this Bill that it will get the report or opinion of its proper officers. That seems to be eminently reasonable. What we are asked to do by these amendments is to provide that, if an essential precedent must be taken by an official of the local authority, before the local authority can do anything they must have a report from their chief engineering officer and that if they do not have a report from this officer, then they are absolutely powerless under the Bill. I should like to have the opinion of Deputies who are members of local authorities as to what might be likely to happen if, as happens from time to time, a chief engineering officer has a particular view himself about works which the members of the public want carried out. Remember, that under this amendment the sole power is given to the county surveyor or county engineer to authorise the work to be done. If he disagreed with the work nothing that the local authority could do, if this amendment was passed, could force him to report in favour of the work to be carried out. You would find if that amendment was passed that you might as well tear up this Bill altogether. It completely restricts the powers given under the Bill to local authorities. It is almost a dangerous amendment to the Bill, in my view, and I cannot appreciate the motive which prompted its introduction except that it is an effort to prevent this Bill being of assistance to the people it is designed to help.
I should like to say that I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary is resisting this amendment. As far as the ordinary administration is concerned we give powers to the local authority and we have to accept that the local authority in general acts in a reasonable manner. The local authority acting in a reasonable manner will, on every occasion, before they decide to take any action under this Bill when it becomes law, undoubtedly have the advice of their experts.
Unlike Deputy O'Higgins, I can see what prompted Deputy MacEntee to put down this amendment. I think that Deputy MacEntee was concerned with the public interest. I think he had in mind that if the chief engineering officer—I do not know exactly what a chief engineering officer is; I do not think it is a usual phrase in connection with local authorities and it is not defined in the Bill—reported to the local authority that damage was likely to occur and the local authority then decided that they would take certain steps, that in the event of any court action arising out of that the court would undoubtedly hold that the public authority was acting in the public interest because they took those steps on the recommendation and advice of their chief engineering officer. I take it that that was the motive that prompted Deputy MacEntee to put down that amendment. However, I agree with Deputy O'Higgins. It would be a dangerous precedent to create that in the case of damage likely to occur the local authority could not move unless they were satisfied on a report of the chief engineering officer that damage was likely to be sustained.
It is well that the fullest possible powers should be given to the local authority as such, depending upon them in the ordinary way to do their work and carry it out in the best interests of the public. Of course, there is always this limitation. If the local authority acts improperly, there is always the law court, where they can be brought to book. If they are brought to book and certain of them nominated as special defendants, there will be no danger that they will act improperly. For that reason I think the principle of the amendment is a bad one. While I can see the motives-behind it, I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that the House should be asked to reject it.
Some of the Deputies opposite have read something into these amendments that is not there at all. They suggested that this would solely depend on the whim of the chief engineering officer or the county surveyor. That is not so. All that each of these amendments provides for is this: that before they go ahead with this work they would have the benefit of the chief engineer's or the county surveyor's report before them. The first amendment, No. 3, is designed to deal with the land or works owned by the local authority. However, when we come to the proposed works dealt with under amendment No. 4, that is:—
"any land in their functional area not being land owned by them, or any permanent construction ... not being a permanent construction which was constructed by them or which they are required by law to maintain,"
we can visualise some of the claims that may arise, that, mark you, under this Bill the local authority will have to pay for. We can very well visualise, when we come to questions of drainage, cases arising where members of a local authority would come to agreements about some local jobs in their areas, saying: "If you let my job through, I will let your job through irrespective of what the resulting damage may be or what it may ultimately cost the ratepayers of any particular county."
The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that, before a local authority will go ahead with a work, it will have a full report from its engineer giving an estimate of any damage that may be done. If the local authority goes ahead with the work it will, in that event, do so with its eyes open. If these amendments are accepted it will prevent the members of a local authority undertaking some job in their own area irrespective of the damage that might be caused by carrying it out. Before a council decides to go ahead with a work, it should know from the report of its chief engineer the possible damage that is likely to be done. The amendment does not limit in any way the right of a local authority to go ahead with any particular job. All it provides for is that the local authority will know where it stands before it starts the work. I think that, in the public interest, this is a very necessary safeguard, one for which provision should be made under this Bill. I think the Parliamentary Secretary should reconsider the matter from that point of view so as to ensure that local authorities, before they commit themselves, will know where they stand. I think he would be wise to accept these amendments.
I think we ought to give the local authorities credit for having some sense of responsibility. No local authority would engage on a housing scheme, for example, or on the making or repair of a road without first consulting its county engineer. The people who elect the members of local authorities are the very same people who elect us to represent them in Dáil Éireann. Surely no Deputy assumes for a moment that a local authority, before engaging on a major work of any kind or even before effecting any changes, does not avail of the expert advice of its principal officials. It is reasonable to assume that a local authority, before engaging on any of the types of works covered by this Bill, will seek the advice of its chief engineering officer and of any other official who can give advice.
I should like to point out to Deputy Moran that the amendment speaks of "a report from their chief engineering officer". Does that mean that if the amendment were accepted and that if, say, the chief engineering officer were ill for three months, no work under this Bill could be done during that period? I do not think the Deputy is serious in suggesting that we should embody an amendment such as that in legislation. The duties of a chief engineer are defined and are made known to him before he takes up office. They are defined to be "to give to the county council such engineering service of an advisory, supervisory or executive nature as is required by the council in the exercise of its powers, including the duties of a county surveyor". I do not think any local authority would be so foolish as to start the building of houses, the making or the maintenance of roads or the execution of drainage works without first consulting its county engineer.
It seems to me that Deputy Moran, when arguing this amendment, did not quite appreciate the effect of it. As has now been pointed out by the Parliamentary Secretary, its acceptance would have this further effect that, assuming the chief engineering officer were ill and that the local authority on the report of his deputy went ahead with some work, the local authority in that case would be doing something that was ultra vires, something that it would have no power to do.
It is quite clear from the amendment that, in a case which is foreseen, "where the local authority are satisfied upon a report from their chief engineering officer that damages are likely to be sustained", they cannot take action unless they are satisfied, and they cannot be satisfied unless they get a report from their chief engineering officer. Deputies can visualise the case put by the Parliamentary Secretary where the chief engineering officer is ill. A report from his deputy would be of no avail under the amendment as it stands. If a local authority were to act upon his report, they certainly would leave themselves open to an action for damages. The amendment creates restrictive conditions which, I think, would cause very considerable difficulty for local authorities.
There is the further objection that I have to the acceptance of the amendment, that it would put too much power in the hands of the chief engineering officer. It would put the public in the position that there would not be very much use in their making their representations to the local authority, assuming that a member of the public foresaw damage in a particular case and reported it to the county council. The whole thing would have to be done through the chief engineering officer and through him alone. I would not be satisfied at all if these amendments were accepted.
If we assume, as I think we are entitled to, that local authorities will, in the main, behave as the Parliamentary Secretary has described, why should we see any danger in inserting this provision in the Bill? We are entitled to assume that the local authority will seek a report from its engineering advisers. If we regard that as a natural, reasonable approach, why should we object to this amendment? Suppose we do not, and that, in spite of its non-insertion the majority of local authorities will behave as the Parliamentary Secretary has described but that one local authority may act as Deputy Moran has said and that, as a result, demands come before the court that is to determine questions of compensation, and suppose further that these questions of compensation arise as a result of work on which that local authority had engaged without getting the prior report and advice referred to in these amendments, I wonder what would be said of that local authority by the court that is to determine questions of compensation?
There has been a lot of argument advanced about the title of the chief engineering officer referred to in the amendment. In some places he is called the county surveyor. I think that, in the Department of Local Government he is usually referred to as the county engineer. Whether he is called the county engineer or the county surveyor the term, in my view, does not mean what it is alleged to convey by Deputy Timoney. It does not follow that because this official is described as the chief engineering officer that he will report in all cases on the works which are carried in the county. He is, of course, the person who is responsible for all engineering works, but he may delegate his duties. He is authorised under the terms of his appointment, as far as I know, to delegate part of his duties to other officials. Naturally, if he is ill a substitute is immediately appointed. The principal assistant or some other person is authorised to undertake his work.
There is nothing in that argument at all, good or bad. There is no question of works being held up because he might be ill or absent. There are two points to meet the arguments advanced by the Parliamentary Secretary. Local bodies will behave in a sensible fashion and, in doing so, naturally they would get a report from the chief engineer or the county surveyor before they engage in any work. If that is the natural thing to do, what is the objection to having it put in this Bill? If you do not put it into the Bill there is the possibility that one local authority might happen to do as Deputy Moran described. It is then you will see the mess in which that body might find itself.
There is no point in this amendment and there is no safeguard for even one local authority. The amendment sets out that where damage has been sustained, or where the local authority are satisfied, upon a report from their chief engineering officer, that damage is likely to be sustained, they may execute such works as they consider reasonable. They need not accept the advice of the chief engineering officer. Deputy Smith talks about safeguards, even in respect of one local authority. It means nothing —there is no safeguard. And why are we so careful about the local authorities now? There have not been similar provisions in the Housing Acts or in other Acts where it is definitely stated that the local authority is required to consult any officer.
It is not correct to suggest that this would not provide a safeguard. There is a very obvious safeguard. If the engineer to a local authority says to them: "You will be lunatics to go ahead with this scheme; it will run you into thousands of pounds by way of damage through flooding and it is a dangerous thing," the local Press will publish that and the ratepayers will know about it and it will act as a good check on the local authority. If we are to assume that the local authorities are not going to go wrong, why is there a section in the Bill which sets out that where the Minister is satisfied that the local authorities are unable or unwilling to execute works, he may nominate a person to execute them? You are taking power there to send people down over the heads of the local authorities. Does not that section presuppose that he will have to exercise some power over the local authority? Is it not abvious that the Minister is making provision for a situation where a local authority will act unreasonably?
We can safely assume that local authorities will act in the way I suggest. I am sure everybody will agree that a prudent local authority will consult its officials and find out what will be the effect before they embark on any scheme. What is the objection to making provision so that a prudent local authority can be advised through its engineer before proceeding with any undertaking?
The suggestion in this discussion is that the chief engineering officer will report to his county council or other local authority that damage amounting to thousands of pounds will be done if a certain scheme is embarked upon. Deputies should realise that this Bill seeks not to do damage, but to carry out improvements. But the attitude of the Opposition seems to be that the damage will outweigh whatever benefits may accrue through these schemes. Is the position to be that we cannot trust the local authorities unless they go through the conduit pipe of a chief engineering officer? The fact is that the people, through their county council representatives, have been clamouring about the damage that has been taking place for years, and they are still restricted from carrying out the improvements which this measure will authorise them to carry out. Surely we will act in consultation with the chief engineering officers, but why should we restrict the power of the local authorities themselves, who are the people who will eventually make the decision?
I cannot see the purpose of these amendments. I do not know what is in Deputy MacEntee's mind. Deputy Cowan endeavoured to interpret him, but I cannot do so. On the Second Reading—Volume 114, col. 2157, 31st March, 1949, he said:—
"We are now at the stage, therefore, at which it will be possible for a local authority to benefit a friend of a friend of an officer of that authority, or the friend of a friend of a member of the local authority, with sufficient influence to persuade whoever is going to be the responsible executive officer under this Bill, by making it possible for that authority under this Bill to remove, say, a weir in order to improve the drainage of a certain stretch of land along a river and, at the same time, do a great deal of damage to the private property of some other man."
He would not be a very responsible officer who would allow himself to be pulled to do some work for a friend and in so doing destroy the property of somebody else.
I think this approach on the part of Deputies opposite is wrong. This measure seeks to do a reasonable job of improvement and any compensation that may be awarded will be infinitesimal in comparison with the improvements it will make. Why should we have to intimidate county councils or other local authorities and put them in such a position that they can do nothing unless through the conduit pipe of their engineering officers? I say that if we were to adopt these amendments we would hamper and clog the operation of this measure and prevent these schemes being undertaken speedily.
The Minister says that this Bill is designed to give benefits and not create damage. What we want to ensure is that if it gives benefits, those benefits will not be outweighed by the damage that will be caused in certain cases. On the Second Reading I instanced a case which came within my own knowledge where £5,000 was spent and damage to many times that amount was caused down the river. If water is doing damage to some person upstream it may do a lot more damage to valuable land downstream if it is let down before the river bed is cleaned out and prepared to take the extra water that will be let down upon it. Every individual would like to see the water taken off his land and brought somewhere else, but all the individual is concerned with is: "Get it off my land no matter whether or not it causes damage downstream."
County councillors have the same idea. Some ratepayer will approach them and say: "My land is being flooded and I wish the county council would get the water taken off." What we are concerned with is that the county council will take a decision after considering a report from their engineers rather than have the council merely acting upon the motion of some member. Some counties you will find 50, 60, 100 miles in length or breadth. How can county councillors go around to see whether some man's land is relieved of excess water and that it will not do greater damage downstream. Surely, in such a case it is absolutely essential that county councillors, for their own protection and for the protection of the ratepayers, should, before undertaking a certain job, find out if any damage is likely to be caused. We urge the Minister to accept these amendments because they are a safeguard and the procedure is very normal. There is no reason why the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary should not accept the amendments.
Why is this necessary.
Because in Drainage Acts there is a long procedure to be followed which gives everybody a chance to make an objection. There are surveys made which show the state of the land before drainage is undertaken and these surveys help to reinforce a claimant for any damages that may be caused through a scheme. There is no such provision in this Bill; and the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary can see from the amendments that they were forced to introduce that this was a very hastily drafted measure and did not take cognisance at all of the damage that might be done beyond even the £10 that would be upheld in the District Court. The Government have had to mend their hand in this regard in several amendments but we are not satisfied, even though they have put in amendments which are longer in sum total than the original Bill, that they have yet introduced the safeguards necessary if damage is to be prevented.
Deputy Moran seems to have no faith whatever in public authorities. He seems to think that a member of a public authority will come into a county council meeting and suggest that certain things, of which no county council could approve, should be done for his area. That is exactly what the amendments say. They lay it down that any county councillor can come and suggest the carrying out of improvements which would land the county council in the law courts with heavy damages awarded against it. Has anybody with any experience of local authorities or of county councils ever found those bodies doing anything like that in respect of their districts. I have been in public life for 20 years. I know county councillors of all Parties and I know county councillors who belong to no Party. I never knew a county councillor to come into a county council meeting and suggest against better judgment or advice that work should be carried out which would land the county council in a court of law and involve it in the payment of heavy damages.
What happens in respect of works that county councils have to do? Let us take sudden damage. What does a county council do in respect of that? Does a man to whom sudden damage occurs outside his gate and who is thereby caused considerable inconvenience say that the work of repairing that damage must be done in a certain way and that it must be done at once? No. The chief engineering officer reports upon the damage done and the county engineers carry out the necessary repairs. In the case of new works, who examines new works for the county council? Is it not the chief engineering officer who examines them and reports thereon? Is it not he who recommends as to whether or not these new works should be carried out?
Why is it suggested by Deputy Moran and Deputy Aiken that county councils would act otherwise in respect of the particular works now under discussion? Is it not the chief engineering officer who will survey, report and supervise any such works? Does anybody suggest anything else? Surely, one has there the very safeguard that Deputy Moran wishes to put into this Bill. Safeguards are already there. No county council has ever acted or will ever act in a different manner. They will send out their chief engineering officer to examine the works and, if those works are approved of, they will be carried out under his supervision.
Why not accept the amendment then?
The amendment gives no safeguard. Why not say that the work should be done with a certain kind of pick or shovel or a certain type of dredger? What safeguard is there in that?
What harm will it do?
What good?
It will satisfy us.
I would go quite a long way to satisfy Deputy Smith, but I could never go as far as putting a special clause in an Act of Parliament to satisfy him.
If it does you no harm and if it satisfies me, why not agree to it?
I have said that I would do a lot to satisfy Deputy Smith but I would not go so far as to put a section into an Act of Parliament for that purpose. Will Deputy Smith not agree that there are shoals of schemes prepared by county councils at the present moment? Who prepared them? The chief engineering officers. Who supervises them? The chief engineering officers. Who will carry them out? The chief engineering officers. Deputy Smith knows that as well as I do. It is nonsense to call this a safeguard because county councils have all the safeguards necessary all the time in relation to the works they carry out.
I think the nett point is as to who should be the judges in the work to be done. Is it one individual or the county council. Deputies opposite would prefer that a single individual should have the right of veto with regard to the works to be carried out under the Bill. The Minister would prefer that the county council should have that responsibility. I take it I am right in that, in so far as the Deputies opposite consider that there is no safeguard in this Bill. The only safeguard that there can be if the wording of the amendment is correct is that the county council cannot move without the sanction of a particular individual.
Without a report.
They can ignore it if they wish.
And without a report of a particular kind. I do not think there is any doubt that what it means in effect is that the decision is left entirely to the chief engineering officer.
The amendment does not state that. It is where the county council are satisfied, but they have to get a report. Who are they going to get that report from?
I think Deputy Aiken moved the amendment but he did not draft it. I doubt if he read it.
I did read it.
The amendment says:—
"Where damage has been sustained, or where a local authority to whom this section applies are satisfied upon a report from their chief engineering officer."
Now, there is no direction in that; the chief engineering officer is to report. It is within his discretion in so far as that amendment is concerned whether he will or will not report "that damage is likely to be sustained by flooding", and so on. The local authority, having got that report, may proceed. The section enables local authorities at their own discretion, if they are satisfied that the work is required, to do the work.
How will they become satisfied?
In the perfectly obvious way, as stated by the Parliamentary Secretary, of doing the work as they have done all work heretofore. A number of us have been trying to search the mind of the drafter of this amendment, to see what he had in mind when he put it down.
A lot of searching can be done if the Deputy starts.
Deputy Aiken did not even bother to do that. I at least can say that I have read Deputy MacEntee's speech on the Second Reading of this Bill. I also read Deputy Moran's, Deputy Aiken's and Deputy Smith's speeches. In all charity I do not think it would be fair to read out any extracts from Deputy Aiken's speech, but Deputy MacEntee dealt with the section on the Second Reading in order to show that this House was in some way abrogating its constitutional authority and its duties. According to Deputy MacEntee, the reason why the House was doing that was in order to give county councils the right to decide what was in the public interest. According to Deputy MacEntee the Dáil is the only body in the country which is entitled to so decide and for that reason the Dail has no right to say to county councils:
"We will pass this authority on to you so far as these works are concerned and you can make up your minds about them because you are the people with the local knowledge."
In column 2153 of Volume 114, Deputy MacEntee says:—
"Do Deputies not think that the House in this section is being asked to abrogate one of its major functions? We are here, in general, supposed to be the ultimate judges of the public interest. That is why we have the law-making prerogative. When we pass legislation to limit the rights of property in certain ways, or do other similar things, we do it as judges of the public interest. We are, under the Constitution, the judges of the public interest; and one of the points that may arise in the courts—if people can ever get to the courts under this Bill—for the consideration of the judges, is as to whether we have any right to constitute the local authority as the unrestricted and unqualified judges of the public interest."
Now Deputy MacEntee, in face of that speech which he made on the Second Reading of the Bill, wants to go even further than the Minister was going and wants to give to one individual in the employment of the local authority the sole right to judge what is or what is not in the public interest—that, despite the fact that also on the Second Reading of the Bill, as the Minister has said, Deputy MacEntee felt that under this section an officer or a member of a local body was going to be activated in carrying out these works because of pressure or influence brought to bear on him by a friend or a friend of a friend.
Deputy Cowan showed a very charitable disposition in his interpretation of what Deputy MacEntee intended by these amendments. I confess that in face of the spoken word of Deputy MacEntee on the Second Reading I entirely fail to understand these amendments. They are entirely against what Deputy MacEntee was pleading then. Deputy Moran thinks that there is a safeguard and that is Press publicity. I had the interesting experience of reading some of Deputy Moran's recent speeches at the Mayo County Council. I think Press publicity did not deter him, but I shall have an opportunity of dealing with him later and in another manner.
Any time you wish.
How is a local body to make up its mind as to the feasibility of proceeding with a scheme unless it has before it a report from a person such as in this case the engineer, to guide them?
Deputies
Hear, hear!
If, as Deputy Hogan has stated, it is the practice of every local authority to follow the normal procedure of obtaining such a report, what is the objection to inserting this in the Bill? Deputy Hogan says that it is unnecessary, that it will, in his opinion, do neither good nor harm. We say it will do good and since his views and the views of those for whom he speaks are that it will neither do good nor harm, why not let us put it in the Bill? Can the Parliamentary Secretary cite any case where a drainage authority, whether it be a local authority or a State Department, will proceed with work, even work involving only an expenditure of £100, without first obtaining a report from some person whom it regards as qualified to give a report, setting out what improvements are likely or what damage is likely to accrue, from the carrying out of the work. The suggestion put forward by Deputy O'Higgins that we, in asking the Government to accept the amendment, are transferring from the local body to one individual the right to make a decision, of course, does not stand a moment's examination. The fact that Deputies are afraid to have that stipulation contained in the measure conveys to my mind that what they are afraid of is that the local body might be hampered by the report and that if the report containing something that some members of the body did not desire, it would be better not to have it there at all. There is no suggestion in the amendment that we are transferring the decision from the local body to the individual who is the chief engineer. What we are leaving to the local authority is complete power to decide for themselves but only after they have before them a report which this Bill, after it becomes an Act will oblige them to have, rather than leave it in the loose open fashion suggested by Deputy O'Higgins:—"Well that is what they will do anyhow." If that is what they will do anyhow there can be no possible objection to our saying "Let it be clearly and definitely inserted in the measure."
I am surprised that so much time has been spent on this matter. I tried to defend Deputy MacEntee's motive in putting down this amendment because I could see what he had in mind, interpreting it from the printed words on the Order Paper. Any interference with the rights of an individual is a serious matter and under the law, as I understand it, such interference can only be justified in the public interest. Consequently I am satisfied that before a local authority can decide to enter upon a man's land for the purpose of doing certain works, they must be satisfied that it is in the public interest and they must so declare it in their resolution deciding to do the work. That being so before a local authority is going to take the risk of interfering with the rights of an individual, they will take all the steps necessary to see that their interference is in accordance with law and in accordance with the public interest. For that purpose they will in the ordinary way consult their county surveyor and other officers. They will be advised by their law adviser, as he is bound to advise them, as to the possible legal effect of the decisions they will take. Consequently I am satisfied that under the particular section as here drafted the local authority will in the ordinary way go through all the procedure that is necessary to ensure that the decision which they take is a proper decision which cannot be interfered with by any person who may go to the courts for the purpose of upsetting it. As the Parliamentary Secretary has said the people who elect the local authorities are the very same people who elect us and send us here to make laws, and they are not going to stand over local authorities involving them in very heavy damages and very heavy costs. I am perfectly satisfied that local authorities will, as always, act with the greatest sense of responsibility and the greatest discretion. I think it is an insult to local authorities to say "you cannot do such-and-such unless your paid official, your county surveyor, advises you to do it."
The amendment does not say that.
If it does not say that it says nothing at all. Here is what it does say: "where local authorities are satisfied upon a report from the chief engineering officer that damage is likely to be sustained from flooding." There is no doubt about it; that is the whole purport of the amendment. Where damage has occurred they can, by resolution and without a report, decide to go in and do the work, but where damage is likely they can only do it on the report of their chief engineering officer. In this Dáil for a period of 25 years responsibility has been given from time to time to Ministers. To the Minister for Local Government responsibility is given by law and I think it would be an extraordinary thing if we were to write into an Act of Parliament that the Minister for Local Government may, if he is advised by a chief engineering officer, his Secretary or his Parliamentary Secretary, do certain things. That would be an insult to the Minister and no Minister would accept a position in which his rights or his responsibilities would be limited by the advice he was to get from his paid officials. I am quite sure, if it was written into an Act of Parliament that Deputy Smith, when he was Minister, could only do certain things if certain officials in his Department advised him to do them, he would say: "You can get somebody else to act as Minister under those conditions. I would not do it." And if an individual, a Minister, would not tolerate that sort of restriction, I think it is an insult that we in this House should say to local authorities who were elected by adult suffrage, by the very same people who elected us: "You must have a report from one of your paid officials, your chief engineering officer, before you do this." I think there is no necessity for us to insult local authorities in that way. The whole history of local government for the past 25 years indicates in the main that local authorities have acted with responsibility and due regard to the public interest. I am perfectly certain if we give them this authority, having behind it, as there is, the full power and authority of the courts of justice if they do not do what is right, the local authorities and every member of the local authorities will act very responsibly and sensibly in every decision taken regarding the powers and responsibilities vested in them by this section as drafted.
I do not know why Deputy Cowan says that there are no cases in which Ministers have not to get a report from certain named officials before they can make up their mind. It has been held in the courts that where a Minister signs some document without having had recourse to officers referred to in a statute his decision is null and void and that, in fact, he did not take the proper care, care imposed upon him by law, before he arrives at his decision.
He did not act in the public interest.
All we are concerned with is that before a local authority can decide to do something which may do damage they must have before them a report from their chief engineering officer. We know perfectly well that county councillors are not paid public men and cannot spend their time going around the 101 schemes proposed at the county council. The local man alone will know the circumstances, that flooding affects certain lands or buildings. If the rest of the people from other parts of the county have not a report from the engineer they will have to make up their minds upon the speech of somebody who is interested and who knows nothing about engineering. We want the local authority to take their decision after having received, and addressed themselves to the terms of, a report of a man qualified to give advice, a man who will have a certain permanent interest in the thing because his reputation will be based upon his report. No engineer will report that 200 or 300 acres of land can be drained by spending a couple of thousand pounds if damage of tens of thousands of pounds is going to be done without at least calling the attention of the county council to the fact that damage of tens of thousands of pounds might be done.
Deputy O'Higgins said that we should probe into motives. I do not want to probe into motives very deeply, but to whom is the Minister proposing to give the power to decide to drain land without even the report of a county council engineer? It is not the members elected by the voters of the county council area, but it may be under Section 3 a nominee of the Minister's. Under Section 3 where the Minister is satisfied, perhaps by the report of a deputy or by a letter from somebody down the country, that certain work should be done and if the local authority are unable or unwilling to execute the works he may nominate a person to carry them out and give to that person in relation to these works all the powers local authorities have. If we pass this particular clause without the amendment suggested by Deputy MacEntee, that individual will have power to execute works of all kinds which come under this Bill without even getting a report from a county council engineer.
The amendment does not cure that.
Yes, it does.
Read the amendment.
The authority under Section 3 may be the nominee of the Minister. We might read Deputy MacEntee's amendment that the local authority or the nominee of the Minister shall not proceed except upon the report of an engineer. There is no other interpretation.
There is.
There is none and if the Deputy thinks he can make it I would ask him to tell me whether Section 3 does not substitute for the elected representatives of the people, the county council, the nominee of the Minister as the authority to decide whether one of these works is to be carried out or not.
It does, but it is not the same thing. There are two different problems.
The Deputy admits that it does substitute for the elected representatives of the people the Minister's nominee.
There is not much respect there for the elected representatives of the people.
What Coalition Deputies are afraid of is that we should write into the Bill that either the nominee of the Minister or the elected local authority should not decide to proceed with works which might cause more damage then they would cure without having received a report from the chief engineering officer of the people. We are not even asking that they shall not go ahead with the work, even if the engineer indicates that damage is to be done, but that at least before they decide to do it, and to do the damage, they will have before them and address themselves to the terms of an engineer's report.
Is the amendment being pressed?
Yes.
Mr. Allen rose.
I suggest that repetition is out of order.
I have not spoken on this.
I am not referring to the Deputy, but to the House in general. Some Deputies have made the same comments three times. If there is anything new it is all right.
I will say something new now. The most important thing to keep in mind in discussing this amendment is that, in sub-section (3) of this section, local authorities are being asked to take over and perform a new function not hitherto performed by them. That must be kept in mind, as it is fundamental to the whole argument. Under Section 2 of the Bill, you can have any machinery you like. The machinery is there to do it. It can be done in the future as in the past, under sub-section (2) of Section 2. There is no necessity to have this amendment at all in respect of that sub-section, but in sub-section (3) of Section 2 a very important matter comes to be considered.
We all know in our own areas the work that will fall to be done under that sub-section. We realise quite well the work that local authorities will be called upon to perform under it. All possible safeguards are necessary to safeguard the ratepayers of a particular area, to safeguard the people in general and to safeguard also the people on whose lands the local authority must enter. There are many people to be safeguarded under that sub-section. A huge amount of work will fall to be done in every county in Ireland under that sub-section. The whole function this Bill is meant to serve is all in that sub-section. That must be remembered. There was no necessity whatever—I said that on the Second Reading—for any legislation to give local authorities power to safeguard their own property. I never saw the necessity. They could carry out any work on any property or buildings they had, without legislation. Under this sub-section, there will devolve on local authorities matters and work which the Board of Works, in the ordinary course, if they had time to reach it, would be doing. They were organised to do it and have machinery and power under the 1945 Drainage Act to do it. They might not reach it for the next ten or 25 years.
That would be too long to wait.
It may be five—I will put it at five. Local authorities are being asked under sub-section (3) to perform that work of the Office of Public Works. Every possible safeguard is necessary. I want to put this to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the Minister for Local Government: is it the local authority in council, the elected members of the local authority, that will determine any particular matter in connection with this Bill, or is it their executive officer? There is nothing in this Bill and nothing in any Ministerial amendment to show that. Is all the work under this Bill not an executive function?
It is.
Why look for safeguards, then?
All the more reason for having them.
If it is an executive function of the manager?
Let the Parliamentary Secretary not walk into it for a moment. It is clearly admitted now that it is an executive function, that the elected members of the local authority, the democratically elected members, have no say, good, bad or indifferent, in this Bill except with the goodwill or otherwise of the manager. Is not that so? Let us be honest and frank about it. Let us realise what we are doing and understand that, in asking that, before the county manager undertakes to carry out the drainage work in any county, he must have the report of the chief engineer before him. Will the Minister say who will determine the order of priority in which any of the works, listed and already in the Minister's Department from all over the Twenty-six Counties, are to be carried out? Who will select the works in the particular areas and who will determine the amount of money to be spent on each work? That is a most important matter and we would like to have these questions answered. Is there anything unreasonable in suggesting—even if the county councils, that is the members of the county councils, had the determination of this matter, as to whether work is to be carried out or not—that before determining it, they should have the report of the chief engineer before them? Is there anything unreasonable in asking a sensible body of men to have the report of their chief engineer before they decide whether it is feasible, sensible and justifiable to carry out a particular work? I cannot see in what way bringing in the engineer into these two sub-sections is going to hold up the work. It will not hold it up in the slightest. Every local authority in Ireland wants to go on with the work that has to be done. We object in principle to more work being thrown over on local authorities and their staffs. I said on the Second Stage that they were ill-equipped to carry out the work they were going to be called upon to carry out under sub-section (3) of Section 2. However, they will take on this work willingly and members of local authorities will put their full weight and influence behind it to get as much as possible done. They may have to neglect other work.
So well they ought.
They may have to employ a great many engineers.
How does that arise on the amendment?
It arises under this amendment because the amendment says the report must be made to the council by the chief engineer before a work is undertaken and in order to get that report he will need assistance— and very substantial assistance—that he may not have available at the moment. I hope the Minister will see the wisdom of accepting this, or even agreeing to consider the matter for the Report Stage. I do not know whether that will be satisfactory or not. He might give it further consideration and tell us now whether it is the members of the local authority, by a majority or unanimously, in a functional area, that will have the determination of these matters or whether it is their chief executive officer. It does not make any difference, on this point. I have every confidence that the county managers all over Ireland will do the work honestly and well. I have no objection to their doing it, but there need not be so much talk here about local authorities, in some instances, hindering this work. So far as I know local authorities, the members are the same as ourselves—no better and no worse—and they will do any job they are asked to do as honestly as any of us on any side of the House would do it. I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary should accept the amendment in principle.
It is hard to understand the contradictory lines of argument put forward by the Opposition. Deputy Smith and Deputy Moran were very fearful about the actions of certain local authorities—or of one local authority, as one of the Deputies said—in the matter of carrying out works which would cause a great deal of damage. It is hard to reconcile these statements with the generally accepted principle by the Fianna Fáil Party of county management. It is not news for members on this side of the House to say what their general attitude towards the members of local authorities is and always has been. Shortly after the new Government was formed, we announced that it was intended to amend substantially the County Management Act. We are not going to be forced, on this amendment, into a position in which we will change it in any piecemeal fashion. The county manager, as the law stands, is responsible for the control and direction of staff, and surely, therefore, no member of the Fianna Fáil Party, which has always been such a champion of the County Management Act, and county managers in general, will think other than that the manager, in respect of such works as these, will advise the local authority and direct that the county engineer will give the benefit of his advice before schemes like these are carried out. Deputy Smith started off by asking how could a local authority make up its mind to carry out a certain scheme without having the chief engineering officer's report before it. How can a local authority engage in any housing scheme without having the report of the chief engineering officer or town surveyor before it?
Do they?
They do, of course. The members of local authorities do not decide themselves on the design of houses and the different methods of construction.
There is no comparison.
There is, of course. Local authorities do not engage in any work whatever—and the Deputy knows it—without first having the report of the town surveyor or county engineer. I do not think there need be the slightest fear that local authorities will not, as they have always done, and as we expect they will do in the future, take the advice and guidance of their expert advisers. As Deputy Cowan said, and as I repeat, it is reasonable to assume that the Minister, before he proposes to effect a change or to carry out any scheme of works, will take the advice of his Departmental secretary, of his legal advisers and of his technical advisers; but there is no provision to that effect in any Act which went through this House. I do not think there is the slightest necessity at all to have such a provision in the section and I do not see why we are arguing about it, because, under the County Management Act, which we propose to change substantially, this power is vested at present in the county manager. We do not, however, propose to amend it in any piecemeal fashion.
Our view is that, whether it be the manager or the council has the responsibility, the amendment should be accepted.
If the county manager's authority becomes vested in the Minister's nominee, will he act without a report from the county engineer?
No; naturally, he will get expert advice as well.
Why not oblige him to do it?
There is no necessity for it. There is no similar provision in other Bills of this kind, as the Deputy knows.
Of course, there is.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary answer the questions I asked? Who is to determine the order of priority and who will select the work that is to be done? Is it the Minister or the local authority, acting through the manager? Suppose there are 700 different works already lodged in the Department. Who will determine the priority?
I do not think it arises on this amendment but, for the benefit of the Deputy, I will read for him a circular sent to each county manager on this Bill.
What date?
31st May. It reads:
"With reference to previous correspondence, I am directed by the Minister for Local Government to inform you that, as soon as the Local Authorities (Works) Bill, 1949, becomes law, decisions will be issued on the various schedules of schemes submitted to the Department for the purposes of the Bill. First preference will be given to simple schemes not requiring elaborate surveys or preparation, which may be undertaken without delay in an appropriate period in the present financial year. It is therefore recommended that a selection on these lines be made from the schemes submitted and that particulars thereof be placed before the elected body concerned for their preliminary approval."
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 54.
Tá
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, John.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Collins, Seán.
- Commons, Bernard.
- Connolly, Roderick J.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, John A.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Davin, William.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kinane, Patrick.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, James.
- Lehane, Con.
- Lehane, Patrick D.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Madden, David J.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- O'Gorman, Patrick J.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Esmonde, Sir John L.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Flynn, John.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Halliden, Patrick J.
- Hickey, James.
- Hogan, Patrick.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Keane, Seán.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.)
- O'Sullivan, Martin.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Pattison, James P.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Sheehan, Michael.
- Sheldon, William A.W.
- Spring, Daniel.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Timoney, John J.
- Tully, John.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Carter, Thomas.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Colley, Harry.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Davern, Michael J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- De Valera, Vivion.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, James.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lahiffe, Robert.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lydon, Michael F.
- Lynch, John.
- McCann, John.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- Moran, Michael.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Doyle and Kyne; Níl: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy.
Amendment declared lost.
The decision, I assume, governs the cognate amendment No. 4, which was discussed with amendment No. 3.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
I move amendment No. 5:—
Before sub-section (4) to insert two new sub-sections as follows:—
( ) The expression "permanent construction" in the foregoing sub-section shall include piers, marine works, sea walls and embankments and any roads, causeways, road foundations or passageways between the mainland and any island or islands adjacent thereto.
( ) Subject to the provisions of this Act a local authority may proceed to repair, reconstruct, enlarge or raise any permanent construction described in the foreging sub-section of this section irrespective of any sailing or navigation rights or any profits-a-prendre or easement alleged to be in existence over any channel or passageway between the mainland and adjacent islands.
The definition of "permanent construction", as contained in this Bill, is limited to roads, bridges, houses, buildings, walls and embankments. To my mind, that definition would not cover marine works, piers or embankments in maritime counties where the danger of subsidence, flooding and so forth is much more serious in some of these cases than it actually is inland. There is another matter which I should like to point out to the House, namely, that a work under the Bill may mean the building of a house that is, for instance, undermined, in a town. If through undermining, due to flooding or subsidence, a house inland is or may be injured there is provision in the Bill to deal with that matter and to provide for it. If there is provision to deal with matters of that kind which occur inland, there is all the more reason why similar provision should be made with reference to inundation by the sea.
Those of us who come from maritime counties know that we have several instances of houses being undermined due to erosion and flooding by the sea where proper embankments are not provided. So, when we are making this provision for the people who live inland, there is the very same reason, if not a much stronger reason, I submit to the House, for making similar provision for the people who are living around the coast. In addition, you have a peculiar position arising with reference to roads or the making of roads and passageways between some islands in maritime counties and the mainland. There is one particular place which I have in mind in my own county in which a sum of money was expended by the Board of Works on the construction of a road between an island known as Inishnakillew in Clew Bay and the mainland. All the people in this island gave their consent for the work to be done but the Board of Works did not finish the work that particular year. Then an agitation was started by a gentleman on the mainland. He got some of the people to go back on the consent they had previously given. The result now is that that work is there and it is half submerged. It is all right when the tide is out but when it is in some of the people claim navigation rights. One solitary individual has been responsible for all that and his sole purpose was obstruction. I think that that is a matter that should be covered. I have tried to provide for it in this particular sub-section so as to enable the local authorities to go ahead with works of this kind—and not be held up by the frivolous objection of one particular individual—where it is a matter of public policy in the interests of the people concerned.
These are the main purposes of the introduction of these two amendments. First, to provide through "permanent construction" that we will be able to deal with serious questions of flooding and inundation and in some cases to build embankments to stop encroachment by the sea, particularly where houses are endangered. As I have said, we are making provision for that in regard to houses inland and there is no reason why the people on the coast should not be entitled to those same facilities we are providing in principle under this Bill. Secondly, to deal with the question of works which are quite important to the islands adjoining the mainland. We have a number of these small islands in coastal counties that have to be provided for and whose roads may be flooded or wiped out or interfered with as a result of inundation by the sea.
On a point of order. May I ask if this amendment is in order, having regard to the fact that we have already passed Section 1 in which the term "permanent construction" had been defined and that term is used only, as far as I can see, in Section 2? If we have already defined it in Section 1, are we entitled to put in a second definition after Section 2?
It should more properly go with the interpretation section. Whether it would be in order, therefore, is another question. It would, in the interpretation section. Does the Deputy mean the second portion of this amendment?
Well, the first portion——
It more properly belongs to the interpretation section.
In Section 1 we have already defined "permanent construction".
This amendment should have been there.
We use the expression "permanent construction" in Section 2 only and this is another definition which will create trouble. I submit, with respect, that it is not in order.
It should have been earlier in the Bill. I am allowing it and, if it is passed, it will have to go in earlier in the Bill. It is not necessarily out of order by not being tabled in the right place.
I accept what the Ceann Comhairle says.
I have doubts myself on it. In fact, I have just asked the question.
On that point. Since the amendment says that "The expression ‘permanent construction' in the foregoing sub-section..." is it not quite proper that such a special definition may appear elsewhere than in the interpretation section of the Bill?
The same applies to the next one. It might be where it is, but I think it would be more proper in the interpretation section. I see the Deputy's point, too.
We may take it that, as the Ceann Comhairle has ruled, we cannot raise the matter again with the Leas-Cheann Comhairle? I do not want to do that——
On the other hand I think that the second sub-section is out of order. I submit that the amendment is completely outside the scope of the Bill. If one refers to the Long Title it will be seen that this is an Act to enable certain local authorities to execute works affording relief or protection from flooding, landslide, subsidence and similar occurrences and to provide for matters connected with the matters aforesaid. There is no reference at all to that in the amendment. It would appear to me that the object is to enable local authorities to construct, enlarge, repair or raise causeways and piers, namely, causeways leading to the sea. It was not intended that such matters be dealt with in this Bill. I think it must be agreed that such works would be more appropriate to a Coast Erosion or a Marine Works Bill.
I submit that this amendment is quite in order. I respectfully point out to the House that the amendment starts: "Subject to the provisions of this Act..." That means that the work that would be done under this section is subject to the provision, including the Long Title. What I have in mind would be damage as a result of inundation by the sea, subsidence due to the sea or erosion due to the sea. It is flooding, at all events, and it is subject to the provisions of this Bill. I am suggesting to the House that it is very important that, when we are providing this relief for houses collapsing in inland areas, for instance, it is just as important that damage by the sea should be dealt with too.
I submit that the words "Subject to the provisions of this Act" refer to the actual carrying out of the scheme rather than to the method of entering on land, claims for compensation and things like that which are mentioned specifically in the Bill.
Subject to the whole of the provisions of the Bill.
"Subject to the provisions of this Act" seems to make the amendment in order. It provides a saving for the work which the amendment proposes to carry out. I am ruling that the amendment is in order.
In any case, I am not prepared to accept the amendment inasmuch as it involves the big problem of coast erosion which would require a rather lengthy Bill. Works to prevent coast erosion and other matters mentioned in the amendment could not be dealt with effectively under the provisions of this Bill.
Might I again urge on the Parliamentary Secretary to consider these amendments? We had it on the last section that a local authority in its discretion can proceed through the county manager, or however it may work out, to pick and choose works in one form and another. The mere fact of accepting the amendments does not mean that every single piece of coast erosion will be dealt with. Can the Parliamentary Secretary not see that we are making provision in this Bill for the repairing of walls and embankments, that there are many roads on the sea coast which badly need walls and embankments and that there are many houses on the sea coast that badly need protection. I know of some houses that have had to be abandoned owing to the action of the sea. We will be coming up against these difficulties on the sea coast more than inland. For instance, if a house in any town or its foundations are threatened by flooding, we are making provision to deal with that. Are not ratepayers in a coastal area entitled to as much attention as people in the towns?
As it is, that type of person and that type of construction are covered.
I cannot see how they are covered. If they were covered, I would not be moving this amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary says it is possible to deal with erosion. If he can satisfy me that matters of the kind I have mentioned can be dealt with under the Bill without this amendment I am quite satisfied, but I cannot see that from the Bill. I suggest that, as the Bill stands, marine works or anything of that nature are not covered. I am giving the Parliamentary Secretary an instance of a house built beside the sea which is threatened by coast erosion. Will the Parliamentary Secretary assure me that under the Bill we are entitled to build an embankment against the ravages of the sea in order to protect that house?
I have no idea of the place the Deputy has in mind, but I can conjure up a picture of the sea eating into the foundations of a house. The provision of an embankment in my opinion, and I expect in the opinion of a local authority, would not be sufficient to ensure that the same thing would not happen again. Dealing with the flooding of roads or the flooding of lands is entirely different from dealing with the force of sea water and consequent flooding. If a local authority considered it was feasible and that the work undertaken would be permanent, I would imagine they would carry it out. If a local authority feel that a pier or embankment is in danger from sea flooding, they can undertake works under this Bill to prevent that. It would, however, be hard to include other things which the Deputy has in his amendment, such as passageways between the mainland and any island or islands adjacent thereto. He will readily appreciate that local authorities will be very reluctant to accept the slightest responsibility for coast erosion. As a matter of fact, I do not think any Department of State at present has any responsibility for coast erosion.
I cannot follow the Parliamentary Secretary, because in one breath he says that we cannot go so wide as to take in coast erosion under this Bill and, in the next breath, he says that protection can be given by means of embankments and so forth against the action of the waves which cause coast erosion. On which leg is he standing? We have just turned down an amendment to Section 3 which gives to the Minister's nominee and to the county council's manager, if the section goes through, the right to carry out works even without receiving a report from an engineer. Damage may be done through such procedure. One thing in regard to which you can safely give a county manager or an non-technical man the assurance that he could not do any damage is protection against the force of the waves. Small coastal works have been carried out in the way of embankments and so forth to protect roads against sea erosion. I know of one case in County Louth where a road was being undermined and certain houses were threatened and under the minor improvements scheme the Office of Public Works carried out protective embankment works.
The difficulty about this Bill so far as I can see is that it is going to replace the minor improvements scheme and the rural improvement scheme and we will not be able to get as much done under it as we were able to do under these schemes. The whole tendency will be to carry out employment and relief works under the provisions of the Bill rather than under the minor employment branch of the Office of Public Works. I think we should make provision, therefore, in this Bill to ensure that the local authorities or the Minister's nominee, if he appoints a substitute for the local authorities, should have the power to do what the Board of Works have done for the relief of employment and for the improvement of drainage and transport facilities for the people and also protective embankments against the encroachment of the sea. The county manager or the Minister's nominee cannot do any harm even if he proceeds without the report of the engineer.
There are several other matters that are mentioned as well as the protection of piers and sea-walls and embankments. There are also causeways between the mainland and islands off the west coast. I think it is important that where the roads were half-built and were held up because some people withdrew their consent to a work which they had originally consented to, we should, when passing a Bill like this, give the local authority power to go ahead and complete the work and put it into such a state of repair as to enable the people to get from the mainland to the islands.
It must be very obvious that this is not a serious contribution to the Bill. One wonders if it is even intended to be a serious contribution. It envisages completely new departures from the work envisaged in the Bill itself. Deputy Moran admitted that he was asking for something outside the scope of what the Bill is intended to do. It is clearly shown that it is:—
"An Act to enable certain local authorities to execute works affording relief or protection from flooding, landslides, subsidence and similar occurrences and to provide for matters connected with the matters aforesaid."
The intention of the amendment is to tag on to that measure appeals for piers, marine works, sea-walls and embankments and so on. It is obviously a matter that would call for completely new legislation outside the scope of this Bill. Some of the piers are State owned, some are privately owned and there is such a welter of possibilities in my mind suggested in this amendment that one might wonder if he wanted this Bill to go through for the purpose intended. I think we should overthrow this attempt to overload the Bill by the introduction of matter which is completely irrelevant to it.
Whether these amendments in connection with this question are proper or not I leave it to any member of this House coming from a maritime county to decide. I suggest to the Minister that subsidence of these piers and marine works due to the action of the sea would possibly occur quicker than it would occur through the action of a river in connection with some inland works. Again, I appeal to the Minister on this question. Does he not realise that under this Bill we propose to take on work that was never done by a local authority before, that was never owned by a local authority and that a local authority had nothing to do with? To anybody who comes from a maritime county these are some of the matters that are just as urgent as the flooding that you have inland. As a matter of fact, in some cases they are much more urgent. I have in mind cases in which houses are gravely threatened on the edge of the coast by the action of the sea. I cannot see the cogency of the argument that that should not be done in that case, whereas a similar subsidence due to the action of fresh water can be done. If they do it in one case they are entitled to it in the other.
As for the other amendment I have down here I can assure the Minister I was not wasting my time drafting amendments without having some idea behind them. I am telling the Minister now that the Parliamentary Secretary in charge of the Board of Works can tell him the truth of what I have stated before in this House in connection with some of the causeways between the islands and the mainland in Clew Bay. I refer specifically to one, and that is the causeway road from Inniskillew Island to the mainland. It is quite obvious to any Deputy in this House that you are liable to have subsidence and erosion much more in the case of a road that is subjected to flooding by sea water than you will have inland. These are matters that we are coming up against down the country. I think this is the proper Bill to provide for these matters. I am not suggesting that under this amendment you should pass outside the scope of the Bill. In other words, relief would be given where you have subsidence or the wiping out of roads or embankments due to sea action. This is due to flooding, too, and is a matter which is being dealt with by this Bill. When we are making these provisions for inland people the same thing should be done for the people on the coast.
I quite agree with the Minister that possibly many local authorities would not take on the responsibilities contained in this Bill at all; that is, as far as all the sections following sub-section 2 are concerned. Local authorities, in the main, if any other Department or the State would carry out drainage, would not be anxious to take on this work. I am sure many members of local authorities listening to me tonight hold that view just as strongly as I do. However, we are assured by the Minister that the funds are going to be provided by the State for works under this Bill. When that is being done, if local authorities are going to carry out some of the jobs of drainage and so forth that have been thrust on them for the first time, there is no reason why they should not take on the responsibility of dealing with these matters that arise along the coast as well.
Of course, there is this. We will come to these points later on, as to who is going to pay for the future maintenance of these works. This is a question which will agitate the minds of many members of local authorities here and throughout the country. At all events, if we assume that the State wants to have this work done and that the State is now going to push over on local authorities the duty of doing these works that were formerly carried out by the Board of Works or some other Department of State, when they are taking on the responsibility of one type of work I do not see any reason why they should not also be prepared to do the other works of a similar nature that are provided for in my amendment.
There is one point I should like to make. According to the design of this Bill as introduced, where work is carried out by a local authority or the Minister's nominee and causes damage the damage will have to be paid for by the local authority. We are moving later on in this Bill that the damage should be met by the State.
In this particular section moved by Deputy Moran there is going to be no damage. Are the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government relying upon the fact that local authorities will have to pay the damages to influence them not to carry out work? Why is the Parliamentary Secretary in this particular case, not accepting the amendment when the works can be carried out without doing damage to anybody, because nobody can hurt the sea? If we keep it from sweeping away a piece of land it is not going to hurt people over in America. They cannot claim damages for it. I think that, under a Bill of this kind, we should give the people along the seacoast some benefits. They will have to pay when works are carried out for other people in their area. Everyone acquainted with our seacoasts knows that quite an amount of damage is being done by coast erosion. In some cases the expenditure of a few pounds would help to stop that erosion. By the erection of very slight works you can use the power of the sea to sweep in sand and rocks and so help to defend the land against the further encroachment of the waves.
I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister to accept this amendment and make it quite clear that this is a type of work that can be proceeded with. It is more urgent to protect good land or a good building from attack by the sea than it is to relieve some classes of land from water. We all know that there is a lot of land that is high and dry above water that is being flooded and cannot be drained. We also know that there is a lot of land under water which, if it were drained, would be as useless as some of the land above water. In this case there is no question of the county engineer or the Minister's nominee going to engage on works to protect land against sea erosion unless it is worth saving. A calculation can be made as to the value of the land and the cost of the works. I think that the Deputy's amendment is a very reasonable one, and that it should be accepted by the Government.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 52; Níl, 63.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Carter, Thomas.
- Colley, Harry.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Davern, Michael J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- De Valera, Vivion.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, James.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lahiffe, Robert.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lydon, Michael F.
- Lynch, John.
- McCann, John.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- Moran, Michael.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
Níl
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, John.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Collins, Seán.
- Commons, Bernard.
- Connolly, Roderick J.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Davin, William.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Esmonde, Sir John L.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- O'Gorman, Patrick J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.)
- O'Sullivan, Martin.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Pattison, James P.
- Reidy, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Flynn, John.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Halliden, Patrick J.
- Hickey, James.
- Hogan, Patrick.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Keane, Seán.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kinane, Patrick.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, James.
- Lehane, Con.
- Lehane, Patrick D.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Madden, David J.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Sheehan, Michael.
- Sheldon, William A.W.
- Spring, Daniel.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Timoney, John J.
- Tully, John.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Kyne.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 all deal with the liabilities of local authorities—trying to lessen or abolish them—and I suggest the debate should take place on No. 7, which is the widest amendment, and the decision might also cover amendments Nos. 22 and 35 and the third part of amendment No. 10.
I am sorry I was not here in time to move amendment No. 6.
The Deputy is late. The amendment was called but was not moved. However, if the Deputy will see the Minister, he will be satisfied that the point of his amendment is covered.
I merely want to get that assurance.
We are now at amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 and the subject-matter of these amendments will be discussed on amendment No. 7. The debate, as I have said, will also cover amendments Nos. 22 and 35 and, if Deputies will look at the third part of amendment No. 10, that is also covered. It refers to liability.
Agreed.
I move amendment No. 7, on behalf of Deputy MacEntee:—
Before sub-section (4) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
( ) Should a local authority execute works under this section no liability of any kind shall attach to the local authority in respect of such works.
This Bill, which was announced to the country as a Bill to do a lot of ameliorative work, drainage and so forth, at the expense of the State, was promised when the Government withdrew a couple of million pounds for the reconstruction of roads. It was the Central Authority that was giving this money to the local authorities to build the roads and our contention is that whatever work is carried out under this Bill, it should be on the responsibility of the central Exchequer.
We have had a couple of amendments turned down already by the Government, amendments which were designed to secure that where damage was done in an attempt to give benefit to certain districts or to certain people, that that damage should be minimised by having proper inquiries made before the work was undertaken. The Government did not agree to our amendments and we hold that if a county manager or a Minister's nominee is to proceed with work which may cause grave damage and be of very little benefit, the Minister and the Government should guarantee the local authority against any action for damage. I know one case where a Government Department urged on by a Minister spent a few thousand pounds in an attempt to drain poor, marshy land. The result was that good land further downstream was flooded. There was agitation in the district adversely affected by those flood waters for a number of years and all sorts of steps had to be taken in order to relieve the local authority so that they, in turn, would relieve the farmers adversely affected by the flood waters let down. The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary refuse to accept an amendment which will give the local authority, the Minister's nominee, power to carry out works where no damage could be caused. It appears to me that they are insisting upon keeping this penalty upon the local authority by way of compensation for damage done so that there will be a break and an impediment upon such authority in the carrying out of these works.
We have had numerous instances of where the present Government has postponed or put into abeyance schemes which were doing good work and have substituted therefor a nebulous promise that they will do something better in the future. We had that experience in connection with land improvements. It looks to me as if the Government are going to insist that the local authority bear the cost of all the damage that may be done under this Bill in substitution for their promise to do something better in the knowledge that the local authorities will not undertake the risk involved in the carrying out of whatever work might be done. I hope that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that when this Bill was introduced it was represented as something which would fulfil a long-felt want and do great good in relieving lands subject to flooding and that the entire cost would be carried out at the expense of the State. It was claimed that this was very much superior to the rural improvements scheme and minor relief schemes and other measures under which improvement works were carried out in the past. This was supposed to be a Bill that would cut out all red tape and white tape and green tape and get on with the work.
It seems to me that, as the Bill stands, with the penalty upon the local authorities in attempting to carry out the work of an unknown amount of damage for which they will be responsible, very little work will be done. Certainly less work will be done under this Bill than would have been done had the Government carried on in a normal fashion with the minor relief schemes and the rural improvement scheme. Under the rural improvement scheme everyone affected knew what they were facing and what they had to pay.
On a point of order. Is it in order to open up these other systems?
I shall not allow the Deputy to proceed any further on that line. I will remind him to deal with the amendment.
They were limited and the cost was 25 per cent. of the total amount.
Are these amendments in order?
They have been so ruled.
Surely if these amendments are passed they will clearly involve a charge on public funds because the amendments stipulate that the local authorities are not to pay for these works. There is only one other authority which can be mulcted.
An amendment, in order to be ruled out of order, must specifically set out that the work is to be a charge on public funds. It does not so specifically state here.
But clearly they will be a charge on public funds.
The Ceann Comhairle has ruled the amendments are in order. My point is that under these other schemes the limit of payment on the part of the local beneficiaries was 25 per cent. of the work carried out. In this particular case work may be carried out and money may be spent on work which may cost many times the money spent in compensation. If that is going to be done in order that this Government may show a "new look" I think the Government should pay for their "new look". Under the old schemes the central Government paid.
The Deputy has said that before and I have warned him. He must not contrast this amendment with any other scheme. He must argue as to whether this amendment should or should not be accepted.
We have five amendments being discussed at the one time and all of them are designed to limit the liability on the local authorities and on the farmers concerned and to get the State to carry out the promise which it made, through the mouths of its Ministers, when this Bill was first mooted. This Bill was supposed to be some compensation to those people unemployed because of the cut in the road grants. It was to do great work for the farmers. If the farmers whose lands may be flooded owing to lack of proper precautions—even the lack of a report from the county engineer before the scheme is decided upon—have to pay portion of their own compensation I do not think this is a proposition which would have the consent of the House or those people in particular who are frightened about all the improvements that are going to be done on the land and all that is going to be done for the relief of unemployment. It is of little good to a farmer to have Ministers making fine speeches about the improvement of his land if, instead of improving that land, they flood good land and compel the farmer to pay for it. If they call the tune they must pay the piper. Our suggestion is that the State should ensure the local authority will not be mulcted with heavy costs and compensation on foot of this Bill
Again, it is hard to understand the approach of the Opposition to this Bill. I have a very distinct recollection of Deputy MacEntee saying on the Second Reading of this particular Bill that it would not give 1,000 men work for one week and now we have Deputy Aiken afraid we are going to do too much work under this Bill. So far as compensation is concerned, the local authorities were aware three months ago that they would be liable for compensation. Despite the fact that every single local authority knew that they would be liable for compensation they have submitted to the Department for approval by the Minister schemes amounting to £2,000,000. No matter what Deputy Aiken may think of local authorities, they are not such fools as he would have us believe they are.
That is the county managers.
Whatever you like to call them.
The county managers.
I can say "local authorities", because it was Deputy Aiken and the present critics of this Bill who introduced the County Management Act under which the county manager was to be regarded as the local authority.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary accept an amendment to give these powers to elected representatives on the local authorities?
No, but the County Management Act will be repealed in due course and I do not know whether Deputy Aiken will support that.
When the cows come home.
They will come home very quickly so far as Deputy Aiken is concerned. The local authorities have submited schemes amounting to £2,000,000 and they are fully aware of the fact that they will be liable for compensation. So far as the Bill generally is concerned, it is an enabling Bill and there is no obligation on any local authority to engage in any works provided for under the Bill but, in conjunction with the introduction of the Bill, an announcement was made by the late Minister that 100 per cent. grants would be given for these works. I do not think that that is unreasonable and I do not think that any member of a local authority who is a member of this House objected very strongly on the Second Reading to the fact that local authorities would be liable for compensation. In any case, if Deputy Aiken wants to take it that way, it is a safeguard. If a local authority or as he likes to call it, the county manager, knows that it will be liable for compensation, that is an adequate safeguard.
The county manager does not pay rates.
You should have told that to Deputy MacEntee when he was introducing his County Management Act. They are fully aware that they have to pay compensation. The very fact that compensation has to be paid by the local authority is a safeguard. No local authority is going to engage in any scheme which will involve it in any colossal expenditure. Deputy Aiken also suggested that works under this Bill were being substituted for rural improvement schemes and minor relief schemes. Of course he knows that provision has been made in the Estimates for rural improvement schemes and minor relief schemes and that these schemes will be carried out as usual. He mentioned that this was another attempt to bind local authorities with red tape legislation, but I suggest that all these amendments are so much red tape and white tape—the Deputy mentioned every single colour in the rainbow—the only intention of which is to make it impossible for local authorities to carry out any works under this Bill. There is a complete change of front so far as this Bill is concerned on the Opposition Benches. There is no similar provision, as the Deputy suggests should be inserted by this amendment, in the Local Government Act of 1925 which places the responsibility for the construction and maintenance of roads on the local authority. In that particular Act, responsibility is imposed on local authorities to maintain and construct roads and there is no question of the money involved at all. The grants are announced from year to year. In conjunction with the introduction of this Bill, it was announced that 100 per cent. grants would be given and from the returns we have received from local authorities we believe that they are well satisfied with the Bill.
I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary is hedging to an enormous extent on these amendments. He said that the local authorities were consulted.
I did not say that the local authorities were consulted.
He said that the local authorities were consulted and when Deputy Aiken mentioned that it was the county managers who were consulted, he said that that was the local authority.
I said that they were well aware of the fact that they were liable for compensation.
I am quite satisfied that the local authorities were not consulted, and if the local authorities were not consulted I do not know how they submitted schemes and I do not know how the Parliamentary Secretary got all the schemes which he says he received from them. The Parliamentary Secretary may tell us that the local authorities need not undertake any work in which they will be involved in considerable expense. The local authority may not undertake the work but the Minister can then nominate an individual to carry out the work.
In certain circumstances.
Having regard to the fact that these certain circumstances may arise, I think we should have the safeguards that are suggested in these amendments.
What safeguards does the Deputy want in these amendments?
I want the safeguard that the local authorities will not be saddled with the heavy expenditure that may be incurred by the individual the Minister may nominate to do the work.
The Deputy may have misunderstood me. What I said was that local authorities were aware of the fact that they would be liable for compensation but, even knowing that, they sent on schemes for approval involving an expenditure of £2,000,000.
Did the local authorities send them up or did the county managers plus the engineers send them up? That is what I am anxious to know. When we are talking about local authorities I take it that we are talking about members of the county councils.
These schemes were submitted to the elected members of the county councils in most cases.
So far as the elected representatives of one county council is concerned, they were not submitted.
That is most surprising considering that Deputy Killilea is a member of the General Council of County Councils. Surely he is aware of the fact that they appointed a deputation to point out the great necessity for this type of Bill——
That is not relevant to the amendment.
When that deputation came to the Board of Works they did not even ask for the 100 per cent. provision. They were willing to accept the clause as it is, that if they did any damage they would accept responsibility, that it was their own look-out.
If we are to discuss the General Council of County Councils——
The General Council of County Councils does not arise.
If the Parliamentary Secretary could raise the matter——
The Parliamentary Secretary said that the General Council of County Councils would accept liability.
If the Parliamentary Secretary was in order——
The Parliamentary Secretary was in order in the view of the Chair.
The Parliamentary Secretary raised the question that the General Council of County Councils did certain things. I have been discussing with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government the question of local authorities, meaning county councils. I do not at this stage believe that this Bill is a matter for the Board of Works. I think it is a matter for the Local Government Department. The Board of Works have a lot to do if they would only go and do it.
They are doing more than ever you did.
If the Galway Deputies would fight it out in Galway and let us get on——
Is the Parliamentary Secretary in order in interrupting?
We have one on each side and they are both from Galway.
These amendments get down to the whole kernel of this Bill and the Parliamentary Secretary let the cat out of the bag when he suggested that the fact that local authorities would be saddled with the payment of compensation would discourage them from going ahead with the schemes permitted under this Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary said something to the effect that the Opposition were changing front in connection with this matter. If he was listening to the Second Reading of this Bill he will remember quite well—and the House will remember quite well—how strenuously we opposed the suggestion that local authorities and the ratepayers throughout the country should become liable for some of the charges which will arise under this Bill. This Bill at that time was held up as the be-all and end-all of the Coalition Government's policy to provide employment. It was announced here from Ministerial level that all the people who had become disemployed on the roads would find work under this. We now find that the Parliamentary Secretary has announced this evening that it is only intended to do very small jobs. But let the jobs be small or large, I think that what members of local authorities who are members of this House are interested in is this: if there is going to be no damage or if the damage is going to be negligible, why not provide for the payment for that damage? Why put it on the local authorities? Who is going to pay the necessary officials who will be required by the local authority for the administration of works under the Bill if any work is going to be done? Every member of a local authority knows that officials' time, particularly engineers' time, is already fully occupied and is it not obvious that if any work is going to be done it will involve the employment of quite a number of engineers? With the salaries these gentlemen receive at the present time that will be no joke for the local authorities. In addition to that—again if any work is going to be done—a considerable amount of clerical staff will be needed to work with the professional gentlemen to supervise and prepare these schemes for the local authority.
Another matter that is really as important as the damage that might be done is the maintenance of these works. We all know that it is a waste of time to spend money on compensation for damage unless money is provided for maintenance. Who will bear the cost if, as the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister have said, a considerable amount of work will be done under the Bill with relief to farmers all over the country as a result? Those of us who are members of local authorities know already that the rates have reached a very high level. On local authorities we deal with matters of urgent importance and we know that we have to put off many schemes because we feel that the ratepayers would not be able to provide the additional rates necessary to carry them out. In addition to paying for the damage and for the necessary officials, it is proposed to provide in the Bill that the local authorities, or the ratepayers through their local authorities, will have to pay for the future maintenance of these works.
Many of us who are members of local authorities know that a number of works done under the 1935 drainage code had to be taken over by local authorities under the 1945 Drainage Act. They had to take over the upkeep of them and, although provision was very limited, we had to keep them at the same level as that at which we took them over, but even that—I know in my own county—involved a very, very heavy burden indeed on the ratepayers to meet that annually recurring expenditure. If, as the Minister would have us believe, a lot of drainage will be done under this Bill and if the local authorities have to accept responsibility for its maintenance, it will be a crushing burden on them. When the Parliamentary Secretary made that statement he let the cat out of the bag because he knows that when local authorities know that they are going to be responsible for the raising of these moneys they will say: "We cannot bite off more than we can chew. We will not do the works we could do under this Bill because it is beyond our capacity to pay for them." The Minister is taking power, under Section 3 in connection with any works which he considers should be done by local authorities if the local authorities even on grounds of expense turn it down having examined the question on its merits, to send John Brown down from the Department——
Do not mind John Brown.
Call him Pat Jones if you like. He can carry out the works and the local authority will be liable for the expense of any damage caused by them and for future maintenance.
John Brown is on pension.
These are matters of vital importance as far as local authorities are concerned. We can visualise the type of work that will be carried on, say, drainage. If, as was pointed out on the Second Reading, fishery rights are interfered with you could run into very heavy damages. You could have serious flooding, as was pointed out by, I think, Deputy Aiken, between one county and another. If more water is released than the main waterway can take you may have serious consequences. Before a local authority could embark on schemes of that kind they would have to see where those schemes would lead them and I want to know where the Minister's proposal comes in that all the unemployed are going to find employment on them. The rights of mill owners on rivers are also concerned if they are interfered with, because, you must remember, under this Bill we take the power of diversion of water. It would mean that very heavy damages would be incurred and the ratepayers, under this Bill, are left with the responsibility to pay for all that.
If these amendments, or at least some of them, are not accepted—the first amendment is rather a general one, the second provides for the work plus the damage, and the third for the works if the Minister is not prepared to pay for the damage—this Bill will be completely illusory. Local authorities will have no scope to do the work they want to do, as they will be scalded with the charges that will arise. Members of local authorities know that every year different councillors put in a number of works which are dealt with at the annual meeting—the taking over of roads, and so on—but these are always put on the long finger and put off to the following year, when it is pointed out that they would cost thousands of pounds, as the local authorities are not prepared to undertake such cost. In the same way, if the local authorities are to be responsible for damage caused in doing these works, for the payment of the officials, administrators and clerical staffs, and above all for the maintenance, they will not be prepared to face the ratepayers with those high demands and the Bill will be illusory and futile.
If the Minister is sincere in trying to get local authorities to go ahead with the drainage we all want done and if there is not going to be much danger of great damage, why spoil the ship for a ha'port of tar? If he is providing money for the actual works and there will be little or no resultant damage, why not throw in the cost of the damage? Why not accept responsibility for that very small minor issue —which he suggests it is—when he is accepting responsibility for the major issue?
There is no word in the Bill to support the Minister's statement that the full amount of money necessary will be provided. The Minister undertook that, but that may be for this year only. Next year we may find a local authority asked to put up 10 or 15 per cent. locally, as in the case of road grants. Other Acts state that the money will be provided by the Oireachtas. This Bill contains no suggestion as to who will provide the money or what amount will be given. We have nothing but the Minister's statement when introducing it. He said he would give the full amount for the actual execution of the works, but there is no provision there for the future. This Minister may not be there next year and his successor may ask the local authority to provide 40 or 50 per cent. locally. Local authorities should be assured of full protection against claims for damage and should be assured about future maintenance, if they are to use this Bill fully. It is incorrect for the Parliamentary Secretary to suggest that the members of local authorities, as we know them, realise that they will have to pay for the maintenance, the officials and the damage. The members know no such thing and will not know it, probably, until after this discussion here to-day.
This Bill was held up as one under which the Government would provide everything and there would be no charge on local authorities. The members of the council to which I belong— and the same applies to other Deputies I know of on this side of the House—were never consulted, this Bill was not discussed with them and they do not know its implications regarding these payments. I would impress particularly on Deputies who are members of local authorities that to get the best out of this Bill the Minister should accept these amendments.
If Deputy Moran's latter prophecy comes true and local authorities fail to avail of this Bill to its fullest extent unless compensation claims are withdrawn, he should withdraw the amendment. It is particularly clear that no one would be more disappointed than Deputy Moran if any full employment is given. Deputies Aiken and Moran indicated very clearly their minds on the matter—this was going to be the cure-all for all unemployment—and their determination is that there will be no such cure-all and that this scheme will not see the light of day.
Why not give the road grants?
They say this Bill should never have been introduced, that other Bills were the proper ones. It is perfectly clear that they have no intention of helping the Bill, but desire by opposition to kill it before it sees the light of day. When Deputy Moran talks of protecting the interests of local authorities from compensation claims, he admits the 100 per cent. grant to be given and asks the House that, in an enabling Bill of this kind— local authorities are not compelled and do this of their own iniative and there is a 100 per cent. grant—the local council still must be asked to pay no compensation for any damage ensuing from entering on any works or land. No such provision was introduced before. The county council which we were told before was irresponsible, is, for any further irresponsibility in doing unnecessary damage, to be exempt from liability to pay compensation.
Deputies moving the amendments do not seem to believe a word they are saying. They are not sincere. The steps being taken under this measure have been conveyed generally throughout the country by publication. It was made abundantly clear that compensation would have to be paid by the local authorities. They submitted their schemes in the light of that information. I do not know where Deputy Moran got his statement. Explanations of the Bill have been published in the Press and local authorities could make any inquiries about it. They submitted works up to £2,000,000 in the full knowledge that they would be asked to bear any compensation. There is too much stress being laid on compensation. The Opposition seems to indicate that the Bill is one to do damage rather than to help the farmers, that the destruction will outweigh any benefit that may accrue.
How much is calculated for damage under the £2,000,000?
A lot of damage to Fianna Fáil.
Will the Minister say if, in submitting the £2,000,000, the engineers responsible gave any assurance that these works would not cause damage to neighbouring districts?
The works intended by the operation of this Bill are well known. There is not a county where, without consultation with the chief engineers, the damage cannot be seen year after year in the flooding of roads, houses and land.
I know of schemes submitted by county surveyors and if those surveyors were asked to stand over them as schemes that would do no damage to neighbouring districts, they would not take that responsibility.
Under this measure?
The Parliamentary Secretary has claimed that £2,000,000 of works have been submitted by county surveyors and that that was indicative of the way in which local bodies have received these proposals. I want to know if, in submitting this £2,000,000, the engineers have sent an accompanying assurance to each local body to the effect that, in the execution of these works, no damage would result for which the local authority would be responsible later.
What about the Mulcaire drainage which you carried out— £40,000 on the ratepayers.
Never mind the Mulcaire. I am asking a question.
Is it not a fact that the provisions in this Bill were conveyed to the county surveyors at a conference held by the Minister's predecessor?
Let the Minister answer the question put to him and do not be trying to draw in red herrings.
I am not in a position to give any guarantee to Deputy Smith. I am not an engineer who is conversant with all these works, but I suggest there is nothing in the Bill which is not capable of being dealt with competently by the local authorities with their advisory experts in regard to carrying out these works with the minimum damage and compensation. In regard to such damage as is essential and incidental, ample provision for compensation is being made, and we suggest that the reasonable people to pay this compensation are the local authorities, having regard to the munificence of the grant being given for the relief of unemployment, the improvement of the conditions of farmers, and the relief of flooding by dealing with roads which are perennially flooded, so that children cannot get to school, as I know is the position in places within my own knowledge. The local authority is not entitled to go in to repair the eye of a bridge and prevent that flooding. These are the things which this Bill attempts to deal with it and it is utterly unreasonable on the part of the Opposition to say that the local authority should bear no responsibility whatever, that they should do the work at their own discretion, get a 100 per cent. grant and have no responsibility, and that the State should pay whatever compensation has to be paid.
If I had an open mind about these amendments when coming in here, it certainly would be open no longer, because the arguments advanced by the Opposition members who spoke so far, by their insincerity and weakness, have convinced me of one thing, that these amendments were put down purely from the point of view of obstructing the passage of what the Opposition know is going to be a highly popular measure. That is the reason for these cunctatorial tactics, if I may so describe them. I should like to ask Deputy Moran, in the light of the speech he made, if it is his opinion and the opinion of Deputies opposite that we have not got in this country any competent engineers, because that is really the effect of the arguments put forward. The answer to the objections made that local authorities will not engage in these works is what has already been stated by the Parliamentary Secretary, that £2,000,000 worth of schemes have already been submitted. I think the Opposition are engaging in purely delaying tactics.
One cannot prevent Deputies who support the Government from attributing to those of us who are discussing these amendments whatever motives they wish, but I want to say that, if I were assured that, in the preparation of schemes to be approved, a proper engineering report were obtained and all the technical steps necessary to safeguard the local bodies and ratepayers from the payment of damages were taken I certainly would hesitate very much to ask the State to accept responsibility, for example, for compensation for consequential damage. I asked, in the course of the Minister's statement, for an assurance as to whether or not, in submitting £2,000,000 worth of works in a couple of weeks——
A couple of months.
Let it be a couple of months. I asked for an assurance that, in submitting £2,000,000 worth of works from different parts of the country, the engineers who submitted these proposals sent with them to their county councils or to the Local Government Department reasonable assurances that every engineering precaution had been taken—you cannot have everything perfect and some damage may arise—and that every step which engineers could reasonably take had been taken to ensure that they were not walking local bodies into a responsibility for the payment of damages which might far exceed the value of the work undertaken. I am satisfied, from my contacts with county surveyors who acted on the request which was sent out by the Department of Local Government for the submission of schemes, that, if we were in a position to bring these gentlemen before us and to ask them a few questions as to what they thought of some of the schemes submitted, on the basis of the amount of damage that would arise if the work proposed were carried out, they would, in the case of almost 90 per cent. of the submissions made through local authorities to the Department, refuse to take responsibility for them.
Their own schemes?
Their own schemes. I am perfectly satisfied from what I know of the proposals which must have gone in that they have been sent in, not because of any irresponsibility on the part of these gentlemen and not because of any irresponsibility on the part of the local bodies, but because they knew that these schemes were being "vetted" by the Department. As a matter of fact, the Parliamentary Secretary has admitted here, as proof of my contention and their belief, that a letter went out yesterday to local bodies asking them to re-sort the schemes, which conveys definitely and clearly to the local bodies that they have not got the final say in the schemes to be selected, and that therefore they have a fairly loose and free hand to submit any scheme, in the knowledge that it is Local Government which will decide ultimately the amount of money to be provided for these works and therefore that the money must fit into a certain type of proposal.
I cannot speak for what is in the minds of members, even of my own Party. I can to a certain extent, but I cannot speak with the same confidence as that with which I can speak in regard to what is in my own mind, and, to the extent to which I am supporting these amendments, to the extent to which I am advocating some safeguard for a local authority in regard to the payment of compensation, it is because I know that, in sending forward the schemes which have been submitted, it could not be expected that engineers would have been able to "vet" in a proper way £2,000,000 worth of works in the course of a couple of months, when work which is now being carried out under the other drainage code has taken years. Although £1,000,000 are invested in that work, it has taken years to satisfy these engineering people as to what will result, what benefits will accrue and what damage may follow from the execution of the works. Yet we are told here that under a Bill which has not yet become an Act, county engineers have been able, in the course of a few weeks, to fire up £2,000,000 worth of schemes and we are asked to regard that as an indication that the local bodies are prepared to go ahead with this work and that the works have been "vetted" in such a way as to enable county councils, county managers or county engineers in the knowledge that they would have to be responsible for the compensation, to know what these schemes involve. To ask us to accept that as a serious proposition is carrying things a little too far.
The Deputy's proposition is, then, that unless liability——
The Deputy is in possession.
Does the Deputy want us to scrap it?
I am asking him to clarify the position.
To make the mud muddier.
I say, as I think the attempt is being made, that it is not fair to place local bodies in the position that people whose lands are affected by flooding and who will not be interested in what the result of the immediate relief given to them may be on their neighbours can be told: "We are giving the local body 100 per cent. grant if they carry out that work but the giving of that grant is conditioned by the provision that the local authority is responsible for the payment of compensation." After the passage of this Bill, if these amendments are not inserted, we will be transferring the baby to the local body in the knowledge that most of us have that many of these problems cannot be approached or tackled in this piecemeal fashion.
Speaking for myself, and I believe I can speak for other members of the Party, I want to say that in asking the Parliamentary Secretary to accept this amendment, or some amendment that would cover the point, we are doing so because we know that schemes that have already been submitted are not in the main schemes that could be carried out without exposing the local authority to the payment of unreasonable compensation later. We feel that the State and the Government is trying to shirk its responsibility, trying to transfer its responsibility, trying to put itself in the position that it can in future say: "We will give you full cost State grant although we know that, by making the local body responsible for payment of compensation, we are giving you something that we know in our hearts you cannot use."
I repudiate the suggestion by Deputy Smith that the county engineers in this country are not competent men. There is not the slightest doubt but that a substantial amount of money will be paid on works as envisaged under this Bill and as prepared by the county engineers. I do not know whether Deputy Smith knows it or not, but it was mentioned here that on the 25th February every county engineer in the whole country attended a conference at which were also present the chief engineering officers of the Department. This Bill was discussed in full and the works which they could undertake or which they might undertake were also discussed in full. The county engineers are aware of the type of schemes which they could well engage in without causing serious damage or without causing damage which would mean substantial amounts in compensation. At a recent conference of the county engineers they reported that there would be some claims for compensation but that the compensation would not be heavy and that the works engaged in, when completed, would be fully justified even in view of the small amount of compensation which would result. My information from the county engineers is that approximately 80 per cent. of the work proposed to be done under the provisions of this Bill and with the aid of the 100 per cent. grant will relate to roads, that is, the protection of roads from flooding; another percentage within the remaining 20 will go for the protection of houses and there are other schemes, a very small percentage, which will be rejected. These schemes will be sent up from the county councils after being thoroughly examined by the county engineers and they will also be examined by the engineering officers of the Department.
I would like to give an example of the type of schemes that one particular county proposes to engage in and this, incidentally, is a county which has submitted schemes to an amount of £75,000: the improvement of drains, streams, etc., which cause flooding of roads; the raising of the road surfaces at the points where they are liable to flooding; the alleviation of hardship to landowners whose lands have to take considerable quantities of road surface water by improving existing watercourses through their land or by the provision of adequate soakers or new watercourses in their lands; the provision of side sub-drains to roads where these are incut or where, for other causes, the water table is too near the surface of the road; to pipe and close in existing road side drains where these are in the nature of dykes which, by virtue of their size and proximity to the road margin, constitute a hazard to road users; to improve and enlarge road gullets and culverts which at present impede in any way the free flow of water in minor streams and drains. Also, to eliminate any road hog-backs caused by such gullets and culverts; to provide suitable impervious side channels to roads, particularly on embankments and on slopes, where the ordinary road run-off is liable to cause surface scour or sub-surface damage by seepage under the sides. Also to provide adequate and suitable collecting points for the draw-off of such water from the side channels.
That is just an example of the type of schemes which the different county councils propose to engage in and I think the Deputy ought to be assured that these county engineers know their job and have not selected schemes indiscriminately. Also, I would like to remind him that the circular which asked that such schemes be prepared was sent to the secretary of each county council and to the town clerk of the urban councils and corporations.
What date?
10th March. The county engineers, of course, were aware of this and were asked to prepare schemes on the 25th February, but this circular setting out the type of schemes that may be engaged in was brought before the members of the local authorities and the circular to which I referred previously, which was sent out yesterday, asked that first preference be given to simple schemes, not requiring elaborate surveys or preparation, which can be undertaken without delay, within an appropriate period of the present financial year. As a matter of fact, members of local authorities and, for that matter, Dáil representatives, have themselves submitted schemes to the local authorities. I was reminded that in some counties—I think Mayo happens to be one of them—the nature of the schemes to be engaged in or, at least, this particular circular was not discussed by the local authority. That may have happened only in a few counties but, generally speaking, the terms of this circular were very well known to the members of the local authorities themselves and they were fully aware of the fact that the local authority would be liable for compensation. Again I repeat, despite that fact, they know they could submit certain schemes for this 100 per cent. grant, bearing in mind that they would be liable for compensation but knowing also that they could have a substantial amount of work done which would not result in compensation.
May I ask were the local authorities informed by circular that they would be liable for compensation?
Yes, they got a copy of the Bill.
Wait now. The other way is the better way. There is nothing in the Bill that says one way or the other whether they would be liable or not. Were they informed by circular?
Not specifically.
Deputy Moran deliberately suggested that the schemes already submitted to the Department of Local Government by the various county councils were submitted under the wrong impression that not alone the full costs of carrying out the schemes but the cost of administering these schemes would be included in the 100 per cent. grant. I am not a member of a local authority but I have some knowledge of what is going on in my area since the circular of the 10th March last was sent out to the local authorities. I have personal knowledge, from conversations I have had with the county engineers concerned and with several members of the two county councils in my area—and I am not confining my conversations to the Labour members of these authorities — that when these schemes were being prepared by the county surveyors and by their assistants in the two counties they knew perfectly well that the cost of any compensation that might be involved would not be included in the 100 per cent. grant. If Deputy Moran and his colleagues on the Mayo County Council did not understand that, well, Deputy Moran has a big responsibility for it, because he was here in this House listening to the discussion on the Second Reading of this Bill.
On a point of explanation——
Do not interrupt.
If the Deputy does not give way——
I do not give way.
I am being misrepresented.
The Deputy is an old hand at that.
I would not have taken part in this discussion were it not for the speech made by Deputy Moran. If he did not listen to the speeches in this House on the Second Reading of the Bill—and I listened to most of them — and, in particular, if he did not hear the speech which was made by his colleague, Deputy Corry, I would advise him to study the Offical Report carefully. Deputy Corry welcomed this. Bill with enthusiasm and said that immediately he read it he proceeded to his own constituency in Cork and got the county surveyor on the job. He indicated that before the proposals were completed, in so far as his constituency was concerned, the cost of the schemes involved would be somewhere in the vicinity of £250,000. When Deputy Corry went to Cork—before the Second Reading of this Bill was passed—he knew perfectly well that the cost of compensation would not be included in the 100 per cent. grant. The circular that was sent out on the 10th March, nearly three months ago, made quite clear to the county managers and to the members of the county councils concerned the types of schemes that would be provided for under the terms of this Bill. I feel very proud to be able to say that, so far as my constituency is concerned—and my colleague, Deputy T.F. O'Higgins, will confirm my statement—Fine Gael, Labour and Independent members, and so forth, drafted the best schemes that could be drafted and sent them along to the Department of Local Government, where they are now awaiting sanction. I warn Deputy Moran and his colleagues that his attitude of obstruction is holding up the day when these schemes can be put into operation.
Codology.
If we are wrong and if the county councils have been misled by anything said up to now, I would say to the Deputies opposite to withdraw the obstructionist amendments and that we on this side will answer to the people when the time comes. You are here to-night engaged in a policy of delaying action. We know that that policy is bound to prevent men who are waiting for work from getting the most valuable work in the country. Withdraw your amendments. Take responsibility and thereby withdraw your obstructionist attitude. You will find that the county councils and the county engineers and all the county councillors of the different counties who are sensible and reasonable people know what they are doing and what they have done when they submitted schemes amounting to £2,000,000 to the Department of Local Government.
I thought the inter-Party Government would take advice from anybody.
It is refreshing at all times to hear out colleague, Deputy Davin. There is no doubt about that.
Thanks very much.
When anyone is required to apologise for the people beyond, Deputy Davin is always available. He comes up smiling every time. He tells us that because of the obstruction by the Deputies on this side of the House, this Bill is not in operation.
Delaying action.
I would repudiate that.
It could have been in operation a month ago.
You should have said "delaying tackling".
It is unworthy of Deputy Davin. There are three amendments here that propose, in effect, that the local authority shall have no responsibility for compensation that may arise out of damage that may occur as a result of the passing and putting into operation of this Bill. If the county councils are only to be allowed or asked to carry out the schemes just mentioned a while ago by the Parliamentary Secretary, no Bill at all was needed. He mentioned the type of roadwork — nothing but roadwork, completely on roads—and it is work for which the county councils already have full authority to carry out. They are already fully covered by law in every possible respect. No Bill whatsoever was needed and no compensation was payable either if they were going to be kept to the roads. Further, it is significant that the schemes which the local authorities have prepared amount to a sum of £2,000,000. It is a very significant amount. A figure of £2,225,000 was mentioned very often in this House early this year. It represented the amount by which the road grants this year were reduced. I hope, for the sake of the lot of us and for the sake of a lot of people outside this House, that it will be possible to spend that £2,000,000 in the present financial year.
It will not, if you do not hurry up.
I hope it will. I hope that every possible effort will be made by the Minister and by his Parliamentary Secretary and by everybody concerned to make it possible to spend that sum of £2,000,000 in the present financial year.
Give us the Bill.
I am afraid that that sum of money will not be spent within this financial year if only the minor schemes that have been submitted to the Department are carried out. In such circumstances only a very small amount of the money will fall due to be spent.
This amendment has reference to liability under the local authority—not to the amount of money to be spent.
This amendment will safeguard the local authorities so that they will not have to provide, at the expense of the ratepayers in their particular counties, any funds to compensate a person who may be aggrieved under this scheme. There was much talk here since this amendment came under discussion on the question of whether engineers are a responsible body of people or otherwise. I do not think anyone will suggest or has suggested or will attempt to suggest that any engineers in this country are irresponsible. I do not believe they are.
That is what Deputy Smith suggested.
He did not suggest any such thing. He pointed out——
He said that they were dishonest.
He pointed out—it is a well-known fact to everybody down the country and it was broadcast generally — that engineers, in preparing those schemes, were told by their county managers that every possible scheme that might fall to be done, whether on the roads or on the land, that would serve the interests of the community at large, should be put on the list—every possible scheme that would serve the interests of the community. These were the instructions that they got.
What is wrong with that?
Nothing whatever. When Deputy Smith points out here——
He said 90 per cent. would do damage.
—— that it was possible and almost certain that a large number of those schemes were prepared hastily by the county engineers. There is not any doubt about it.
Does that apply to Deputy Corry?
Deputy Davin is well able to speak for himself. I am surprised that he has to fall back on Deputy Corry for his defence because he is usually able to defend himself. Assuming this £2,000,000 will be spent before 31st March next year, could the Parliamentary Secretary give an indication to the House as to what proportion of that £2,000,000 will be spent on labour and what proportion on capital expenditure, administrative expenses, etc.?
The Chair is wondering how this is relevant to the amendment.
I am proposing to show the approximate amount of the cost which may fall on local authorities in administrative expenses without considering compensation at all.
This has reference to liability.
Yes. The liability will fall under two headings. There will be the liability on the local authorities for providing engineering and clerical staff. Secondly, there will be the liability for damage that may be done and awards made against the council as a result of activities under the Bill. I think I am entitled to refer to the approximate cost for engineering and clerical services as distinct from labour on the particular works. I suggest that it will be approximately 30 per cent.
For clerical work?
For expenditure outside that on labour. It will cost between 20 and 30 per cent. probably nearer to 30 per cent. I am speaking from previous experience of local authorities doing such works.
What did the administration of the special employment schemes cost?
The Parliamentary Secretary in charge of employment schemes is in the House and can tell you if he wishes.
Four per cent. in the majority of cases.
I know that in connection with roads the cost is roughly 70 per cent. for labour and 30 per cent. for other costs. I see no reason why the Government should resist these reasoned amendments which will enable more work to be done. There are several ways of damaging schemes that might otherwise do a lot of good. Much more work will be done under the Bill if such a provision as is mentioned in these amendments is inserted. The engineers and the manager of local authorities will be very careful to safeguard the council and the ratepayers. They will be most cautions in advising their councils to undertake any scheme. That is the danger I see in the Bill. The greatest danger under the Bill, from the point of view of getting work done, is that the advisers of local authorities may be too cautious and too careful. They will act as prudent men.
Deputy Smith said three or four times that they did not act as prudent men. You cannot deny that.
You will not put me off that way. There is no responsibility put on any one for any action they may take. If the advisers of local authorities see a danger to their local authorities or the ratepayers in giving certain advice, I am sure they will be very slow to give it. It is quite possible that many otherwise sound schemes may be left out because of the over-caution that may arise on the part of advisers to local authorities under the Bill. The safeguard suggested here will improve the Bill and enable it to work much more smoothly in any local authority area. Personally, I am not afraid that a big amount of compensation will fall to be paid in the area I am acquainted with because of the coming into operation of the Bill. It is quite possible that a big lot of compensation may not have to be paid for all the works that are being recommended, but it might happen that a very considerable amount of unforeseen compensation may have to be paid on one scheme.
You knew the council was liable for compensation?
I want to be clear about that. Until the announcement was made on the winding up of the Second Stage of this Bill the public at large were not aware of that and no indication had been given of it. No member of any local authority was ever informed by circular from the Minister or his Department that the council would be liable for compensation for damage done under the Bill. I challenge anyone to show that any circular was sent down to local authorities to the effect that they would be liable for compensation under the Bill or even for the cost of the engineering and clerical assistance necessary to carry out the work. I do not know whether the fact was conveyed to their officers. I know that the officers of the local authority of which I am a member did not convey it to the local authority.
They knew it.
They may have been told it.
They had got the Bill.
There was nothing in the original Bill to show that. I defy you to find it in it.
You knew it.
I knew it because it was announced in this House.
What does Section 5 (4) say?
The Official Reports will show that I was the person who asked the question on the Second Reading when the information was given. The information was conveyed to the public for the first time before the Second Reading was passed. Possibly the papers published it and a great many people became aware of it then. Officially the local authorities were never made aware of it.
The Deputy saw the circular dated 10th March?
That is beside the point.
That is not beside the point, surely?
I do not know what I saw. The local authorities were not informed. Local authorities were not informed that they were liable for compensation.
The Deputy has said that at least five times.
Some people seem to doubt it still.
I do.
However, I would appeal to the Government to reconsider this matter. If, as they claim, little or no compensation will fall to be paid, there is no reason why they should not propose putting in some safeguard that will satisfy the minds of local authorities and that will leave them more inclined to undertake certain types of schemes. It is all according whether this Bill, when it comes into operation, will do the work it is supposed to do, enable the local authorities to spend the money provided for them by the State. It is all-important that the works needing to be carried out should be carried out. There is no need for this Bill to carry out the works indicated by the Parliamentary Secretary.
The Deputy is repeating himself constantly.
Delaying action purposely.
You can get up and talk if you wish. It is better to say nothing when you cannot talk sense.
Then why do you not sit down?
By accepting these amendments and by providing a sum to cover this compensation we will be making this Bill more acceptable to local authorities and to the country in general.
I think it is one of these regrettable things when you see the deterioration and disintegration of a wax-work Party.
Clann na Poblachta.
Surely, the Party on the other side have listened to a great deal when they are left here with their Three Musketeers to fight this delaying action. The Three Musketeers—Deputy Aiken, Deputy Moran and Deputy Smith.
What has that to do with the amendment?
I am coming to that. I think it is regrettable, but it is more regrettable when we see a Party, the majority of whose members know this is a good Bill and are anxious to see it put through, held up by the Three Musketeers that I mentioned. It is a sad thing when——
It is a sad thing that the Deputy does not come to the amendment.
I listened here to Deputy Corry who spoke on the Second Reading of this Bill. I listened to other Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party who spoke on the Second Reading of this Bill when it was clearly explained by the then Minister that this compensation clause would be in the Bill and, in fact, it was in the Bill — Section 5. That Bill was welcomed by all those Deputies containing as it did that particular section to which these amendments have now been put down. We saw that after certain attacks had been made on the Bill Fianna Fáil Deputies had gone to the country and found out that their action was not approved. We then saw the change of front there was. However, these amendments in the name of Deputy MacEntee who is not here, and in the name of Deputy Moran were put down deliberately for no other purpose than to obstruct the passage of the Bill through this House. That is the purpose of the speech that was delivered on this Bill by Deputy Moran this evening. A more disgraceful speech I never heard.
On this amendment?
Delivered by Deputy Moran on this amendment. I say, a more disgraceful speech I never heard from anybody than I heard from Deputy Moran. We had two points of view expressed. Deputy Smith expressed one of them when he said that engineers and local authorities are so irresponsible that the bill for compensation is going to run into an enormous sum. Then Deputy Allen said, and I think he is very near the truth, that the amount of damage that will be done by carrying out the works envisaged in this Bill will be almost negligible. Now I want to know which side is being put forward here. Is it the point of view that, because the irresponsible engineers and irresponsible county councillors are going to do an enormous amount of damage, this House is going to provide the compensation involved; or are we to take the other that there is going to be so little damage that, having provided 100 per cent. grant for carrying out the work, we should go the whole hog and provide the very small amount that is needed in compensation?
I think Deputy Davin was perfectly right in his approach to the measure. This Bill is needed, containing as it does the section dealing with compensation. The amendments that are now under discussion are not genuinely put forward at all. They are put forward, as I have said, for no other purpose than to obstruct the passage of the Bill. I would ask Deputy Moran, Deputy Aiken and Deputy Smith who are leading the Opposition now, to withdraw those amendments and let the Bill pass through the House so that the people who are unemployed or who will be unemployed very soon will get a chance.
Why were they not kept on the roads?
Deputy Aiken knows very well that, when that matter was going through the Dáil, I opposed the reduction in the road grants and voted against the Government on that particular issue.
This amendment has reference to the liability on councils.
I understand that, but I want to remind Deputy Aiken that I did take action on that particular measure. I want to say to Deputy Aiken and Deputy Moran that, in the ten minutes before the House adjourns, they should withdraw these obstructive amendments and let the Bill pass through this stage.
As a member of a local authority, I want to say that I believe that if the Bill is passed as it stands very little useful work will be done under it. As Deputy Allen has pointed out, the works outlined by the Parliamentary Secretary could be done without the Bill. When speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill I asked for certain information. I gave the example of a minor river being drained into a major river, and asked the Minister if work such as that was going to be done under the Bill and, if it was, who was going to pay the consequential damages. I got no reply to my question, and so I do not know if work of that kind can be done under the Bill. I did say that when that scheme was sent to the Board of Works they would not pass it without a recommendation from a county surveyor. He would not give the recommendation until he was satisfied as to who was going to pay for the damages that would occur on the main river.
That position still obtains. That is a class of work the people are anxious to see done under this so-called Drainage Bill. That position is not being remedied under this Bill. I maintain that there is too much of a burden being thrown on the local authorities. In the case of almost every Bill passed here, extra burdens have been thrown on the local authorities, so that the rates have gone up to such an extent that the local authorities are beginning to wonder where all these extra demands are going to stop. There is also the question of minor rivers draining into other counties. In Sligo we have the position that there is a minor river draining into the River Moy, which is in the County Mayo. Suppose that work is undertaken under this Bill, who is going to pay the consequential damages that will arise in the case of the River Moy? What I see is going to happen under this Bill is this: that if, in the case of any of these works the county surveyor is not prepared to make a recommendation to undertake the work, some man who is in favour of the Government or the Minister can come up here and get an order from the Minister to proceed with the work. If the Bill is passed without these amendments, the result will be that the local authorities will be saddled with additional burdens. They will be obliged to undertake works that they are not prepared to undertake. No local authority will be prepared to embark on any scheme that would be worth twopence without these amendments.
These amendments could not be accepted by any Government with any sense of responsibility at all. I am perfectly sure that if Deputy Aiken, Deputy Moran and Deputy Smith were on this side and were in charge of this Bill they would not accept one of these amendments. The effect of their acceptance, particularly in cases where a majority on a local body was opposed to the Government in power for the time being, would be to put into the hands of such a local authority a dangerous and a fatal weapon.
Nonsense.
If the local authority had no responsibility whatever, then one can be sure that the most fantastic scheme that the most harebrained member of a local authority could think of would be brought forward and passed, thereby putting into the hands of anti-Government local authority a highly dangerous weapon. For that reason I am altogether opposed to these amendments.
Would the Deputy please develop that point?
It could be easily developed in this way. There is the saying that the man who pays the piper calls the tune, but in this case, I suggest, that the man who calls the tune ought to pay the piper.
Since the Government started this whole thing, is it not fair to ask that they should bear the responsibility for payment?
The Government introduced this measure with a perfectly good intention. The execution of important and useful work is contemplated by the Bill, yet Deputy Gilbride tells us that the Bill is going to serve no purpose at all.
Under certain conditions.
The statement made by the Deputy was a perfectly ridiculous one. It was not relevant to the amendments before the House, and, therefore, I do not propose to deal with it further.
I have been listening to Deputies on the Government side——
You have just come in.
I have been in the House all the night. We have been trying to make a good job of this Bill by bringing forward these amendments. The position is going to be a rather serious one. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that one of the objects of the Bill is to save the roads from flooding. Deputy Moran made a very useful contribution when he asked the Parliamentary Secretary if he did not consider that it was equally important to save land from being flooded by the sea.
What is before the House deals with the liability on local authorities.
I know the Chair allowed others——
I will allow the Deputy to speak on that.
No liability of any kind should attach to a local authority in respect of these works. That is the object of amendment No. 7. Amendment No. 8 provides——
I am not going to allow the Deputy to play that silly game with the House by reading out amendments. The Deputy will address himself to what is before the House.
I have considerable knowledge of drainage work and I support Deputy Gilbride in his point of view. I move to report progress.
Progress reported; the Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 12 midnight until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 2nd June.