Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 2 Jun 1949

Vol. 115 No. 18

Committee on Finance. - Local Authorities (Works) Bill, 1949—Committee (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following amendment:—

7. 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.—(Deputy MacEntee).

Mr. Aiken

Yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary stated that there were £2,000,000 worth of schemes which would be carried out under this Bill when it becomes an Act. We could not discover from him if any great care had been taken to find out how much benefit would be done by these schemes and how much damage. We have not yet succeeded in getting any indication from him that the State is prepared to foot the bill for the damage, although in certain instances the Minister may, through his nominee, carry out works which will result in a large bill for compensation being presented to the local authority. When the Bill was first introduced here the then Minister stated, as reported in column 2144, Volume 114:—

"The finance necessary to operate the Bill is being made available by the Government. The grants to local authorities will be 100 per cent. and local authorities need have no reservations whatever on that point."

The interpretation that was placed on that by most people in the country was that it was a 100 per cent. Government grant and a number of members of local authorities gaily started out to collect works on the assumption that 100 per cent. of all costs in connection with the carrying out of these works would be borne by the State. They thought this scheme was a compensation for the loss of £2,000,000 in road grants and that, as the Government were anxious to do something to balance the cutting down of these grants, the cutting down of road work, and the unemployment caused thereby, they could assume that there would be no cost at all on the local authorities. I wish the Parliamentary Secretary would give an indication, even if the Government are not prepared to bear 100 per cent. of the damage in all cases, that at least wherever the work is carried out by the Minister's nominee in spite of the local council, the State would bear the bill for compensation for any damage caused by the Minister's nominee in carrying out the work.

We have to realise that works under this Bill will be decided upon, as the Parliamentary Secretary stated, by the county manager or by the nominee of the Minister. I think it is only fair, particularly in a case where the work is carried out by the Minister's nominee, if instead of doing something to benefit the local authority, he imposes a great charge upon them, that the Government should be responsible for the bill. The Parliamentary Secretary quite glibly assumes that there will be no damage whatsoever under this Bill. I stated in my speech on Second Reading—I do not want to go into the details again—that I knew of one case where a few thousand pounds were spent on cleaning up a stream, and that work caused many thousands of pounds' damage downstream. There was great local agitation as a result and it was only after a number of years that a settlement was made whereby the Government gave the county council a grant and they in turn relieved the farmers whose lands were flooded. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance is engaged in pushing forward drainage in that area, and one of the reasons why the area was selected for the second of the great arterial drainage schemes was to undo some of the damage that has been done by the spending of that money.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. Donnellan)

I am interested to know what the reason was.

Mr. Aiken

That was one of the reasons and the Parliamentary Secretary, in that case, as in many others, has adopted the policy of his predecessors. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance is here and he can bear me out in the assertion that, in some cases, grave damage will be done. I do not mind a county situated in such a way that all the watershed is within its own territory. Take County Kerry and, to some extent, County Wexford. Kerry is protected from incoming floods from other counties and the county manager can see exactly what damage might be created. If he creates some damage in his own county with the approval of his council it is their fault. Some seaboard counties, however, are subject to floods from inland counties and would be subject to grave damage if waters were released suddenly, so some protection should be given. We will come to other types of protection in other amendments, but with regard to this amendment I think that where work is carried on by the Minister's nominee, and causes damage in the area concerned or in adjoining areas, the State should bear the burden.

Mr. Davin

Did you quote the case?

Mr. Aiken

I quoted it on the Second Reading.

Mr. Davin

The Monaghan-Louth case?

Mr. Aiken

The Monaghan-Louth case. If the Deputy wants to see the details he can look up my Second Reading speech. Once upon a time, not so long ago, the Parliamentary Secretary refused to carry out a scheme of drainage and I quoted the letter which he sent to the local authority concerned. The letter, if Deputy Davin wants to look at it, is on column 2396, Volume 114, of the 6th May. The Parliamentary Secretary sensibly took up the stand that he could not release the waters from a tributary into a main basin before that main basin was prepared to receive the extra waters. He pointed out that it was attempted to do this thing under the minor relief works, and he pointed out that they had no means of reconciling the interests of landowners whose lands adjoined a main drainage channel with those whose lands were bordering on tributaries. He pointed out that such problems occur in many parts of the country and that they could only be dealt with by means of the machinery of the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945. If we had the machinery of the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, with all the care that is taken before a job is started there would be no talk here at all about compensation. If the local authority had to go through the same procedure as under the 1945 Act, if they made a mistake clearly it would be their own fault. However, they have not got it. They have only got the machinery we are supplying in this Bill and very limited precautions will be taken even if the amendments suggested by the Opposition are accepted. I would be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would consider the matter between now and the Report Stage. If he is not prepared to accept all the amendments in toto so as to relieve the local authorities of any liability for damage, he should at least consider relieving them of liability for damage caused by the Minister's nominee. Later, perhaps, we might get him to accept other amendments which, with that particular amendment, would leave the Bill less dangerous and confine it to doing good.

Mrs. Crowley

I would be grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary if he would let me know whether, if a county council carries out any of these works under this section, it will be allowed for maintenance. In Kerry we had a meeting with our county engineer and, supposing we made a drain in a man's land, he was not at all sure whether we would have to maintain that drain or anything else under this section. If so, it will be a serious charge on the local authority when we have the liability for damage as well.

Mr. Moran

I first want to deny the assertion of Deputy Davin in this House last night that our local authority was consulted in connection with this Bill. Our local authority certainly was not consulted nor did it have the opportunity of discussing the Bill or its implications.

Mr. Davin

What I said was that you told them.

Mr. Moran

No circular was sent out and the matter did not come before our local authority at all. In fact, due to statements that appeared in the Press as a result of speeches in this House that all the money would be provided by the State for these works, a number of works were submitted to our county surveyor. Some of us got replies from the county surveyor intimating that the only works contemplated, so far as he was aware, were works in connection with property of the county council under Section 1 of this Bill and that the question of general drainage was not going to be contemplated at all and that the works submitted to him were ordinary minor drainage works which normally would be done by the Board of Works. One of the things about which I am still confused, particularly in view of the Parliamentary Secretary's statement last night, is what the Government's intention is with regard to the works which are to be undertaken under this Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary read a list here last night intimating for the first time what was going to be done.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government (Mr. Corish)

I thought I made it quite clear that that was merely a sample list, submitted by a particular engineer.

Mr. Moran

I do not want to misrepresent the position in any way, but the list he read out certainly did not mention the question of what I would call public drainage except in so far as county council property was affected. I was listening to him and the list was entirely in connection with works contemplated in the first part of this measure. The first part of this measure is quite clear to everybody and reasonable. It is the part of the measure which deals with the general drainage which is to be undertaken for the first time by local authorities. The fact that the works all came under the first part is what gives rise to doubts as to the implications, particularly in regard to the liabilities of local authorities.

One of the Deputies asked the Parliamentary Secretary a question in connection with maintenance. There is not one word in the Bill on the question of maintenance.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

And there is not one word in the amendment.

Mr. Moran

With due respect, the question of maintenance is in this amendment and it is one of the things I want to save the local authorities from having to pay for. If they had to pay for them it might constitute a very heavy liability on the ratepayers and this amendment of mine is designed to prevent local authorities from being liable for any such expenditure.

Captain Cowan

Would the Deputy say what he visualises as works under this Bill?

Mr. Moran

If Deputy Cowan has not read the Bill——

Captain Cowan

I have read it.

Mr. Moran

——I am certainly not going to start at this stage to tell him what I visualise as works under the Bill.

Captain Cowan

I know it very well.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is nothing about maintenance in any amendment except No. 35.

Mr. Moran

The Ceann Comhairle ruled that these amendments would be taken together, including No. 35.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Very well, No. 35 is included in the group that is being discussed and the same principle runs through all. Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 22, 25 and 35 are being discussed together and a decision can be taken on any or all of them.

Captain Cowan

Is it not reasonable to ask the Deputy what he visualises as proper maintenance charges?

Mr. Killilea

Deputy Cowan listened to the Parliamentary Secretary give a brief outline of that last night.

Captain Cowan

He said what certain engineers said to him.

Mr. Killilea

That was a sort of headline.

Mr. Moran

If we are to accept the statements made, this Bill will provide for the carrying out by local authorities of very substantial drainage works and one of the big questions will be maintenance. There is not one word dealing with maintenance in this Bill. It is clear that, if a farmer's cow falls into a drain, or there is some other injury through a drain not being fenced, and if this happens in a couple of years' time, it is what the lawyers call a misfeasance and the local authority will be responsible. By the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government keeping silent on this Bill, the local authority will come in for any damage caused. In addition to that, by their silence they are shoving over on the local authority the liability for maintenance in law of these drainage or other works.

It is most desirable, when the money is being provided for the main expenditure, that the Minister should not stop local authorities from making use of this Bill. If he does not give the guarantees asked for under these amendments, the Bill will be illusory. With a very high level of rates at present, the local authorities will not be prepared to face the further increase in rates envisaged as a result of these works. It will be pointed out to them by the officials that the works may cause damage as a result of flooding, that a number of officials will have to be appointed and salaries provided for them, and when they do the works they will be responsible for the maintenance. When they are warned that they will have to foot the bill, the Parliamentary Secretary will find that the local authorities will be curtailing the work and not making use of the drainage sections.

I cannot understand why, having said he would provide the money for the execution of the works, the Parliamentary Secretary is not prepared to go the rest of the way to ensure that local authorities will go full steam ahead. Let no one mistake this proposition, that a vote against these amendments, if they are put to a vote, is a vote for the increasing of the rates throughout the country. If the Parliamentary Secretary is wise, he will not spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar but will provide for these officials, for any damage that may result, and for maintenance also. If he does that, he will find the Bill will work; if he does not, he will find the Bill will not work. I ask him to reconsider the position.

Captain Cowan

I think this will be my last contribution on the amendments, as I can see clearly that the attitude taken up is one of obstruction. I understood from the ex-Minister that local authorities over a number of years were clamouring for power to do the works envisaged in this Bill and as they could not get that power they dare not do the works necessary to protect the property of local authorities. Deputy Corry, who is a very sound representative of local authorities and knows what is in their interests, admitted on the Second Reading that local authorities were pressing for this and, in fact, that he was pressing for it.

The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary say they are not only going to give local authorities that power to do the things they want to do to protect their own property but they are going to pay 100 per cent. of the cost of doing the work. Can anyone say that is not a generous contribution by a central authority? Not only are they getting the power they want but this Parliament is paying 100 per cent. of the cost of the work. If the Minister had said he would give them the power and authority, that would have been welcomed by the majority of Deputies as it is something local authorities were crying out for for many years. If some Deputy said it would be a strain on local authorities and asked for 50, 70 or 90 per cent. grants, and the Minister acceded, it would have been considered a generous action on the part of the central authority. But the Minister comes in and says: "Not only will I give you the power but also every ½d. it costs to carry out the work." Then Deputy Moran says: "That is not enough; there may be claims for compensation—will you also take on the responsibility for that?" Deputy Allen said last night—and I accept Deputy Allen on this as a representative of the local authority—that in actual fact the claims that may be made for compensation, if this measure is put properly into operation after due consideration by the local authority will be very small.

Mr. Allen

Maybe, I said.

Captain Cowan

Maybe. He speaks for County Wexford——

Mr. Allen

I am speaking as an individual.

Captain Cowan

——and says that, from his knowledge of County Wexford, the responsible people down there will not act the fool. I can say that a member of any other local authority is as justified in saying that his local authority will not act the fool. Not only are we to give them the 100 per cent. grant and the power they want, but, Deputy Moran says: "Pay all these possible claims in the meantime." I ask Deputy Moran what does he visualise these works to be and he gives me the smart answer that I have not read the Bill. He knows I have read the Bill and that I have read every amendment, and he knows that not only have I read them, but that I understand what is in the Bill and in the amendments. I do not want to say anything more than that, but it was a reasonable question to put to him—what did he visualise as being included in the works for the maintenance of which local authorities would have to be responsible? This Bill is a measure which authorises local authorities to do certain works for the particular principles, points and reasons set out in the Bill, and, whether these works are to be done in 1949, 1950, 1951 or 1952, the principle is the same. Any works which are lawful under the Bill and which can be done under the Bill can be done under the guarantee of the Minister that there will be a 100 per cent. grant from the central authority for doing them. Where is the point then in regard to maintenance? I suggest to Deputy Moran that he stop this playacting and let us get on with the work of the House.

Mr. Gilbride

I want to repudiate the statement of Deputy Cowan that we are discussing this Bill for the sake of obstruction. My attitude to the Bill is this: I want to save the local authorities from being saddled with expenditure with which I do not think they should be saddled. Every Drainage Bill ever introduced recognised, as does every Party, that drainage should be a national charge.

Captain Cowan

This is not just a Drainage Bill.

Mr. Gilbride

It is partly a Drainage Bill and it is the drainage portion we are dealing with now.

Captain Cowan

It is a works Bill.

Mr. Gilbride

It strikes me as very peculiar that the Deputies who represent country constituencies and who are members of local bodies are very silent on these clauses and that it is left to Deputy Cowan, who is mainly concerned with a city constituency, to be vocal with regard to them. If the Minister wants this Bill to be a success, I appeal to him to accept these amendments. I know the attitude of local authorities and I know that they are not prepared, with the present level of rates, to accept any further responsibility. Drainage should be a national charge and I appeal to him, for that reason, to accept the amendment and not saddle local authorities with this heavy burden.

Mr. Davin

I am quite clear in my own mind with regard to this matter, because I listened to the majority of the speeches on the Second Reading, in which Deputy Moran took part. I am not quite sure if Deputy Moran was here when the late Minister wound up the debate on the Second Reading and made the position as clear as it could be made to any intelligent Deputy regarding the contents of the Bill, dealing particularly with the question of compensation in case of damage. Deputy Moran is, I understand, a distinguished member of the county council in his own constituency.

Captain Cowan

Leave out the adjective.

Mr. Davin

I think he was present at the meeting of the council at which the whole matter came up for consideration.

Mr. Moran

It did not come up.

Mr. Killilea

It did not, and Deputy Moran made that point quite clear.

Mr. Davin

If he was present at the meeting of his own county council when this matter came up for consideration and decision and when the proposals of the county engineer for the county were under consideration, surely he is the one man who should have made the whole question of compensation clear to his colleagues.

Mr. Moran

I tell you it never came before us.

Mr. Davin

I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us whether any proposals under the terms of this Bill have been received by the Department from the Mayo County Council and, if so, whether these proposals were submitted to the Department on condition that compensation would be borne by the central authority for any damage that might occur as a result of the carrying out of these schemes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely a decision on this amendment does not hinge on what the Mayo County Council did or did not hear?

Mr. Davin

I could appreciate the position of a county engineer who submitted proposals at the request of the county council, if these proposals were submitted for a 100 per cent. grant, on condition that compensation would be borne by the Central Fund and not by the local authority. I ask Deputy Moran if he thinks it wise to waste any more time discussing the merits of these amendments and I should like him to say whether he knows of any measure passed by this House since the House was established which provided that maintenance should be borne by the Central Fund in respect of any works carried out at the expense of the Central Fund. Money is provided for farm improvement schemes, for reconstruction of farmers' dwellings and of other houses, and for road construction. Is there any measure of any kind introduced since the State was established which provides that maintenance work should be carried out after grants had been made available, with the exception of the Barrow Drainage Act? In that case, portion of the maintenance charges has still to be borne by the ratepayers. The discussion on these amendments is merely a waste of time, and I say it deliberately, in order to delay the coming into operation of a valuable measure which is bound to provide useful work for the unemployed in rural areas.

Mr. Allen

If Deputies on the Government side, such as Deputies Cowan and Davin, are to charge Deputies on this side with speaking for the purpose of obstruction, this Bill will have a tortuous passage through the House. I do not mind Deputy Cowan, because he is irresponsible in all circumstances, but Deputy Davin is an old stager who should give as much credit to others as he takes himself when he gets up to speak and has something to say. One thing, however, has been borne in on me after listing to him, that is, that he has not studied the Bill and does not understand what is in it.

Mr. Davin

I will not improve my education by listening to you.

Mr. Allen

The Deputy's intelligence, for which I am not responsible, is so low that it could not be improved.

Mr. Davin

That is a compliment, coming from the Deputy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Perhaps the compliments could cease and we could get back to the amendment.

Mr. Allen

I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary have they considered this and have they given the final word on it? We are not pressing this matter without being absolutely serious about it. In connection with sub-section (2) I say in all seriousness that the local authorities do not want from the State one penny either to carry out the works that they should carry out under sub-section (2) or to maintain them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy said that last night.

Mr. Allen

It is quite a different thing.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy said it last night and I am not going to allow repetition on these amendments.

Mr. Allen

With all due respect, I did not make this point ever before.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy said that the local authorities did not want any further power than they had in respect of that section.

Mr. Allen

What I am saying now is that they want no funds. I did not say that before. They want no funds for the carrying out of the work that it may be necessary to carry out under sub-section (2) of this Bill either for the capital costs, maintenance costs or the legal costs that may be incurred afterwards.

Mr. Timoney

What is the amendment for, at all?

Mr. Allen

Sub-section (3) is the important one. If the Minister will meet us on sub-section (3) we on this side of the House will be satisfied, I am sure. At least, I will be.

Mr. Davin

Sub-section (3) of what section?

Mr. Smith

Sub-section (3) of Section 2.

Mr. Allen

I am discussing sub-section (3) of Section 2. Sub-section (3) is the important section in this Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think the amendment is the important matter.

Mr. Allen

I can discuss the sub-section that is proposed to be amended on the amendment, surely?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

All right.

Mr. Allen

It could not be amended if attention were not drawn to the part of the section which needs amendment. I suggest to the Minister that under sub-section (3) of Section 2 works of far-reaching importance will fall to be executed—whether they are done this year or next year. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance is aware of that. Very large sub-major drainage areas will need to be drained under sub-section (3) of Section 2, if the Bill is to operate. There is no doubt about that. It is not denied that large catchment areas will fall to be drained under this sub-section. As I said last night, this is the portion of the section that local authorities dread and will fear in future. It is the portion of the section, as has been said a moment ago, in respect of which their advisers will so advise councils that I am afraid little or no work will be done under it. For that reason, I would ask the Minister to give an undertaking to reconsider this matter between now and the Report Stage, to reconsider the whole question as to whether the State will reimburse local authorities for the legal charges that may fall on them arising out of sub-section (3). They are not claiming anything for ordinary maintenance. There should be some provision in this Bill for the maintenance of certain types of work. There is no such provision in the Bill. There should be a provision whereby the local authorities, from their own funds or otherwise, would maintain works but that is beside the point. Some further consideration should be given to that aspect of the matter. I say that with a full sense of responsibility.

Mr. Killilea

I think it is the attitude of people like Deputy Peadar Cowan that is responsible for the obstruction and prolonging of the debate on this Bill.

Mr. Connolly

Who are the people like Deputy Cowan?

Mr. Killilea

All the Deputies who have spoken from the Government side of the House so far.

Mr. Davin

You are admitting obstruction at any rate.

Mr. Killilea

I want to make a point, if Deputy Davin does not mind, and I hope he will listen to it. I am amazed that, as yet, I have not seen one member of a local county council sitting behind the Government saying anything against the amendments proposed from this side of the House. All the Deputies that have spoken on that side are not members of a local authority.

Mr. Timoney

They are ratepayers.

Mr. Killilea

They have not had experience of what happened in days gone by in connection with maintenance costs of other drainage schemes that were carried out prior to the passing of the 1945 Drainage Act. Enormous burdens were placed on the ratepayers and the ratepayers have to bear that responsibility yet. If we are trying in this particular Bill to avoid placing similar burdens on local authorities in future, it is absolutely wrong and unfair for Deputy Davin or Deputy Cowan or anybody else to say that because our efforts are focussed in that direction it is obstructive tactics. Every Deputy must be well aware that the responsibility for collecting rates is a heavy responsibility and must recognise that the rates are already a very heavy burden on the unfortunate ratepayers. If we are trying to avoid further burdens on the ratepayers, we are doing a very useful work.

There is no use in saying that we are obstructing this Bill. We all welcome the Bill and we are trying to get the Parliamentary Secretary to see things in the light in which we as members of local authorities see them. Deputy Moran has been criticised by everybody. He was criticised particularly by Deputy Davin, very wrongfully, in so far as he asked what happened in Mayo County Council, having had Deputy Moran's word that this matter never came before the Mayo County Council. Neither did it come up before my county council. We are trying to get the Parliamentary Secretary to see the difficulties that will be facing local authorities in putting into operation any particular scheme under this Bill and we are endeavouring to relieve the local authorities of heavy responsibility that may be placed upon them through expense incurred in carrying out any particular scheme and in maintaining it. I do not know, of course, if there will be any maintenance but if we were to have drainage without maintenance it would be better not to have it at all. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance will clearly understand that if you are not going to have maintenance afterwards, it is quite useless.

Mr. Donnellan

Do not say a word about the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, whatever you do.

Mr. Killilea

I like to say a word in his favour and try to get the people to understand that he is a little more intelligent than they think he is.

Mr. Donnellan

The Deputy's advice would not do any good.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Let us get on to the amendment.

Mr. Killilea

I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government to consider carefully the amendments that have been suggested from this side of the House and to take them in the spirit in which they are presented, that is, of trying to make the Bill workable.

I represent a county council that has always been most helpful in putting into operation any schemes that were ever submitted by a Government to them. When this Bill is through and when we are called upon to do certain works, I want local authorities to be able to go ahead with the work without any interference or stumbling blocks. I do not want to have the impression among local authorities and throughout the country that the Government are bringing in this measure to make it unworkable and to put the local authorities in the position of being able to say to them: "Well we have given you an Act and you are doing nothing about it." If, as was pointed out in this House before, the cost of administration is going to be as light as the Parliamentary Secretary has conveyed to us, then why not stand up to the original words of the Minister who introduced the Bill—that it is not going to cost the local authorities anything whatsoever, the whole hog or not at all? All the recommendations made from this side of the House are reasonable and well worthy of consideration. I have yet to see any member of a local authority standing up behind the Government and saying that the case we are making is not reasonable and right.

Mr. Cogan

I have not intervened in this debate up to the present but I have listened very attentively to the arguments both for and against the amendments. I must say that I have not been very much impressed by the arguments from either side of the House either last night or this afternoon. I believe that a very good case could be made for these amendments —a better case than has been made for them. On the other hand I believe that a very strong case can be made against them.

Speaking for the amendments, the case would appear to be that the compensation clause of this Bill would in the first place impose an exceptionally heavy burden upon the local rates and, in the second place, might have the effect of deterring a local body from undertaking work by reason of the risk of having to pay heavy compensation.

Against these two arguments I should like to submit, as a member of a local authority for a great number of years, that I do not believe that the liability incurred by this clause will be heavy. I think it will be a reasonable contribution, having regard to the amount of money that is being provided. I should like to ask how many times in the past 25 years a local authority has been offered a 100 per cent. grant for any type of work. The hospitalisation grants were very generous but they were not 100 per cent. The lime subsidy grants were generous but even they were not 100 per cent. I do not think that any of the emergency grants for road reconstruction during the past few years—and these also were very generous grants—ever exceeded 90 per cent. I think that the liability which a county council will undertake by reason of carrying out this work, if they carry it out properly, will be a very modest portion of the total expenditure. As far as the argument that the compensation clause will deter county councils from undertaking useful work is concerned. I do not think there is anything to fear in that direction. The scope of the Bill is very wide. The number of schemes that a county council can undertake is very large. It will be open to a county council to select the very best of these schemes and to eliminate those which have an undue measure of risk. I believe the number of works that can be carried out under the Bill is so great that it will tax all the resources of the local authority to carry them out. It will provide employment for all the men that the county council may have available. The number of works that can be carried out is very large and they can be very widely distributed over each county. Therefore, I think that in reason and justice the Bill as it stands is quite a reasonable one. Some Deputies suggest that county councils were not aware, when they were submitting their schemes, of the compensation clause. The county council of which I am a member was aware of the compensation clause from the very outset.

Mr. Gilbride

Before the Bill was passed? It has not been passed at all yet.

Mr. Cogan

Since the Bill was drafted. That clause was referred to at the county council meeting. Some members suggested that it should be deleted and other suggested that it should remain as a kind of a safeguard so that work that would involve claims for compensation would not be undertaken. It would be quite wrong for a county council to undertake work which, while it might be useful, might also do a considerable amount of damage to land, industry or something else. I think that, in the implementation of this Act, the county council should concentrate upon work that is simple and straightforward and that will not hold up or damage existing industries or injure land. I think that that is quite an understandable proposition and I think that was the aim which the late Minister had in mind when he was introducing the Bill.

On the other hand, I have heard various statements from this side of the House to the effect that this amendment was put down merely for the sake of obstruction. I would appeal to Deputies not to pursue that line in this House. The Opposition Party, if it is to be of any use at all, must approach legislation in a critical fashion. These amendments deserve reasonable consideration on their merits but I think that, on their merits, the House should reject them.

Mr. Smith

I agree with Deputy Cogan when he says that a local body should be very careful before undertaking work that might result in doing damage in some other way or in some place outside the immediate district in which the work was situated. In fact, it is to the damage that could result if the local bodies took advantage of sub-section (3) of Section 2 that Deputy Allen has referred. I agree also in the main with Deputy Cogan that, in so far as a local body takes advantage of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 2 for the carrying out of work for the protection of its own property, an excellent case can be made to show that such a local authority, after getting the 100 per cent. grant, should be called upon to maintain that work and to keep it in proper condition. But if Deputies will read sub-section (3) they will see that the local authority, whether or not they exercise the type of discretion that Deputy Cogan has advised they should exercise, are given under that sub-section very wide power indeed. I am not suggesting that they will just run off and behave in all cases in an extravagant and dangerous fashion. I have before me the Parliamentary Secretary who is now in charge of the Office of Public Works. He has some knowledge of the administration of even small drainage schemes out of the Employment Schemes Vote and out of the Rural Improvement Schemes Vote. I had that responsibility for a number of years. I can say, as I think I may have stated on a number of occasions in this House, that we found in the execution of even small works costing only a few hundred pounds that damage did arise so far as adjoining districts are concerned. Deputies who are on local authorities seem to think that the problem is similar in every county. It is not. Every county presents peculiar problems of its own. What I am afraid of is that, while local authorities will take the advice and follow the course perhaps that Deputy Cogan has mentioned, there may be in certain cases pressure brought to bear upon members of a local authority and they may be induced to carry out a scheme of drainage or improvement of some river that might result in continuous damage arising at certain seasons of the year which the local authority would be liable for as long as that state of affairs existed.

I have not had any consultation with my colleagues on the point of view I am going to express now, but if I were to get an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that he would consider introducing an amendment on the Report Stage protecting local authorities in regard to the compensation that might arise under Section 2 (3), I would be reasonably satisfied with a gesture of that sort. As Deputy Cogan stated, it is nonsense to suggest that this discussion is intended to be obstructive. It is not. As the Deputy said, we have a duty to perform here. Quite apart from that, some of us who are not experts have at least some considerable experience from an administrative point of view of the problems which can arise from the carrying out of what might appear at the time a useful work if it is not planned in a very careful way by men who are qualified and who know the dangers, the implications and the harm which could result. That is our function as an Opposition and that is the purpose of these amendments. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary at least to endeavour to meet us by saying that between now and the Report Stage he will consider the question of introducing an amendment on the lines of even the most moderate of these amendments, not in relation to the whole section, but in relation to sub-section (3) which gives to local authorities power to go outside their area and do work which has no connection with any of their own property.

Mr. Corish

From the speeches of Deputies opposite one would imagine that the purpose of the Bill was to place a very large burden on the ratepayers of the different counties. As against that, I would point out that local authorities and Deputies were well aware of the fact on the Second Stage of the Bill that compensation would not be paid out of State funds. Deputy Killilea and Deputy Aiken tried to tell the House that the late Minister for Local Government gave an indication that all expenditure on schemes under this Bill would be met by a 100 per cent. grant. I should like to refer those two Deputies to the late Minister's reply on the Second Stage of the Bill in which he said, as reported in Volume 114, cols. 2461-2 of the Official Reports:—

"The question of compensation has been raised on this Bill. I have already indicated that the Government will make available to the local authorities 100 per cent. of the cost of these schemes. It is not intended to exceed that amount by any sums to cover the cost of compensation. I am quite satisfied with regard to the cost of compensation, because I feel and I know that this Bill will be sensibly operated and that the cost of compensation will be very small."

I rather imagine that if the late Minister had announced when introducing the Bill that 75 per cent. of the cost of the actual execution of the works would be given Deputies opposite would have been rather satisfied and might only have asked that the 75 per cent. should be increased. Here there was an announcement that 100 per cent. grant would be given and Deputies opposite are not satisfied and ask that the Minister for Local Government should go further. If he did go further and say that he would pay the full compensation as well, they would probably ask for a bonus on it. I do not think it is an unreasonable gesture by the Minister for Local Government to say that, in respect of works to be carried out under this Bill, local authorities will get 100 per cent. grant.

Some local authorities have considered this Bill and in most counties they have formulated schemes which have been submitted to the Department and there has been no protest from the local authorities against the provisions of the Bill or the announcement that 100 per cent. grant would be given for the actual execution of the works.

Mr. Davin

Not even from Mayo?

Mr. Corish

It is no harm to remind the House that I am informed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance that some months ago a deputation from the General Council of County Councils approached him and asked that local authorities should be given the facilities that they are being given in this Bill to enable them to carry out certain works to prevent flooding and to provide against other things which are mentioned in the Long Title. They asked that power be given to them and that power is being given in this Bill. I assume they are representative of the county councils of the Twenty-Six Counties. They asked merely for an 80 per cent. grant to help them to carry out these works. I am sure the General Council of County Councils and the 27 county councils in the country must consider it extremely generous when they get 100 per cent. grant towards the execution of the works.

Deputy Mrs. Crowley raised the question of maintenance. There is no obligation on the local authorities to maintain any work which they have undertaken. I should like to stress also that under this Bill local authorities are not being in any way saddled with any burden nor are the ratepayers. This is merely an enabling Bill which says that a county council may do certain things such as enter on land to carry out certain works. The county councils can consider and decide upon schemes. If they think there may be severe claims for compensation, they are entitled to say, and if, as I believe, they are responsible men, they will say: "We will not engage in any such scheme because it will result in too heavy a burden on the ratepayers."

Mr. Aiken

What about Section 3 which gives the Minister power to do them whether the local authorities are willing or not?

Mr. Corish

I would refer Deputy Aiken to the Relief Works Act, 1940, by which the Minister is given power to compel a local authority to execute certain works for the relief of unemployment. There is no question there of compensation. There is no question of any contribution to the local authority for the cost of the works. Here there is an announcement that they will get 100 per cent. grant. In the Relief Works Act of 1940 introduced by a Fianna Fáil Minister there was no such figure, while in connection with this Bill there is the announcement of a grant of 100 per cent. for the actual execution of the work.

Deputy Moran raised the question of consultation with members of the local authority in connection with these schemes. I have a letter here from the county engineer of the Mayo County Council and he encloses with the letter a list of schemes which it is proposed to carry out in Mayo. In his letter he says:

"All the works included in this schedule are works which have been considered or mentioned at county council meetings."

Deputy Moran and Deputy Allen said that they had not seen the circular of 10th March. If these two Deputies have not seen that particular circular of the 10th March they are entitled to ask the county manager why he did not bring it before the meeting.

Mr. Allen

Is there anything in the circular to the effect that the local authorities are liable for compensation?

Mr. Corish

No, but there is nothing in the circular which says that the local authorities will not be liable for compensation.

Mr. Allen

The Parliamentary Secretary last night wanted to convey the impression to the House, I think, that local authorities had been informed that they would get a 100 per cent. grant and that they would be legally responsible for any damage that might arise afterwards. In any circular issued by the Department to the local authorities was that so stated?

Mr. Corish

In saying in this circular that 100 per cent. grant would be given for the actual execution of the works, I think it is reasonable to assume that any body or local authority would take it that they would be liable for compensation.

Mr. Allen

That is another way of putting it. That particular circular referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary was read by the secretary of the county council or manager at a county council meeting in Wexford. I raised the question because no circular was brought to the notice of the county council at Wexford setting out that the local authority would be liable for compensation. I want to make that clear. The Parliamentary Secretary has now admitted that no such circular was ever issued from the Department of Local Government.

Mr. Corish

I would still point out to the Deputy, who was present when the Minister made his Second Reading speech, that in no uncertain terms he said that compensation was to be paid.

Mr. Aiken

That was not the Minister's Second Reading Speech. In the Minister's opening speech he did not mention compensation, good, bad or indifferent. That was a phrase in the closing speech.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 50; Níl, 62.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Blaney, Neal T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Dan.
• Brady, Brian.
• Brady, Seán.
• 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.
• Lynch, John.
• McCann, John.
• McGrath, Patrick.
• Moran, Michael.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• 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.
• Coburn, James.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Commons, Bernard.
• Connolly, Roderick J.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, John A.
• Cowan, Peadar.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Davin, William.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Dunne, Seán.
• Esmonde, Sir John L.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• O'Gorman, Patrick J.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Sullivan, Martin.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Pattison, James P.
• Everett, James.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Fitzpatrick, Michael.
• Flynn, John.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Halliden, Patrick J.
• Hickey, James.
• Hogan, Patrick.
• Keane, Seán.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Kinane, Patrick.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Larkin, James.
• Lehane, Con.
• Lehane, Patrick D.
• MacBride, Seán.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Madden, David J.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Redmond, Bridget M.
• Reidy, James.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Roddy, Joseph.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Sheldon, William A. W.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Timoney, John J.
• Tully, John.

Tellers:— Tá, Deputies Kissane and Kennedy; Níl, Deputies Doyle and Kyne.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.

An Ceann Comhairle

Part III of amendment No. 10 goes out.

Mr. Moran

Yes. I move amendment No. 10, Parts I and II:—

To add two new sub-sections as follows:—

( ) The powers conferred by sub-sections (2) and (3) of this section shall be exercised directly by the local authority acting by resolution whereof 14 days' notice shall be given.

( ) The resolution prescribed by the foregoing sub-section shall not take effect unless approved of by a majority of the full membership of the local authority.

The first part of this amendment is designed to ensure that the members of a local authority will directly exercise control under this Bill and will, by resolution, decide what works shall be undertaken. The second part of it proposes that a majority of the members of the local authority must pass a particular work before it is carried out. The reason for that is quite obvious, and I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should keep it in mind. Some of our county council areas are very large, and, naturally, councillors coming from one end of the area would not be familiar with the conditions in another part of the area. Some members might live 60 or 70 miles from one part of the county council area. Two members of a council might decide to try to get a particular work through for their own area, and in doing so would seek the support of members from other areas on the plea that when the latter wanted to get a work through in their area these two councillors would support them.

This amendment is designed to meet a situation of that sort, because it provides that a majority of the council must decide the matter before any works are executed. That means that every work coming before the council will be fully discussed by it, and that before any particular scheme is embarked upon a majority of the members would have to decide that the work is of a beneficial nature, that its execution will not do undue damage, and that in all the circumstances, it is a work that should be undertaken. That will ensure that a majority of the members will have to be fully satisfied that all due precautions have been taken, that no work will be carried out unless it is one of urgent importance, and that it is a work that had the support of the majority of the council. It will also ensure that the most urgent work to be done under the Bill will be carried out first by the council.

The amendment will also put the local authority in a position to decide the priority in which works in a county council area will be undertaken. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that the members of a county council acting by a majority vote, are the best authority to decide this order of priority. They, of course, will know from their officials the jobs that are most essential from the urgency point of view. The local authority under this amendment will have the power to decide that issue. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will see his way to accept the amendment.

Mr. Corish

I do not propose to accept the amendment. This particular question was referred to, though not specifically, on other amendments. The effect of this would be to make the powers given by sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 2 reserved functions. I am wholly in sympathy with the Deputy when he says that the members of local authorities should be acquainted with the different schemes which it is proposed to engage in, but, as I said last night on another amendment, the County Management Act will be repealed and I do not think it would be wise to amend or change that Act in piecemeal fashion, as would be done if this amendment were accepted.

The Minister has endeavoured, as far as he can and with the powers he has, to ensure that the members of local authorities will be fully conversant with the schemes proposed to be carried out. Again I will refer to the circular which he issued to local authorities on the 10th March and the one issued no later than the 31st May. For the benefit of the House, I think it will be no harm for me to read that circular again. It was addressed in the following terms:—

"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 of 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."

I am aware that members of different local authorities are taking an active part in the submission and consideration of these schemes. As a matter of fact, even Deputies of this House are taking an active interest inasmuch as they are sending communications to local authorities and suggesting certain types of work which may be carried out.

I do not propose to accept this amendment, because it would mean amending the County Management Act in a piecemeal fashion. It is hoped in the near future to repeal the Act altogether.

Mr. Moran

I cannot accept the Parliamentary Secretary's reasoning on this matter of the County Management Act. We have had many sermons on that Act from the Parliamentary Secretary and his colleagues, but still there has not been any legislation tabled for the purpose of amending it. If the Act is bad, as the Parliamentary Secretary and his colleagues appear to believe, why not accept an amendment of this kind, which is designed to place the power in the hands of local authorities? We are told the County Management Act will be repealed. From reading the papers there would appear to be a divergence of view among the Parliamentary Secretary's colleagues. Here he has an opportunity of practising what he preaches; he has an opportunity under this amendment to place the power of deciding questions of priority of works and the types of works to be done in the hands of the local authorities. That being so. I cannot understand why the Parliamentary Secretary is so shy in accepting this amendment, which professes to do what he suggests should be done, and that is to give more and more power to local authorities.

Outside any question of the manager's functions under the County Management Act, the Parliamentary Secretary is aware that local authorities have various other functions, and one of the matters that could best be carried out by a local authority would be something of this kind, of deciding priority of the works and the type of works which should be done. I do not know why, in this Bill, schemes submitted by county managers are evidently being accepted, in some cases at all events, by the Parliamentary Secretary, without consultation with the local authority. It is true that county managers and county surveyors will have knowledge of many schemes, particularly in the line of drainage, that may have come from time to time under notice by these officials.

It is, as the Parliamentary Secretary is aware, a regular practice in the country up to this that even where you were submitting a scheme to the Board of Works, which was the authority that used to carry out these drainage schemes, you also endeavoured to enlist the aid of the county surveyor and the county manager—you submitted the scheme to them to get their approval. I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary has received a number of schemes from these officials. In one or two cases that we are aware of there was not consultation with the members of the local authority.

Mr. Corish

Oh, yes, they would be re-submitted to the local authority and considered by them. What I intended to convey was that certain schemes were submitted to me and I would send them back to the local authority for their consideration.

Mr. Killilea

Suppose these schemes were not ones in which the local authority would be interested. There are schemes in which they would be interested, but these will not be considered at all. We have to select from the ones submitted to you.

Mr. Corish

I would let the local authority decide—I would send them down to the local authority.

Mr. Moran

It is quite easy for the Parliamentary Secretary to say he will let the local authority decide, having already said that the functions are the functions of the county manager.

Mr. Corish

We did not make the local authority such an incongruous body; the County Management Act did that. We are not going to amend that Act in a piecemeal fashion.

Mr. Smith

We are not asking you to.

Mr. Moran

There are certain matters in connection with the County Management Act that possibly we will be dealing with on another occasion, but if that Act is not right, why then, when he gets an opportunity to carry out a particular function under this Bill, does the Parliamentary Secretary not accept the amendment which seeks to give the power to the different county councils to carry out these functions? It will not blow the bottom out of the County Management Act if you do that. You still have the Act and can amend it if the House so decides.

This is a new function for a local authority. Local authorities heretofore did not have the function of carrying out this system of drainage here, there and everywhere. It is a new duty that is being put upon the local authorities. When you are giving them this new job, why not make this particular rule suggested in the amendment for the local authorities to act upon? There is nothing unreasonable about that. If the Parliamentary Secretary is sincere in his criticism of the County Management Act, there is no reason why he should not accept the principles contained in these amendments. It will be the most practicable way of dealing with any problems that will arise. I urge him to reconsider the matter.

Mr. B. Brady

I should like to support Deputy Moran's points. It is quite clear to those of us who are members of local authorities that in this matter we are dealing with something that county councils heretofore have not had to deal with. We are on new ground and I am surprised at the Parliamentary Secretary refusing to accept this amendment. It has been pointed out by Deputy Moran that we have heard a lot of talk about the giving back to members of local authorities of the powers of which they were alleged to be deprived under the County Management Act. By accepting this amendment we have an opportunity now of giving to local authorities power to carry out certain works under this particular Bill. I do not see why we should not avail of that. I do not see why we should not trust the members of local authorities to carry out the schemes envisaged in this Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out that since the Second Reading members of local authorities have taken an interest in submitting schemes and some of those schemes have been submitted to the county engineer. It is quite safe to assume that at least a percentage of these schemes will not be carried out. If this amendment is not accepted and if it is left to the judgment of the county manager or the county engineer, despite the representations that may be made by local authorities as to the schemes which they in their wisdom think should be carried out under this Bill, the schemes decided upon may not be the ones they want to have at all. We are thus depriving the local authorities of their power to carry out the schemes which they consider are in the best interests of their particular county. I take it no scheme will be carried out without the approval of the county engineer.

If the members of the local authorities have no power except merely to submit schemes to the county manager and county engineer it is these officials who will have the last word as to what schemes are to be carried out. In that way I think we are merely perpetuating what the Labour Party, of which both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are members, decried and criticised in the County Management Act. This amendment only seeks to make it a reserved function of the local authority to advise the schemes and put them in their proper order when the county engineer has sanctioned them, provided they are schemes that come within the scope of the Bill and can be reasonably carried out to serve the functions which this Bill is intended to serve. Having fulfilled all those conditions, the members of the local authorities should have the last word as to the schemes that are to be carried out and it should not be left to the county manager. If the Parliamentary Secretary is sincere in his protestations I cannot see how he, or the Minister, or any member of the Labour Party can resist this amendment.

Mr. Keyes

I wonder what has suddenly imbued the members of the Opposition with this potent desire for vesting in the members of local authorities new-found powers. Nobody on this side of the House and no member of the Labour Party ever accepted—

Mr. B. Brady

We want to keep you to your promise.

Mr. Keyes

I wonder if a complete change of front has taken place, because I have a very distinct recollection of who was supposed to be the best judge of the public interest when the County Management Bill was going through the House. It certainly was not the elected representatives then. That Act was not passed by anyone who now sits on the Government side of the House. Now Deputy Brady wants to say that the best judge of the public interest is so-and-so. The position is that the present Opposition passed the County Management Act. That is an Act with which the members of this Government now and when they were in opposition fundamentally disagree. We are going to introduce legislation very quickly to amend that Act and we will not be forced by the Opposition under cover of this Bill to do anything else.

This is a Bill that is much more urgent than is the alteration in the County Management Act. Earlier on the Opposition wanted to truncate and tie down local authorities and county councils by having them under the control of the engineer. They did not trust either the county manager or the elected representatives. They said it must be done under the report of the engineer; otherwise the schemes could not take place at all. The difficulty is that under existing legislation passed by the Fianna Fáil Government they cannot be trusted until such time as we amend the County Management Act.

As the Parliamentary Secretary has said, there are two distinct functions. We want to get on with this Bill and we want to get on with the work. In due course the functions will revert to the proper authorities and powers will be restored to the elected representatives. That will be done very shortly. Meantime the Opposition need not fear that anything will go wrong. We could not accept any piecemeal division of what we propose to do in a general Bill for the amendment of the County Management Act. I do not know that the Opposition are quite so worried as they profess to be. They need not worry because in a very short time the County Management Act will be amended. Until that time the Opposition should accept the Bill as it is. There is no danger that the works will not be properly carried out.

Mr. Smith

In thinking of terms of this amendment I did not ask myself as to whether or not it would have the effect that I now see it can have; that is, the effect of amending the County Management Act. My approach to this amendment was that, in considering the proposed scheme under this Bill when it becomes law, I thought the widest possible source of knowledge, after the technical people employed had made their observations, would come from the practical men who were members of the county council. I did not advert to the fact that it might have the effect of amending the County Management Act. Since this matter has been raised by both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary I would like to ask them if, in the course of a month or two, we have an amendment introduced here transferring back to the local authorities powers which are now vested in the county manager why, when we are in possession of that knowledge, should we now proceed to introduce a Bill giving local authorities a power which they never had before. Why should we, in the knowledge that we are going to strip the manager of all powers which he has at present, come along and in this new matter put responsibility upon him? It is all very well for the Minister to make play with this idea that we are now very keen on giving to local bodies this and that power.

I must confess, although I was a member of a local body and have some experience of the working of local bodies, that I have no strong views, or never had, one way or other as to the County Management Act. I certainly even yet can see no very strong objection that can be made to it. Why should we have this attempt from the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister to play around the powers given under the County Management Act? After all, we were not the architects of the managerial system. The managerial system was instituted before our time and there are members over there who were responsible for the Government of the country when the managerial system was first introduced. I was a member of the Opposition then. I admit that we adopted it and extended it to the country but we were not the only people responsible for it. I am not trying to shed myself of responsibility for the County Management Act but it is only right that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary should remember, in talking about the County Management Act, that they have in their own ranks the people who are the architects of that whole system.

I would invite the Minister to be serious on this matter. I say, as one with a little experience of local bodies, that if there ever was a function that could be suitably carried out by a local body, it is the function that local bodies will be called upon to carry out under this Bill. There is no other matter on which a local body is so well equipped to express an opinion as on the order of priority or on the question of what works should be carried out. They have the county surveyor there to advise them as to the utility of the work and as to the damage that might arise. If there is any duty which a local authority is properly designed to perform it is to express an opinion on these matters and this whole bogey of amending the County Management Act does not arise at all. This is a new power we are giving to local bodies and we should leave the County Management Act out of it. We are simply suggesting, without reference to the County Management Act, that the majority of the county council will have the right to say which work will be carried out and the order in which works will be carried out. If there is a really tangible argument to be advanced, apart from this flippant type of stuff to which we have been treated, I invite the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to come down to earth and to be serious about it.

Mr. C. Lehane

The arguments advanced in support of this amendment are more reasonable, or perhaps I should say more plausible, than those to which we were treated on the previous amendments put forward. I think the answer to the point made by Deputy Smith is that, as instanced by the Parliamentary Secretary, there will be consultations with the county council. In the second place, were this amendment to be accepted, it would be possible—I am not saying it would be done—to render some of the effects which it is intended to achieve by this Bill completely nugatory. Generally speaking, in considering any piece of legislation, I think it is wise for a Government not to attempt to deal in a piecemeal fashion with the question but to deal with it in one particular piece of legislation.

I am glad to hear that the County Management Act will be amended and that in the near future. One thing that does strike me—and I wonder it does not strike Deputies opposite—is the complete incongruity of their position in seeking to give additional powers to the local authority or in having any concern over the withholding of power from the local authority because, when in office, the policy they pursued was completely the reverse.

Mr. Allen

I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the Minister that the County Management Act was dragged in here as a red herring. It did not arise at all in this Bill.

Mr. Corish

Deputy Moran mentioned it first.

Mr. Moran

No.

Mr. Smith

You were the first to mention it.

Mr. Allen

It does not arise on this amendment. If this amendment were passed it would not alter the County Management Act by one comma. I further ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell the House what executive function, assuming this amendment were not here, the manager will perform under this Bill as it is? Will he perform any executive function? Will he operate as a county manager at all in any single respect? It might be interesting to know that. Can he inform the House?

Mr. Corish

When the Deputy is finished.

Mr. Allen

It would be helpful at this stage if he would tell the House.

Mr. Corish

When the Deputy is finished.

Mr. Allen

Good enough. The Parliamentary Secretary talked about this amendment amending the County Management Act. I want to challenge that. It amends it in no possible way. The Parliamentary Secretary is further aware that in both the County Management Act itself and in subsequent enactments by this House, many reserved functions were mentioned. That occurred even in legislation that became the law of this country years after the passing of the Management Act. I can see that under this Bill the executive authority will rest with the Department of Local Government, the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary and with nobody else. They will have the final say as to whether a particular job—it does not matter whether it is to cost £5 or £5,000—will be carried out. The works will have to be sanctioned by the Minister. The Minister for Local Government will be the executive authority under this Bill and nobody else. The machinery which the local authorities will operate under this Act is the ordinary machinery they operate in regard to minor relief schemes, rural improvement schemes and a number of other schemes at the present time. There is no doubt about that. There has been a lot of hullabaloo beyond about all the powers which are given to local authorities under this Bill and a lot of nonsense because under sub-section (3) new work is to be performed that never was the function of local authorities before. The passing of this amendment will give local authorities——

Minister for Justice (General MacEoin)

Something to do that they know nothing about.

Mr. Allen

——no power whatever. It gives them the power of putting on a list which will be sent to the Minister for Local Government the schemes in the order they think they should be done, and it gives them the power to leave off that list schemes which they think should not be done. The Minister will write then to the secretary of the county council or the county manager to say that he has approved of schemes Nos. 7, 8 and 10 perhaps.

Mr. Corish

Where the Minister is making the money available.

Mr. Allen

He will give authority to the engineer to carry out schemes and no other person gives that authority. There is no amendment of the County Management Act in this amendment. It just enables local authorities to put schemes in the order of priority they think right and if their name was not in it the Bill would enable the county manager to put them in the order of priority he thinks right. Is that not so? I contend that in accepting this amendment the Government are affecting in no way whatever the County Management Act. It is there for all the good that is in it and for all the bad that is in it. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that local authorities are just as quick as county managers to get work done and I would appeal to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary at least to reconsider this matter—that is all I am asking them to do—between this and the Report Stage. No principle is involved as far as local authorities are concerned. With or without the amendment they will get support and help to get work done. I want to stress that the authority lies in the Minister for Local Government and that is quite right when, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, he is providing the money. I want to kill the contention that I am amending the County Management Act.

Mr. Corish

This mass repudiation of the County Management Act by the Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party comes as a welcome surprise to us. I have often wondered to myself what section of the Fianna Fáil Party prevailed on the Minister for Local Government in 1940 to introduce the County Management Act at all.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Parliamentary Secretary is not careful we will have a debate on the County Management Act.

Mr. Corish

I would like to remind the House that Deputy MacEntee's name is after this amendment. In effect, it means that members of local authorities shall exercise the powers conferred by sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 2. It would be interesting to know if Deputy MacEntee still has the same ideas about the County Management Act as he had and I refer Deputies on the opposite side of the House to some remarks he made on the 31st March. I quote Volume 114, column 2154. Bearing in mind what Opposition Deputies have said they should consider these remarks of Deputy MacEntee.

Mr. Allen

You are only quibbling.

Mr. Corish

Deputy Allen was quibbling for quite a long time.

"At the moment I am dealing with one particular point: for the first time in its history Dáil Eireann is being asked, I believe, to allow small bodies of local men—however estimable they may be in other respects— to become the judges of the general public interest. However estimable they may be in other respects, they cannot have the necessary vision or the necessary experience to constitute themselves reliable judges in such a cause."

Mr. Moran

All I want to say is that the County Management Act has nothing whatsoever to do with this amendment. If the Minister is anxious that the works under this Bill will be carried out quickly he should seriously consider this amendment. Local authorities exercise many useful functions notwithstanding the County Management Act and very many people have not changed their minds in connection with that Act. This particular function of deciding on these works is a function designed for a local authority. Members of local authorities coming from the areas concerned will be in a much better position to judge whether one work is more important than another than the Minister or some of his officials in the Department. They will know which work should get priority. If it is estimated that some work may cause damage or that it is too large to be undertaken in one year they, knowing local conditions, are in a much better position to decide according to those conditions which work should be undertaken in this year and which should be left over. We know that all the works which come under this Bill cannot be done in one year, particularly the works under the second part of the Bill which, to my mind, from the local authorities point of view is by far the most important part. Under the second part local authorities will deal with works on property not their own. Although the Parliamentary Secretary may, as he says, give the full grant for the actual execution of the works in one particular year, the local authority might not be in a position to carry out all those works. As far as I can see, local authorities are now going to take over the function of the Board of Works in connection with drainage and that being so, we know that a considerable amount of survey work and spade work will be involved before schemes can be done.

I want the Parliamentary Secretary to realise that if that work is left to the local authority it will be far better for the Minister and his Department in the long run. If the local authority in its wisdom decides to go ahead with certain works this year and leave others to next year the door will not be left open to the suggestion regarding the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister that somebody came to the Department behind the back of the local authority and succeeded in getting a certain work done while another urgent work was left undone. That will be the position if the amendment is accepted and it has nothing to do with the County Management Act at all. This Bill gives new functions to local authorities and new work will be done and in handing over these new works I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to authorise the local authorities to say that the most urgent works should be done first.

Mr. B. Brady

A further point that has not been made yet in support of this amendment is that, even under the County Management Act, with all its defects, the initiation of public works must come from the local authority. If they decide to carry out a certain scheme, it is obligatory on the county manager to make the necessary arrangements to have the scheme carried out. Therefore, it is not asking too much that the initiation of schemes under this Bill should be in the hands of the local authority.

We had a revelation here from Deputy Lehane—I am sorry he has gone out—who, so far as I know, has no knowledge of local authorities. He is not a member of one. He says that, if the powers we seek in this amendment were given to local authorities, it is possible to render some of the effects of this Bill nugatory. I would like to have a repudiation from the Minister that he is afraid that if he gave these powers to local authorities they would render the effects of some parts of this Bill nugatory. I believe that is a reflection on the local authorities. In any legislation passed through this House that affected them—no matter what Government was in office —the experience has been that the members of local authorities have cooperated and given all the assistance they could in putting the legislation into effect, whenever they thought it would help some of the ills affecting their district or county. For a man with no experience of a local authority, not even a member of one, to make that charge against the members of local authorities on the whole, is not a very creditable performance.

It seems to be useless to appeal to the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider their attitude on this particular matter. Deputy Allen asked a very important question and the Parliamentary Secretary promised to answer it but, whether he overlooked it or not, he did not answer it when he was replying—that is, what executive function would the county manager exercise in connection with these schemes. It is obvious that he has very little power or function so far as this Bill is concerned. It is a question as to whether the Minister could transfer some of the powers he has under the County Management Act to him to exercise under this.

I hope that the reason for not giving the local authorities power to promulgate schemes and have the say in the priority and as to how they are to be carried out, is not the reason given by Deputy Lehane. I think the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are making a mistake in not giving to the members of the local authorities the power that we ask them to give in this particular amendment.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 50; Níl, 60.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Blaney, Neal T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Dan.
• Brady, Brian.
• Brady, Seán.
• 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.
• Lynch, John.
• McCann, John.
• McGrath, Patrick.
• Moran, Michael.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• 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.
• Coburn, James.
• Commons, Bernard.
• Connolly, Roderick J.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, John A.
• Cowan, Peadar.
• Davin, William.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Esmonde, Sir John L.
• Everett, James.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Fitzpatrick, Michael.
• Flynn, John.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Halliden, Patrick J.
• Hickey, James.
• Hogan, Patrick.
• Keane, Seán.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Kinane, Patrick.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Larkin, James.
• Lehane, Con.
• Lehane, Patrick D.
• MacBride, Seán.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Madden, David J.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• O'Gorman, Patrick J.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Sullivan, Martin.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Pattison, James P.
• Redmond, Bridget M.
• Reidy, James.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Roddy, Joseph.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Sheldon, William A.W.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Timoney, John J.
• Tully, John.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy; Nil: Deputies Doyle and Kyne.

Amendment declared lost.

Section 2 agreed to.

SECTION 3.

An Ceann Comhairle

There are several amendments which are allied. They provide that proposed works be executed in accordance with the decision of the Board of Works. All the amendments referred to are not to the same section, but they are amendments Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14 and 42. The principle, at least, I suggest, would be decided on amendment No. 11.

Mr. Aiken

On that, I should like to point out that Deputy MacEntee in amendment No. 11 propose that all works should be referred to the Commissioners of Public Works, while my amendment is somewhat narrower.

An Ceann Comhairle

I quite understand that. I said that the principle could be decided on amendment No. 11, but, if Deputies desire it, they can have a decision on any of the others.

Mr. Aiken

We can discuss them all together?

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes, and, if Deputies desire a decision on any one of them, they may have it.

Mr. Aiken

I move amendment No. 11:—

Before Section 3 to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) Where a local authority proposes to execute works under Section 2 it shall give to the Commissioners of Public Works notice of its intention to do so. Such notice shall be addressed to the Commissioners so as to be received by them not less than six clear weeks before the date on which it is proposed to execute the works and shall be accompanied by such plans and other documents as will show accurately the nature and extent of the proposed works.

(2) On receipt of the notice prescribed by the foregoing sub-section the Commissioners of Public Works shall inform as soon as may be, but in any case not later than ten clear days after receipt of the prescribed notice, every other local authority, statutory board, authority or undertaking the interests of which in the opinion of the commissioners are likely to be affected by the nature and extent of the proposed works.

(3) Within 21 days after the day on which it receives notice from the Commissioners of Public Works in accordance with the foregoing sub-section any authority which is of opinion that its interests are likely to be adversely affected by the execution of the proposed works may lodge notice of objection with the commissioners. Every notice of objection lodged by a local authority under this sub-section shall state cleraly and precisely the grounds of such objection and shall be accompanied by such data, including maps and documents as are necessary to substantiate it.

(4) On receipt of every such notice of objection as aforesaid the Commissioners of Public Works shall refer such notice of objection and the grounds therefor to their officers, who shall report thereon to the commissioners in due course.

(5) When the Commissioners of Public Works have received the reports of their officers as aforesaid upon all the objections lodged to the execution of the proposed works, they shall consider all such notices of objection in the light of the prescribed reports and if in their opinion there are reasonable grounds for any or all of such objections they shall convene a conference of the representatives of all the local authorities concerned with the objections and of the local authority proposing to execute the works. Such conference shall be presided over by a person appointed by the Commissioners of Public Works to take the chair and conduct proceedings at the conference.

(6) A local authority which participates in a conference, convened by the Commissioners of Public Works under the foregoing sub-section (5) of this section, shall be represented thereat by two elected members, together with the county manager or manager or some person deputed by him, and the principal engineering officer or adviser of the local authority or some person deputed by him.

(7) When a conference which has been convened by the Commissioners of Public Works under the foregoing sub-section assembles, it shall consider the proposed works and shall endeavour to formulate agreed proposals in regard to them.

(8) If and when the chairman appointed under sub-section 5 of this section forms the opinion that it is unlikely that agreed proposals will be formulated by the conference, he shall express such opinion to the conference and shall intimate that if agreement upon proposals be not reached within one hour he proposes to adjourn the conference and to report back to the Commissioners of Public Works. At the conclusion of one hour as aforesaid the chairman, unless he is then of opinion that agreement is likely to be reached, shall adjourn the conference and report back to the commissioners.

(9) On receipt of the report of a chairman of a conference convened under the foregoing sub-section that the conference concerned has failed to reach agreement the Commissioners of Public Works shall consider the works proposed to be executed and the objections which have been lodged thereto and shall make such proposals for changes in the works proposed as in their judgment are reasonable in the light of the aforesaid objections and shall circulate such proposals to all the authorities represented at the conference for their consideration provided always that if the commissioners decide that the objections lodged to the proposed works are insuperable or that it is not in the public interest that the proposed works should be executea they shall not make proposals for the amendment of the works, but instead shall proceed to act as prescribed in sub-section (10).

(10) If the Commissioners of Public Works, having considered the proposed works and the objections lodged thereto in accordance with sub-section (9) of this section, decide that the objections lodged to the proposed works are insuperable or that it is not in the public interest to execute such works, they shall convey such decision to the local authority proposing to execute the works and thereupon the decision of the local authority to execute the proposed works shall be deemed to be rescinded and such works shall not be proceeded with.

(11) If the Commissioners of Public Works acting under sub-section (9) make proposals for changes in the works proposed, the conference prescribed in sub-section (5) shall be reconvened and the proposals of the commissioners shall be submitted for its consideration. The conference shall thereupon consider the proposals of the commissioners and in relation thereto shall decide

(a) to accept the proposals of the commissioners, or

(b) to submit amendments to them for the further consideration of the commissioners.

If the conference decides to submit amendments to the proposals of the commissioners, all such amendments shall be submitted to the conference in the form of a motion which shall be duly proposed and seconded.

(12) All the decisions at an adjourned conference shall be taken on motions duly proposed and seconded and shall be made by majority vote.

(13) If the conference as reconvened under sub-section (11) of this section decide to accept the proposals of the Commissioners of Public Works such proposals shall be deemed to be accepted by the authorities proposing to execute the works and the works in question shall be executed in accordance with them.

(14) If the conference acting under sub-section (11) of this section decide to amend the proposals of the Commissioners of Public Works, the proposals as amended shall be considered by the Commissioners who shall decide whether

(a) to accept all the proposals, or

(b) to accept certain of the proposals, or

(c) to accept none of the proposals.

When the commissioners have thus decided they shall communicate such decision to the local authority proposing to execute the works and if the works in question are proceeded with, they shall be executed in accordance with the decision of the commissioners.

Captain Cowan

Am I to take it that Deputy Aiken is moving amendment No. 11, in Deputy MacEntee's name?

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes. It is the first and the widest

Mr. Aiken

And the most satisfactory from my point of view.

Captain Cowan

Deputy Aiken is moving Deputy MacEntee's amendment?

An Ceann Comhairle

I think the Deputy has been so informed.

Captain Cowan

What does he propose to do about his own amendment, which is different?

Mr. Aiken

I will inform the Deputy, if he allows me to say a few words. Deputy MacEntee's amendment is, in my opinion, a very useful amendment.

Captain Cowan

That does not clarify the situation. I am asking for information. Is Deputy MacEntee's amendment——

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputy allow the Chair?

Captain Cowan

Certainly.

An Ceann Comhairle

There are several amendments in which the principle is the same. The widest is amendment No. 11. The others are narrow issues on the same principle. The whole matter is being discussed on No. 11, and decisions will be granted on any other of the minor amendments, if Deputies so desire.

Captain Cowan

If we strangle No. 11, does that execute the others?

An Ceann Comhairle

I think the Deputy understood me very well.

Mr. Aiken

If the members of the Government Parties succeed in strangling No. 11, they may do a great deal of damage in the country. We hope to get their assistance in preventing this potential damage being done. The Parliamentary Secretary to-day said that all the works proposed by county managers would be vetted in his Department and I take it his engineering staff or his staff, at any rate, will go through these various proposals and say whether or not they should be carried out. We had a Drainage Commission which sat for a long time and went very thoroughly into all this question of drainage. They made certain recommendations. One of their principal recommendations, which was generally accepted by the Dáil, was that there should be a central authority to co-ordinate and supervise all drainage construction operations and that in the opinion of that commission the central drainage authority should be a separate and self-contained branch of the Office of Public Works. That is from the Drainage Report, page 37. That Drainage Commission Report and various other authorities who have considered the question of drainage in all its aspects advise due caution and well-prepared plans before drainage is entered upon. The Department of Local Government is organised to do certain engineering jobs. Their engineers are very efficient in passing judgment on proposals for new roads, new bridges, housing schemes, because in all these works they have had great experience. Up to this date they have had practically no experience of drainage and it is the experience of everybody who has had to deal with the question of drainage that the technical people dealing with it should be not only engineers but drainage engineers. This amendment is suggesting that instead of proposals for drainage being submitted to the engineers non-technically expert in drainage matters, instead of being submitted to the Department of Local Government, they should be submitted to the best technical people we have in the country in drainage, and their address is the Office of Public Works.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance replied to some local proposals for drainage in one case that we quoted before—they have replied, I am sure, in similar terms to other proposals for drainage over a long number of years—that they would not undertake certain work because they knew the danger involved in it. They made one mistake some years ago, a very big one. They were pressed to do a drainage work which resulted in grave damage and very little benefit and, for a number of years, to my knowledge, they have steadfastly refused to release water upstream unless they know that they would be able to handle it downstream and convey it to the sea without flooding other land and creating greater damage than the damage they were relieving.

This amendment suggests, therefore, seeing that drainage works proposed by local authorities have to be referred to Dublin, that instead of referring them to the non-technically expert Department of Local Government, they should be referred to the Office of Public Works which is our main drainage authority, from whom this Dáil has to seek advice on drainage questions through the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance. It proposes, therefore, that the matter should be referred to the Office of Public Works and that the Office of Public Works upon receipt of a proposal should consult all other authorities that in their opinion might be affected as a result of the execution of the work; that if they thought an adjoining local authority would be affected, they should consult it; if they thought a fishery authority or the Electricity Supply Board or any other authority you like to mention might be affected through the carrying out of the drainage, such authority and all the authorities concerned should be taken into consultation. It sets out procedure as to how this consultation should take place.

I would urge the Parliamentary Secretary very strongly to accept this amendment. If he does not accept it, I think we will find that in certain instances at any rate a great deal of damage will be done by engineers inexperienced in this business for which the local ratepayers will have to pay according to the Bill as it now stands, and that portion of the Bill which has already been passed by this Dáil. It is not fair to local ratepayers to burden them with bills for damage without at least having given them the most expert advice that we can give them. The most expert advice this State can give on drainage matters is to be obtained in the Office of Public Works from engineers specially selected for that purpose, engineers who have had long experience not only in the successful execution of works but sometimes in the unsuccessful execution of works. It is by mistakes sometimes that people become really expert. Are we to start this year by having to change our drainage authority to the Department of Local Government? Will the ratepayers of this country have to educate the engineers in that Department and will they be mulcted for large damages and then come to the doorstep of the Custom House and, knocking very loudly, demand from the Minister that as they went ahead with his O.K. he should now come to their assistance and bear the cost of the damage involved. It is thought by some people who have no knowledge of drainage matters that the only damage you can do by releasing water upstream is to flood somebody downstream. But other grave damage can be inflicted. You can lower the whole water-table in a certain region so that farmers will have no water for their cattle and that the wells will dry up. That has been the experience of many authorities that have carried out drainage works.

It has been the experience not only here but in other countries too. If inexpert drainage is to take place—particularly under sub-section (3) of Section 2—on property not belonging to the local authority, grave damage may be done to the level of the water-table in certain regions and you may have a shortage of water for cattle and for human beings. To the city person that does not seem very much. They see some swamp drained and they think that some great good has been accomplished. But to the farmers in a district who are depending for water for the cattle on keeping the watertable at a certain level—which will result at certain times of the year in flooding in a certain marsh—the disappearance of that water might mean that they might have to go four or five miles for water for their cattle and not only for water for their cattle but for water for their household. There are other amendments here, dealing with the lowering of the water-table to that extent, which we shall come to deal with afterwards. However, in view of the expertness of the decision that has to be taken before anybody can proceed with the drainage work in the reasonable expectation that less damage will be done than has been cured by it, it is reasonable, I think, to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to accept this amendment of Deputy MacEntee's and I hope he will see his way to do it. After all, as I said, these schemes have to be submitted to Dublin. What I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to do is to see that the schemes are submitted to drainage experts rather than to engineers or civil servants who are not expert in drainage problems.

Mr. C. Lehane

If I thought that there was the merest possibility of the Parliamentary Secretary entertaining seriously any thought of accepting this amendment I should never find myself able to have the slightest confidence in him again. It is perfectly clear what is intended by this amendment. What is intended by it is to strangle this Bill in red tape. I do not want to weary the House by analysing it, but the whole tenor of it is delay and red tape —a notice is to be addressed to the commissioners so as to be received by them not less than six clear weeks before the date on which it is proposed to execute the works...; then a further possible delay of a period of ten days; a further possible delay, under sub-section (3) of three weeks, within which period objection may be lodged; then the objections are to be referred to the officers of the Board of Works; the officers are to have them for some unspecified period and they are to report to the commissioners——

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

"In due course."

Mr. C. Lehane

——in due course. Then, if we are to accept the amendment, there is to be a conference, with an elaborate procedure for convening it. The findings of that conference can be again referred back to the commissioners and the commissioners can sit on the findings of the conference to decide whether they will amend them or refuse to entertain them altogether. I think it is an insult to this House to seriously put that amendment forward. Deputy Aiken knows perfectly well, with the wide experience he has had of these matters, that this Bill is not a Bill to carry out arterial drainage. I would refer him to Clause 3 of the explanatory memorandum which reads as follows:—

"The works which the local authority may carry out include the making of drains, the clearing of obstructions in and the widening and deepening of watercourses and the making or repairing of walls or embankments."

Mr. Smith

What does "the widening and deepening of watercourses" mean?

Mr. C. Lehane

It was made perfectly clear by the Minister in introducing the Bill——

Mr. Smith

And the diversion of water?

Mr. C. Lehane

——that what were intended to be dealt with under this Bill were minor watercourses. This Bill was not intended to be portion of an arterial drainage scheme. Deputy Aiken's gloomy prophesies—which would lead one to believe that he had already started to build his Ark in order to prepare for the flooding he said he expected—would certainly, I suggest, leave most Deputies cold. If the Dáil were to accept this amendment, I submit in all seriousness that it would take as long as 12 months for the local authority to remove the dead carcass of a dog from a stream. Deputy Aiken made these gloomy prophesies. He talked about the farmers' knowledge of these problems and of the fact that expert advice should be secured on them. With that, of course, every Deputy on this side of the House is in complete agreement. However, there seems to exist in the minds of the Deputies on the benches opposite the idea that we have no competent engineers in the employ of the local authorities. I do not believe that that is so. I may be speaking in abysmal ignorance but I believe there are competent engineers working for the local authorities throughout the country. I certainly do not conceive for a minute that there is a possibility that the Minister is going to entertain this amendment seriously, but, if he was, I would certainly urge upon him that he should get any idea like that out of his head. From my week-end contacts with the country and with the farming community—I will be told they are not as close as those which Deputy Smith and Deputy Aiken have—I have formed the opinion that the farmers want this Bill and want it in its present form.

Mr. Smith

I am somewhat surprised that Deputy Lehane, who is a lawyer, should invite us to take the statements made here on the Second Reading by the Minister who introduced the measure or the Parliamentary Secretary or any other speaker rather than what is provided for in the Bill. The amendments which we seek to induce the House to accept and which are said to be deliberately obstructive and creating red tape have been placed on the Order Paper because of the confusion which seems to exist as to what this Bill really intends to achieve. Deputy Lehane has assured us that it is not a drainage Bill.

Mr. C. Lehane

It is not an arterial drainage Bill.

Mr. Smith

He then proceeds to refer to the Long Title, in which mention is made of the fact that streams, rivers and watercourses can be altered and changed. On the other hand, last night we had from the Parliamentary Secretary an assurance that of the £2,000,000 worth of schemes already submitted some 70 or 80 per cent. dealt largely with protective works designed to raise the level of roads and protect county council property and so on. I am at a loss to know if I am to have any regard for the statements made as to what is meant by the Bill. I do not know where I stand.

When I turn to sub-section (3) of Section 2 I see there that the local authority is being given power to deal with drainage problems. Whether they decide to do so or not, the power is being conferred upon them to deal with these problems. It is all very well for Deputies to say that we are endeavouring to put around this Bill all sorts of red tape in order to cause delay. I do not say that my knowledge of rural conditions is greater than Deputy Lehane's. What I am concerned about is some machinery, some safeguards which are necessary because of the provisions of Section 2 (3).

Mr. C. Lehane

Need the machinery have been so cumbersome?

Mr. Smith

I am not going to analyse the amendment to see if it could not be watered down. As a layman, I know that this amendment aims at placing on the local authority some responsibility to see that people whose lands might be affected adversely as a result of certain works that might be carried out will have some breathing space in which to look around and see what is likely to occur. Because of the situation of the land I own, I happen to be in a position to demonstrate to Deputies who may be in doubt the ill-effects that certain ill-conceived small works might have upon my own interests.

It is not correct to say as Deputy Lehane said that the powers which are being given to local authorities only give them the right to deal with small streams. A stream, no matter how small it is, after passing over three or four or five miles of country must ultimately get to some drainage catchment. Even the simplest sort of drainage work must lead to some little stream. That stream will lead to a larger river and the larger river will lead to a main artery. Mr. Holmes in his report some months ago advised the Government that they should be careful to proceed with drainage problems from the right end.

It is not fair for Deputies simply to make the allegation that in drafting an amendment like this the one thought we had in mind was to fight a sort of delaying action. I invite the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Lehane and others who may address themselves to this matter to read Section 50 of the Drainage Act of 1945. They will find that section compels local authorities to notify the drainage authority of their intention to build a bridge over a river or to reconstruct a bridge over a river. It places not only upon local bodies but other authorities the legal obligation of giving notice of their intention to engage in any work in or adjacent to any river or stream in any catchment area. Speaking as a layman, I think when you read this section you will see that even so far as sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 2 of this Bill are concerned in which we are giving power to local authorities to carry out protective work on bridges and to prevent flooding on roads we are not relieving them of the obligation to notify the drainage authority which is mentioned in the amendment we are now moving as the authority to which all problems should first of all be submitted before carrying out any work. Section 50 of the Drainage Act, 1945, is entitled "Restrictions on the construction or alteration of bridges" and reads as follows:—

"(1) No local authority, no railway company, canal company, or other similar body, and no industrial concern shall construct any new bridge or alter, reconstruct, or restore any existing bridge over any watercourse without the consent of the commissioners or otherwise than in accordance with plans previously approved of by the commissioners.

(2) If any person shall construct or begin to construct or partially construct a new bridge in contravention of this section, the comissioners may serve by post on such person a notice requiring him——

(a) if such bridge has not been completely constructed, to desist forthwith from the construction thereof,

(b) in any case, to remove, within a time specified in that behalf in such notice, such bridge or so much thereof as shall have been constructed.

(3) If any person shall alter, reconstruct, or restore an existing bridge in contravention of this section or shall begin so to do or shall partially so do, the commissioners may serve by post on such person a notice requiring him—

(a) if such alteration, reconstruction, or restoration has not been completed, to desist forthwith therefrom, or

(b) in any case, to remove, within a time specified in that behalf in such notice, all work done on such bridge, or

(c) in any case, within a time specified in that behalf in such notice, to restore such bridge to its original condition.

(4) If any person on whom a notice has been served by the commissioners under the foregoing provisions of this section fails to comply with such notice, the following provisions shall apply and have effect, that is to say:—

(a) such person shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable, on summary conviction thereof, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds together with a further fine not exceeding five pounds for every day during which such failure is continued;"

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What Act and section is the Deputy reading?

Mr. Smith

Section 50 of the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

And the page?

Mr. Smith

The page is 119.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What is the volume?

Mr. Aiken

The Statutes of 1945.

Mr. Smith

The point I want to make is that in so far as sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 2 of this Bill are concerned, which propose to give power to local authorities to carry out certain works on property, the maintenance and so on for which they have responsibility, they are obliged by Section 50 of the Arterial Drainage Act to give notice of their intention, to supply the drainage authority with their plans and other documents in connection with these proposals. That section definitely obliges them to submit that evidence to the drainage authority. I would like some such safeguard to be inserted in this measure to ensure that, in regard to sub-section (3) of Section 2, local authorities would be obliged to notify the drainage authority of their intention to carry out any work under that sub-section and to have their approval as it will be necessary in other cases to have that approval before the work can proceed.

There has undoubtedly been an enormous amount of loose talk as to what could be done under this Bill, in the course of the Second Reading. I actually heard one Deputy on the Government side complimenting those who had framed those proposals on the ground that they created 26, I think, different drainage authorities. It is all very well to make a boast of that kind, but from the point of view of the practical working of a Bill of this kind when it becomes an Act, that could only result in confusion; that is, if work is to be undertaken under sub-section (3) of Section 2. Certainly the power is being given under that sub-section to local bodies to engage in it whether they do or not and we must assume that it must be the intention of somebody that they will take advantage of that power. It is only reasonable that those of us who see in that provision an enormous amount of danger for many landholders in this country should desire that they will be given the same protection other bodies are provided with under the section of the Arterial Drainage Act to which I have just referred.

Mr. C. Lehane

Would the Deputy suggest protracting the procedure set out there?

Mr. Smith

I do not want any procedure to be protracted. I have no love of defending protracted procedure so far as any Minister or Parliamentary Secretary wanting to engage in work, having work done and giving employment and so on, is concerned. However, there is no use in our proceeding on the basis that just for the sake of speed alone other very important matters will not be considered. Whatever time is necessary to give normal consideration to the interests I have in mind, then that provision should be made. I give this assurance. I do not know whether we could simplify that amendment while at the same time inserting in this measure the idea that I have endeavoured to express here.

I had at my finger-tips some years ago a clearer knowledge of the dangers that would result from indiscriminate and careless carrying out of work of this fashion. There is no use in trying to represent me as saying that men are incompetent and so on. With regard to engineers and people who have spent a life-time in studying these problems, as Deputy Aiken has said, the best of them will make mistakes and many of them will become knowledgeable as a result of having made mistakes in the past. You can misrepresent my words if you like, but what I am really saying is that in tampering with the course of water you are dealing with something that is far more dangerous and difficult than constructing roads and building houses. I happen to live in a district in which the damage that small drainage schemes can do has been demonstrated to me more than once. As I have contended and as it can be proved, whether you start at the top or not and no matter how simple the scheme, it must ultimately go into the heart of some catchment area. If that catchment area is not in a proper condition to receive it those whose lands are situated there will undoubtedly suffer. I have had that demonstrated to me and I am pleading with the Government, the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to give us some assurance that they will accept this amendment No. 11 or any of the other amendments that are being covered in the course of this discussion. If they will not do that will they give some assurance that they will afford to those who may be affected the same protection, consideration and examination that is provided for in the section of the Arterial Drainage Act of 1945 to which I have referred and which, in my view, will compel the local body to whom we are giving these powers in relation to their own property to inform the drainage authority of what they intend to do. If they are obliged to do that in regard to the property of the county council, the local authority and corporation then I ask to do the same in relation to my property.

Mr. Keyes

Deputy Lehane went to the trouble of analysing the amendment. I think the most effective reply to the amendment would be to read it in its entirety. Deputy Smith has made a rather unfortunate selection. He selected the Arterial Drainage Act of 1945. That Act did not come into operation until 1948. I should hope that this Bill we are now producing will not have that period of waiting when we go to operate it.

The scope of the measure has been fairly clearly indicated. I do not think there is any substance in the fears that have been expressed by Deputy Smith. Like him, I come from a county where we have a considerable number of small rivers and small streams. I am hoping that there will be some improvement effected in these under the terms of this Bill. I am perfectly certain that if we were to adopt the amendment, or even the principle of it, we would be spiking the operation of this measure. As Deputy Lehane pointed out, there would have to be long waiting periods and conferences and a going back for the holding of further conferences, so that really nothing could be done. There has been a good deal of talk about the public interest. We had discussions earlier as to who had the right to determine the public interest. The acceptance of this amendment would certainly deprive the local authorities, or even the Dáil, of the right to determine that question and would vest it in the Commissioners of Public Works.

What amazes me are the protestations that we have been hearing from the benches opposite that they are not obstructing this measure, and that they are perfectly honest in their handling of it. How anybody can still protest to be helping in regard to this Bill and at the same time stand over an amendment such as this is quite beyond me. The acceptance of the amendment would completely negative the intention of the Bill. We would have all the red tape that has been described by Deputy Lehane. If a local authority wanted to do one of the minor things set out in the Bill, then under this amendment any crank could come along and make an objection and there would follow from that all the rigmarole that is set out in the amendment. The fact is that the local authority would be prevented from doing the simplest piece of work.

It is not fair to compare this Bill with the Arterial Drainage Act. There is another measure that I would like to refer to, because I had experience of it as a member of a local authority. I refer to the Arterial Drainage Minor Schemes Act of 1928 under which work up to the value of £1,000 could be done. It was not a continuing measure. I was assured by county engineers, when I was a member of a local authority, that work of a most beneficial nature in the way of relieving flooding was done under that Act.

Mr. Smith

The only place in which there was work done under that Act was in the County Clare.

Mr. Keyes

I beg your pardon. There was work done on the Awbeg and on portion of the Morning Star. I was approached by county surveyors at the time to try and get the Government to sanction schemes up to the value of £2,000 under that Act. As I have said, under it work up to the value of £1,000 could be done. It was a most beneficial Act. There was no question under that Act of reporting back to the Commissioners of Public Works. The only thing to be regretted about that Act was that it was not continued in operation.

In connection with this Bill it has to be remembered that if any awkward case arises there will be consultation between my Department and the Commissioners of Public Works. There is no question of friction or of one working against the other. This matter has been discussed with the Commissioners of Public Works. They are perfectly agreeable to the proposals set down under the Bill. They know what is contemplated and, as I say, if an awkward case arises there will be consultation between the two bodies. The one object that this amendment could achieve, if it were accepted, would be completely to negative the possibility of any useful work being done. In fact, if the amendment were accepted, we could drop the Bill.

Mr. Madden

I have been prompted to speak by the remarks made by Deputy Aiken. During the last two days I have been listening to the Jeremiahs opposite weeping over the ratepayers and the public bodies. What was the purpose and tenor of Deputy Aiken's speech on this amendment? It was this, that all such works should be referred to Dublin so that expert advice would be secured in contradiction of the county engineer and the assistant county engineers. Are those who have been on a public board in a county for 20 or 25 years not supposed to have sufficient experience to enable them to make representations with regard to the carrying out of works under this Bill? I do not like to talk in a derogatory manner about any Department, but Deputy Aiken appears to make the suggestion seriously that expert advice should first be got from Dublin. Even though Deputy Smith sheds tears to-night for the ratepayers, his memory cannot be so short as to forget something that was carried out under his administration in my county. When he was Parliamentary Secretary he thought very little of the ratepayers and of the riparian owners in our county. He wants to repeat the same thing under this amendment. Deputy Smith, when he was Parliamentary Secretary of a Department, made a contractual obligation——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Smith's administration of his Department does not arise on this amendment.

Mr. Madden

Deputy Aiken asks that schemes under this Bill should not be done without first soliciting expert advice from a Department here in Dublin. That is the advice that is now given to me as a member of a public body, at a time when I have before me the recent history of work that was carried out in my county on the advice of the body referred to by the Deputy. The ratepayers in my county, because of the inefficient work that was done on the advice of that body, were mulcted to the tune of £40,000. That happened within my county within a fairly recent period. Now we are being asked to do the very same thing under this amendment. Will that experience of ours impress Deputy Aiken's sense of justice? I believe that this is an insincere amendment that was spoken to by the Deputy. When Deputy Smith was Parliamentary Secretary we made a contract with him——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I cannot allow the administration of any Department to be discussed on this amendment.

Mr. Smith

You made no contract with me.

Mr. Madden

We have been told that the public bodies have not given their imprimatur to this measure. Within the last month the various political Parties gave it their unanimous support and considered it a measure that was fully deserving of the praise that was expressed at the meeting. It was accepted in my county with general applause. Not alone was it received with gratifying feelings, but at our meeting last Saturday it was the unanimous decision of the council to ask the county surveyor and ten of his assistants immediately to make a survey of the east and west of the county so as to have everything in order when this Bill becomes law. It should have been law for the past month. Our people down there are anxious that when the Bill becomes law it will come into operation as soon as possible.

What do we find? In the western portion of my constituency the flooding conditions have developed with a dangerous continuity, if you like, and 1,000 farmers last summer, through purely voluntary effort, with their own shovels and spades, cleared ten miles of river. They had the help of some engineers. Having done that ten miles at a cost of a £5 note——

Mr. Smith

To which amendment is the Deputy now addressing his remarks?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I take it the Deputy is making the point that the farmers did this without the help of the Board of Works.

Mr. Madden

We invited the Minister to see the work that was done and what he saw was an inspiration to him. We were invited to a public meeting —Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Deputies —and it was pointed out there that it would take 20 years before the Arterial Drainage Act would reach that area.

Mr. Smith

I suggest the Deputy is not addressing himself to any of the amendments and that his remarks can be regarded as obstructive.

Mr. Madden

I am trying to develop this point—the urgency of this most essential and most attractive measure. I am stressing the manner in which it was received in my county and by the public body of which I am a member. There were statements made on the opposite benches last night by certain Jeremiahs who said that public bodies were not instructed and did not take cognisance of that particular Act.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The amendment suggests that certain formalities and preliaminaries should be gone through before any work is undertaken, which is in effect a reference of proposed schemes to the Board of Works. I take it the Deputy's point is that all these works he is referring to were carried out without such reference and, therefore, he is making a case against the amendment. That is the ruling.

Mr. Smith

I must say he is going about it in a very indirect fashion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am not responsible for the Deputy's outlook, but that is how it seems to me.

Mr. Madden

A thousand farmers. seeing the destruction that was done over a number of years through the silting up of the river bed, and knowing that the Arterial Drainage Act would not reach them for 20 years, decided to act for themselves. This inspired the Minister and the Government that something else was needed to treat this situation in a tentative kind of way in order to relieve the obvious obstructions caused by rock and bushes across the river. These were the things the farmers in this locality had not machinery to remove, but they set about it in their own way.

The same applies to the Maigue. The previous Minister went down there and realised that something should be done in the interim before the Act would reach that area. It was Deputy Moylan who promised them that if his Government were returned to power one of the first things to be done would be to attend to the Maigue area in the interim before the Act would reach that quarter. If he did not do something there would be no Adare there now—at least the part contiguous to the river—and there would be no Croom there either. The statistical returns submitted by one of the most capable and brilliant engineers in the south showed that 20,000 acres were rendered unproductive.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Having travelled over Limerick and along the banks of various rivers, perhaps the Deputy will now come back to the amendment?

Mr. Madden

What I have been pointing out is very analogous to the situation in other counties.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am not saying it is not, but it is not quite relevant to the amendment.

Mr. Madden

According to Deputy Aiken, all these schemes will have to be submitted to Dublin. I am in total disagreement with that view. An action started in my county cost the ratepayers £40,000. The whole thing was brought up in the High Court. Now we are told by Deputy Aiken that we will have to go up to Dublin through the same medium asking them to do a similar kind of work and it might inflict on the ratepayers and the riparian owners very serious charges by way of taxation and rates. I think the Deputy ought to have the decency to withdraw that.

I do not know of any measure that came before my council for the past 24 years that was received with such welcome. There was not one word of contention. It was accepted unanimously. That is so all over the country, too, and why then should we have the Fianna Fáil Party adopting the attitude of delaying such a great measure instead of helping it so as to bring the farmers some measure of happiness and large areas of land into greater fertility? I ask Deputy Aiken to be honest.

Mr. Aiken

I think Deputy Madden will have to withdraw his support from this Bill because the Parliamentary Secretary has explained with great care—if Deputy Madden was listening carefully he would realise what was said—that all these schemes will have to come to Dublin. They will all have to be submitted to the Department of Local Government.

Mr. Smith

The boys in blue.

Mr. Aiken

The engineer in Limerick will not be able to take his levels and go ahead with the work and send the bill here. He will first have to send the scheme here. My objection is that it will go to a Department that is not expected and that could not be expected to have the same knowledge of solving these problems as the Department that has had all the successes and all the failures—the Office of Public Works. The Minister has flatly turned down Deputy MacEntee's amendment. He will not have this procedure. He is very careful to explain at the same time that this is not an arterial drainage scheme. He did not give any definition of what an arterial drainage scheme is as opposed to a minor drainage scheme. But I have a couple of amendments here which are designed to ensure that when anything other than a minor drainage scheme is embarked upon it will be referred to the Office of Public Works which is the drainage authority set up by this Dáil.

In amendment No. 12 I propose that no scheme will be undertaken where the cost is more than £500 without submission to the drainage authority of the State—the Office of Public Works. In amendment No. 13 I propose that no scheme will go ahead where the damage likely to be sustained in the functional area of the local authority is more than £5,000 or, elsewhere, £2,500. If the Parliamentary Secretary will not accept Deputy MacEntee's amendment, then those two amendments that I propose give him an opportunity of assuring the ratepayers that they will not be mulcted with heavy costs through ill-judged drainage schemes. If the Parliamentary Secretary accepts these amendments the ratepayers will have that assurance. The county council will then notify if there is likely to be more than £5,000 worth of damage done by any particular scheme within their own functional area or £2,500 worth of damage elsewhere. It is only right that a county council should do less damage in a neighbouring county than it does in its own. That is the reason why I propose that if a scheme will result in £2,500 worth of damage to a neighbouring county the county council must seek permission for the scheme from the drainage authority.

In recent winters we heard much about the damage done by floods. We all know that Kilkenny was under a couple of feet of water for a few days. We all know that there were letters to the Press and telegrams to Ministers and T.D's. We know that deputations came up to Dublin. All that activity arose because of the damage done by a couple of feet of water in County Kilkenny for a couple of days. No doubt there was a certain amount of damage done, but what will happen if we embark upon schemes, without opening our eyes to the actual position and without opening our ears to the expert advice, under which we may have not a couple of feet of water for a couple of days but ten feet of water for ten weeks. That could happen. I propose, therefore, some limitation to the damage that may be done by local engineers with the approval of the Department of Local Government. I propose that where they undertake works of £500 that they must be submitted to the proper drainage authority and if there is a possibility of damage of more than £5,000 in their own area, or £2,500 elsewhere, the simpler procedure be followed.

Amendment No. 14 is another amendment which I think the Minister could accept because it gives some little guarantee to the ratepayers in the various districts. The amendment states:—

"A local authority shall not without the prior sanction of the Commissioners of Public Works execute under this Act a drainage scheme where the cost of such scheme exceeds £250 if the effect of such scheme shall be to increase substantially the flow of water into the functional area of another local authority."

In regard to this matter, I shall deal now with amendment No. 42, which is slightly different from the others. I shall deal with it now and we will get the whole thing over as soon as we can. The purpose of this amendment is to empower the Commissioners of Public Works, who have knowledge of drainage problems generally, where they are satisfied upon the report of their chief engineering officer that serious flooding is likely to occur if additional waters are drained into a river basin, by order under this section, to schedule such river basin as a prohibitive river basin. Then there is power to alter that scheduling as conditions change. That is a very necessary authority to give to the Office of Public Works. Take the Owenmore river into which the Board of Works refused to let the Kilshanny river be drained until the Owenmore was first improved. This amendment would give to the Office of Public Works the right to schedule the Owenmore basin and to say that until such time as that basin is improved they will not permit more waters to flow into it and cause damage, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance pointed out in the letter we quoted, to be done by such excess waters. Surely it is not obstructive to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give the people who reside in dangerous river basins some assurance that there is not going to be a flood of water pouring in upon them because of several little schemes costing a few hundred or a couple of thousand pounds. Kilkenny was subjected to a couple of feet of water for a few days. With several little schemes costing a few hundred or a couple of thousand pounds there would be danger of a sudden inrush of water into the Nore thereby increasing the flood level considerably and protracting the duration of such flood over a very much longer period. There should be some assurance that that will not happen. It is no use the Parliamentary Secretary telling me that all that will be done in the ordinary way by Departmental consultation. We want a little better assurance than that.

If it is going to be done by ordinary inter-Departmental consultation, why not give the people an assurance that it is going to be done? The Minister's and the Parliamentary Secretary's statement that that will be done gives no assurance to those people who might be adversely affected in the future and it gives them no right to compensation. If we put this amendment into the Bill then the individuals adversely affected will have some right to claim compensation for the damage inflicted upon them. If the Parliamentary Secretary will not go through the procedure outlined in Deputy MacEntee's amendment No. 11 which is not by any stretch of imagination as frivolous as Deputy Lehane tries to make out— after all the Government cannot be in such a hurry about this Bill as they pretend; it was the 23rd February when they introduced it and we are not responsible for the fact that the Committee Stage has only been reached in the first week in June—will the Parliamentary Secretary not undertake to give the smaller assurances to the people that are involved in my amendment? I hope the Government will accept either one or the other.

Mr. Moran

There is another angle to this that I should like to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary particulary in dealing with some of Deputy Aiken's amendments. In the main, what is in our minds in connection with these amendments is that the larger type of drainage work is the type that will create the most damage. Anyone who has any experience of these schemes must realise the dangerous amount of water that is released. There is no provision in this Bill about notifying fishery authorities, mill-owners, the Electricity Supply Board or other statutory bodies such as there is in the 1945 Drainage Act. If there is danger of damage to the interests of people such as I have mentioned, there is just as much reason, if not more reason, that the same statutory protection should be enshrined in this Bill as was provided in the 1945 Drainage Act. The smaller drainage schemes may not give rise to so much damage but it is not a very large scheme that will be carried out for £250. Where, however, two or three of these schemes enter into the one river it does not take any great stretch of the imagination to visualise the amount of damage that may be done. Releasing water in an unscientific way is much the same as releasing fire. It is just as liable to do as much damage and the local authority will have the privilege of paying for any damage done under this Bill.

If parties, such as are described in Deputy MacEntee's amendment, parties with vested interests, like fisheries, millowners, or the Electricity Supply Board, suffer damage as a result of any of these schemes the ratepayers may be liable for very heavy compensation. The combined effect of four or five of these £250 schemes may be the cause of serious damage to these parties. We must take into account the fact that this Bill provides for the deepening of drains, the removal of obstructions and even the diversion of watercourses. If that type of work is going to be done and if there is no consultation with the drainage authority, we can well visualise that the claims which may arise on the ratepayers of various counties may reach a very high figure.

There also arises the question of drainage as between one county and another. It may be all right so far as maritime counties are concerned. If they create damage, it will arise within the limits of their own counties but where you have a river flowing from one county into another, it will be necessary for these counties to observe the greatest scruples in releasing water. If due precautions are not taken, and due consultations carried out by the experts, you may have the position arising that water may be released into an already flooded river to such an extent that it will create a terrific amount of damage in other counties. These are matters that it is better to put right when we have an opportunity of doing so rather than wait until we come up against these difficulties in the operation of the Bill. I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that the guarantees asked for taking all these amendments, might possibly be secured in another way, possibly we might achieve the same object by a redrafting of the amendments and if the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to consider this matter before the Report Stage so as to obviate the dangers which we point out, well and good. I would suggest that there is a duty on the Government to endeavour to foresee the difficulties that may arise under this Bill and I would point out that in every legislation dealing with drainage all these precautions were provided for.

For instance, in Section 47 of the 1945 Act, which deals with the question of weirs, if there is any interference with a weir by the alteration, removal or enlargement of any watercourse. there is a definite liability for damages and certain precautions have to be taken. One of the matters causing obstruction in watercourses are some of these very weirs and we take power under this Bill to remove these obstructions. I wonder has the Parliamentary Secretary foreseen what that may give rise to? Again, by the execution of a very small drainage work, damage may be caused to hatcheries such as you have in some areas. In particular in one amendment of Deputy Aiken—what I call the £250 amendment—I think there is a very reasonable safeguard. I think he is only endeavouring to make the Parliamentary Secretary consider certain matters that may arise as a result of indiscriminate damage in the country if due precautions are not taken. If he guaranteed to accept any of these amendments or favourably consider what is in our minds before the Report Stage, he would meet our objects in the matter. I would impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary that it is only by the experience of carrying out drainage that he will see the very grave questions of damages and infringements of the rights of private individuals that may arise.

Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 put and negatived.

Amendment No. 13 put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 48; Níl, 61.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Blaney, Neal T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Dan.
• Brady, Brian.
• Brady, Seán.
• Brennan, Thomas.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Buckley, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Butler, Bernard.
• 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.
• Lynch, John.
• McCann, John.
• McGrath, Patrick.
• Moran, Michael.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• 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.
• Brown, Patrick.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
• Coburn, James.
• Commons, Bernard.
• Connolly, Roderick J.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, John A.
• Cowan, Peadar.
• Davin, William.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Esmonde, S r John L
• Everett, James.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Finucane, Patrick.
• Fitzpatrick, Michael.
• Flynn. John.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Halliden, Patrick J.
• Hickey, James.
• Hogan, Patrick.
• Keane, Seán.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Kinane, Patrick.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Larkin, James.
• Lehane, Con.
• Lehane, Patrick D.
• MacBride, Seán.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Madden, David J.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Norton, William.
• O'Gorman, Patrick J.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.)
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Sullivan, Martin.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Pattison, James P.
• Redmond, Bridget M.
• Reidy, James.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Roddy, Joseph.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Tully, John.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Kyne.

Amendment declared negatived.

Amendment No. 14 not moved.

Mr. Moran

With regard to amendment No. 15, the Parliamentary Secretary has, I think, tabled an amendment providing that certain notice should be given.

Mr. Corish

Fourteen days' notice.

Mr. Moran

This amendment was tabled after the Second Reading, because the Bill as it then stood did not provide for any notice by anybody going in on anybody else's land and trespassing there to do some work. I am glad to see that the Minister has thought fit to mend his hand in that matter and has provided some notice, although it is not as good as we would expect to be provided. In view of his having recognised now, after consideration, our opposition on that question during the Second Reading, I do not propose to move amendment No. 15.

Amendment No. 15 not moved.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 16 is out of order, as it runs directly counter to the principle of the Bill. If the Deputy reads the Long Title, he will see that.

Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Moran

I am opposing this section, which reads:—

"Where the Minister is satisfied—

(a) that particular works should be executed pursuant to this Act by a local authority, and

(b) that the local authority are unable or unwilling to execute the works,

the Minister may by Order nominate a person to execute the works and thereupon that person may execute the works in accordance with the directions of the Minister, and in relation to the execution thereof, shall be deemed to be acting on behalf of the local authority and shall have all the powers conferred on them by this Act."

It is an extraordinary section for inclusion in this measure by the present Minister or any member of the Labour Party. We have been hearing for quite a long time the awful thing the County Management Act was in taking powers away from local authorities. Here we have a power being enshrined in this Bill, under which the Minister, over the heads of the local authority, can send down his nominee to carry out any particular work and the local authority will have the pleasure of paying for any damages done. That is an extraordinary power for a Minister to take who professes to be so worried about democratic rights and the rights of local representatives. It has been held up to the House and to the country that the County Management Act deprived the local authorities of such powers. Speaking on the County Management Bill on the 14th March, 1940, as given in column 929 of the Official Debates, Volume 79, the recent Minister for Local Government, the late Deputy Murphy, on a section giving power to remove a manager by sealed order, for unfitness, said:—

"My only comment is that this power renders even more farcical the position local representatives would be asked to share when this Bill becomes an Act. I would go even farther than what has been said already and say that this section tends to make the county manager the creature of the Minister for Local Government, and I am not prepared to vote that that power should be put into the hands of the Minister or of any future Minister for Local Government."

That was the comment by the recent Minister for Local Government on a section in the Managerial Act simply taking power to remove a manager for unfitness—it would make the manager the creature of the Minister. But what does this section do? It makes every member of every local authority a creature of the Minister, because when a local authority in its wisdom decides that some work would not be in the public interest and should not be done, due to the potential damage that would accrue to the ratepayers, and decide to turn it down, someone can come to the Minister and the Minister can send his nominee and carry out the work in spite of the local authority. That is going a long way towards restoring power to the local authorities, that the Minister and some of his colleagues have been so loquacious about. It seems extraordinary also to be taking power when the local authority will have to pay for the results of the acts of the Minister's nominee. Someone has said that the man who pays the piper calls the tune, but in this particular section the local authority, the ratepayers, may have to pay the piper —in paying for the damage that might be done in the maintenance of the work—and the Minister, notwithstanding the fact that the local authority has turned the work down, can go ahead in the face of the opposition.

In another way this creates an undesirable position. While it may not happen with the present Minister, some future Minister may have a friend who is interested in getting some particular work done. If the local authority turns it down, he can get the Minister to do it, in spite of the opposition. I would ask the Minister to withdraw this section and avoid such an undesirable position.

I suggest, particularly in view of the expressed attitude towards the County Management Act, in saying that the local authorities have not sufficient power, that there was not enshrined in any Act a more strongly-worded or dictatorial section than this, as between the Minister and a local authority. If it is the intention to amend or repeal the County Management Act, why enshrine this section in the Bill and why give power to any future Minister for Local Government to take such action as is provided for in the section? If it is the intention at an early date to repeal that Act and give more powers to local authorities, why should this principle be enshrined in a Bill introduced by a Labour Minister?

I suggest that the Minister should withdraw this section and that it is a section that will be resented by members of local authorities. As surely as he exercises the power in this section to put through some work in spite of the majority of a local authority, so surely will he be working against the bringing about of good relations between local authorities and the Department. The Minister should realise that this section will be repugnant to every local authority. If he realises that, he will realise that it is an unwise principle to have enshrined in the Bill. It is a section which will serve no useful purpose and I appeal to him to withdraw it.

Mr. Sweetman

I am surprised at Deputy Moran's attitude and I am more surprised still that Deputy Harris, who is here, did not get up and contradict him, because Deputy Harris knows as well as I do that, in parts of Kildare, there are joint committees looking after the Boyne and the Blackwater, and, but for this section, it would not be possible to include them in this Bill. This section will enable the Minister to designate one local authority to do the job, where several local authorities are involved. If it were not for that section, obstructions in the Blackwater River could not be removed because more than one local authority is involved. For that reason, if for no other—and there are others—I think this is a good section, a section which I would strongly urge the Parliamentary Secretary to retain in the Bill and a section which I know people in parts of North-West Kildare will be glad to see passed.

Mr. Harris

It was a happy thought on Deputy Sweetman's part to bring in this matter of joint drainage boards to cover up the real danger in the section. I suggest that a safer clause could be inserted in the Bill to meet that position. I believe the section is dangerous, because it gives the Minister a power he should not have, a power by which he could do much that would be detrimental to a local authority. If a local authority feels that it is wrong to carry out a particular work and if they oppose the carrying out of that work, certain influential sections in the particular county who have access to whatever Minister is in office could go to the Minister and snap their fingers at the local authority. The section undermines all ideas of democracy.

Captain Cowan

That was the Fianna Fáil way.

Mr. B. Brady

I support the representations made for the deletion of the section. I think it is a very dangerous section. It is a pity that Deputy Sweetman did not point out to us where provision is made in the section for local authorities to carry out the work at present being carried out by drainage boards. There is nothing in the section in connection with that. It merely states that, where a local authority is unable or unwilling to execute a particular work, the Minister may, by Order, nominate a person to execute it. Some Deputy on the opposite side talked about our being in an anomalous position. I wonder what position is the Minister for Local Government and the Parliamentary Secretary in to-night? We had them earlier refusing to trust local bodies in the matter of carrying out these works and now we have the Minister taking the big stick. If a local authority or county manager refuses to carry out certain works, the Minister will nominate somebody to carry them out.

Captain Cowan

The Minister "may".

Mr. B. Brady

When Deputy Cowan has finished with his game of matches, he can give us a legal interpretation of it. I am dealing with the section from the point of view of a member of a local authority. I believe that, when new works such as have not hitherto been included in their functions are to be carried out by local authorities, the members should have the right to state the priority of the works in consultation with and with the approval of the county engineer and should have the power to carry out these works. I cannot visualise the circumstances which the Minister appears to visualise which make it necessary to insert this section.

I do not know any local authority that is going to endeavour to prevent work being carried out under the Bill, but evidently that is the mentality behind the insertion of the section. I do not think the House should agree to it. The House could very well leave the carrying out of these works in the hands of local authorities. I cannot visualise any situation in which local authorities might refuse to carry out certain works, but if a local authority, with its knowledge of local conditions and circumstances, decided not to carry out particular works, I do not see why the Minister should have power to compel them to carry them out.

Captain Cowan

No; the Minister "may."

Mr. B. Brady

Consequently, I think the section should be deleted and the House, by its vote, should delete it.

Mr. Byrne

Will the Minister say what will happen if a local authority wants to do a job one way and the Government Department wants it done another way? Who will arbitrate? I have in mind the position with regard to Charleston Road in Dublin, where the corporation wanted to improve and re-asphalt the roadway. The previous Government had the benefit of an inquiry into the widening of the road and apparently some influential friends waited upon the Minister of the previous Government and stopped the corporation from carrying out the much-needed improvements on that road. It is now a danger to the public and there is a clashing of interests between the engineer of his Department and the Dublin Corporation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This applies where the local authority is unable or unwilling to carry out work.

Mr. Corish

I do not know why it immediately springs to the mind of the Opposition that there is some sinister motive in embodying a section of this kind in the Bill or that a section like this immediately suggests to them that some friend of the Minister might benefit. It is not the intention at all under this Bill to inflict any punishment on a local authority or to get them to do something which is unreasonable. Before I go any further I should like to ask if any of the members of the Fianna Fáil Party thought there was anything peculiar or anything sinister in the inclusion in the Relief Works Act of 1940 of a section which gives the Minister power to compel a local authority to execute certain works and which also requires that they should bear the full cost of the works, the full cost of damage and the full cost of compensation?

Captain Cowan

Fianna Fáil Deputies are not permitted to think. They have to do what they are told.

Mr. Corish

As far as this particular section is concerned, it is intended for the benefit of local authorities. If, for instance, an urban council or corporation could not or had not the means to carry out certain works under the provisions of this Bill it would be possible for the Minister for Local Government to nominate, say, the county council to do that work for them. If, for instance, a river flowing through a county area also passed through an urban area, and the county council were anxious to carry out certain works but if the urban council did not do a certain job within their functional area the county council's work would be ineffective, it would be reasonable then, I think, for the Minister to nominate the county council to carry out the necessary work to make the job effective within the functional area of the local authority. Again I would like to stress that there is no sinister motive in this. I think Deputy Moran paid the Minister for Local Government a compliment by saying he thought he would not act in a manner as suggested by some of the other Opposition Deputies. But, if Opposition Deputies think there is any sinister motive in this, if they think it means giving to the Minister a power which he should not have or which in their opinion he might abuse, I think that we might be prepared to reconsider it on the Report Stage.

Captain Cowan

That will tie them up.

Mr. Aiken

Would the Parliamentary Secretary think of adopting and including the amendment that has been turned down?

Captain Cowan

No, no. Keep it out. It is turned down.

Mr. Aiken

There is power in this section that we are discussing at the present time for a nominee of the Minister to be appointed to do a job of work that will leave the county council to be mulcted for more than £5,000 worth of damage as the Bill now stands and I think he should put some limit on the amount of damage that his nominee can cause in the area of a local authority.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Mr. Corish

I move amendment No. 18:—

In sub-section (1), line 36, immediately after the word "may" to insert the words "subject to the provisions of this section".

This is merely a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Corish

I move amendment No. 19:—

Before sub-section (2) to insert the following new sub-sections:—

(2) Before entering on land under this section for a purpose other than the execution of urgent works, a local authority or person executing works pursuant to this Act or an Order made thereunder, shall either obtain the consent (in the case of occupied land) of the occupier, or (in the case of unoccupied land) of the owner or shall give not less than 14 days' notice in writing of the intention to make such entry.

(3) The notice referred to in sub-section (2) of this section may be given to a person in any of the following ways:—

(a) by delivering it to such person,

(b) by leaving it at the address where such person ordinarily resides,

(c) by sending it by post in a prepaid registered letter addressed to such person at the address where he ordinarily resides, or

(d) by posting it at or near the land concerned.

(4) In this section the expression "urgent works" means works the immediate execution of which is, in the opinion of the local authority, necessary to prevent serious injury to any person, land or permanent construction.

This amendment provides for 14 days' notice in writing to be given of intention to enter on a man's land. Notice is not necessary where urgent works have to be done, and I think the House will agree that that is reasonable in view of the fact that there may be immediate flooding due to excessive rain. If there had to be a delay of 14 days it would be absolutely ridiculous to try to alleviate such a condition. There is also provided in this amendment the method by which this notice should be given and I think that meets some of the subsequent amendments of the Opposition as to the giving of notice and the actual method.

Mr. Moran

I did not move a previous amendment that we had tabled as a result of the discussion on the Second Reading. I do agree that in the case, say, of sudden flooding of roads, which would in the main, I think, arise under the first part of the Bill, or a landslide, or a breach in a road it is right that the authority should proceed immediately to do that work but as far as entering on the lands of a private individual for a scheme is concerned, I would again suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary, notwithstanding this amendment of his, that if it is any kind of major scheme, there should be publication of notice. Publication of notice was provided for under other Statutes and I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that when he considers the matter before Report Stage he might think fit to provide for publication of notice outside the notice he proposes to give under this amendment.

Mr. Corish

I do not think this is unreasonable. It is included in the Water Supplies Act, 1942, for similar work.

Mr. Moran

I am accepting the amendment as covering many of our objections on Second Reading but I have in mind that a scheme may start in one end of a county—this applies to drainage schemes in particular—and any consequential damage may arise in the other end of it. If the Parliamentary Secretary thinks that over he will see my point and I think there should be notice outside the notice in the amendment that you are going to start the work, particularly having regard to any damage that may be done. There should be publication of some kind and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to think the matter over between this and the Report Stage.

Captain Cowan

The Parliamentary Secretary says he will consider it.

Mr. Corish

I will consider it.

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 20 is governed by No. 19. It is the same principle.

Amendment No. 20 not moved.

Question proposed: "That Section 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. A. Byrne

May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if under this section he has any power to deal with the dangerous bridges all over the country, for instance, a bridge in New Ross, that is dangerous to the people generally?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Byrne knows what this section refers to. It relates to power of entry on land and the preliminaries to be taken before the local authority enters on the land.

Mr. A. Byrne

The White Paper that was circulated referred to bridges.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It does not arise on this particular section. We are on Committee Stage and Section 4 is before the House.

Mr. A. Byrne

I do not see any section dealing with bridges as such.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That should be raised on the Second Stage of the Bill.

Mr. Corish

I can give the Deputy much more information if he discusses it with me outside the Chamber.

Question agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Mr. Corish

I move amendment No. 21:—

To delete sub-section (1) and substitute the following 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.

This amendment is wider than the original sub-section. Deputies opposite were worried about the definition of land, especially with regard to the question of compensation for damage caused to land. This amendment gives a fuller definition of "land", especially as far as compensation is concerned. I think it was agreed on one of the earlier sections that this would meet the requirements.

Captain Cowan

All I would say to the Parliamentary Secretary is that I have looked into this so far as I could in the time at my disposal. In so far as the compensation section is concerned I would agree that every adequate safeguard is included. But the Parliamentary Secretary may come up against the difficulty that while the Act gives him power to interfere or to enter on land it may not give him power to interfere with certain rights—as I put it to Deputy Lynch, when he mentioned the definition of "land," that "land" did include the matters which he said were included in "land." I have not been able to look into the matter fully but I do think, in the definitions I have looked up, that the definition of "land" for the purpose of particular statutes is something that should be set out in the statutes. I do not want to go further than ask the Parliamentary Secretary that, between this and the Report Stage, he might look into the matter to see if the expression "land" gives all the rights that the Parliamentary Secretary wants and that we all want to be exercised in regard to this Bill. It is a technical matter on which the Parliamentary Secretary may require the advice of the Attorney-General. I would ask him to look into this matter between now and the Fifth Stage.

Mr. Corish

Sub-section (4) of Section 2 sets out what may be done——

Captain Cowan

But I am concerned with what may be entered upon. Land may be entered upon——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Let us not go back to the definition section now.

Captain Cowan

At that particular stage it was agreed that when we came to this stage we would look back to that definition section. I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary, between this and the Report Stage, to consider the matter. We may have the right to enter upon land but we may not have the right to enter on particular rights. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to ensure that within the definition of "land" we have the power to enter upon the particular rights that we are all agreed should be affected by this particular section.

Mr. Corish

I think it is fairly well covered but I will look into it.

Captain Cowan

I am just asking the Parliamentary Secretary to consider it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 22 not moved.

Mr. Moran

Before the Parliamentary Secretary moves amendment No. 23 I would point out that there are a couple of amendments of ours dealing with the same question. I was going to suggest it might be taken with them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Nos. 23a and 36.

Mr. Corish

I move amendment No. 23:—

Before sub-section (2) to insert the following new sub-section:—

(2) Every claim for compensation under this section shall be made in writing to the local authority concerned within 18 months after the commencement of the works which caused the interference to which the claim relates.

I think that a period of 18 months, within which a person may make a claim, is reasonable. I do not think any less or any more would be good. It is considered that a period of 18 months is a period which will cover a full year adequately, that is providing for a late or early winter. I do not think that, as is suggested in some of the other amendments, a period of say, six years, might be given because the local authorities would be, as it were, waiting in suspense to see whether or not a claim for damage was coming forward. In any case, an unusual happening such as cloudburst or any similar occurrence might induce a person to make a claim for damage which was not done by the execution of works under this particular Bill.

On the question of damage and compensation, let me say that I do not visualise that there will be many claims for compensation and, in any case, where they are on account of the nature of the schemes, I think that the compensation will be very low.

Mr. Moran

Amendment No. 23a reads:—

"Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

( ) Every claim for compensation under this section shall be made in writing to the local authority concerned not later than three months after the damage has been ascertained, but in any case, not later than six years after the completion of the works which it is alleged have occasioned the damage to which the claim relates."

This amendment and amendment No. 36 go together. I think, in particular, that amendment No. 36 is possibly wider. It is as follows:

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, or of any other statute of limitation, a claimant may institute proceedings for compensation under Section 5 of this Act at any time within a period of six years from the date of the conclusion of the work by reason of which the claimant's land has sustained damage."

This is a matter for which, when the Bill was previously going through the House, no provision was made. The Parliamentary Secretary has gone a certain distance with us, under amendment No. 23, when he says that every claim for compensation under this section shall be made in writing to the local authority concerned within 18 months after the commencement of the works which caused the interference to which the claim relates. I would point out that 18 months after the commencement of the works is much too short a time. The works actually may take 18 months to complete, if it is a substantial work, and, possibly in accordance with the time of year the work is undertaken, the work may have to be suspended on a particular drainage scheme and actually the scheme itself may not be completed within 18 months from the date at which it started. I would further point out that work undertaken under this Act in one part of a county may not, in itself, cause damage. The draining done under that particular work—say, for the sake of argument— flows into river X. Another work done in the same catchment area also flows into river X. It may be the third work under this Act, flowing into river X, that may cause the flooding and damage. You may have the combined effect of two or three works causing the damage under which claims arise under this Act. I think, in particular, that 18 months from the commencement of the work is much too short a period.

The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned cloudbursts. He should know quite well that the question of cloudbursts will not arise because there would be no claim for damage done as a result of any cloudburst. The cloudburst I am afraid of would be the burst due to the combined results of two or three works—possibly small in themselves—under this Act. I think the position would be most unfair for an unfortunate claimant whose rights may be interfered with and who may have suffered damage. He did not know when the first work started. He would be in the position that he would be out of court when he had not brought his claim within 18 months of its first starting. I think there should certainly be a longer period. The Parliamentary Secretary must be of the same mind that these questions of damage under this Act will have to be proved (1) before the District Court, in small cases and (2)—which we shall come to later—before an arbitrator or a court under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919. The claimants will have to satisfy these courts that they did in fact (1) suffer damage and (2) that it was as a result of works done under this Bill. I do not see why the Parliamentary Secretary would not reconsider this question of limitation of the period. Six years is the usual limitation. We have a number of statutes limiting the period.

Captain Cowan

The Deputy will see that it is six months under the Public Authorities (Protection) Act.

Mr. Moran

Yes, but that is much too short. That Act is not of such universal application as some people seem to think. I am suggesting that there is nothing unreasonable in making the limitation period six years, because claimants will have to prove their case in any event. If you put a limitation of 18 months on a claimant, as suggested in the Parliamentary Secretary's amendment, it means that if some farmer in a backward area is not quick enough to put in a claim in time, you simply put him out of court on what merely amounts to a technicality in a case where genuine damage may have been done. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to bear in mind that when work is done under the Bill there may be an unusually dry winter when you would not have the normal rainfall, whereas in a winter with normal rainfall you may have flooding which would not be apparent the previous winter. It is only after a couple of years that the full results of the work would be seen, taking one winter after another.

These are matters which would affect the period of time within which a man might claim, because the damage may not arise during the year the work is carried out and may not arise until the following winter, which may be a more severe winter than usual. He may find then as a result of the work done that his lands are being flooded and damage done. On the other hand, the public authority is protected because, let it be one, two or five years after the work is done, a man has to satisfy the court that he has suffered damage as a result of work or combined works done under the Bill. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider his attitude and accept the principle either of the amendment tabled by myself or the one tabled by Deputy MacEntee.

Mr. C. Lehane

I do not endorse Deputy Moran's plea for the extension of the period to six years, but I do think he made certain criticisms of the Parliamentary Secretary's amendment which should be considered. To my mind, what goes a long way towards vitiating that amendment as it stands is the period from which the calculation is to be made, "after the commencement of the works". As I said, I would not endorse the plea to extend the period to six years.

To my mind, what is important is not the period allowed, but the date from which that limitation would commence to run. The amendment would be completely unobjectionable if it were to read something like this: Every claim for compensation under this section shall be made in writing to the local authority concerned within 18 months after the date upon which the damage or interference caused became apparent. The important thing is the date from which the period of limitation will commence to run. I cannot compliment the Parliamentary Secretary on the drafting of the amendment. I appeal to him to consider an alteration in the time from which the period of limitation will run. After that, if he wants to make the period within which a claim can be brought as short as six months, I would agree.

Mr. Sweetman

I cannot agree with either of my professional brethren. I think Deputy Moran's plea for six years is altogether out of the question. I think Deputy Lehane's date for the commencement would be far too indeterminate. It would be quite impossible to prove at what date the damage became apparent. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary very strongly that, whatever period he inserts, and I do not quarrel with his period of 18 months, it should date from the completion of the work, because until the work is completed it will be impossible to tell for certain whether it will cause damage or not. I would rather have a much shorter period starting from the completion of the work than a longer period starting from the commencement because, unless one is an engineer, one is not in a position to judge when the work is started what the exact effect will be. When the work is completed, one is in a better position to judge.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

In this matter my view lies between what Deputy Sweetman and Deputy Lehane said. I agree that the period from which the limitation is to run in the proposed amendment is not a satisfactory one, because I can imagine nothing more difficult to ascertain than the commencement of any particular works. A considerable amount of administrative work must be done before the apparent evidence of the work on any river or road may be seen by people. The commencement of work under this Bill covers just as much administrative or preparatory work as it does the more obvious kind of work which people might see. I think the word "commencement" in the Minister's amendment does not indicate a satisfactory or clear period from which the limitation should run. Deputy Lehane suggested that the limitation should run from the date on which the damage was caused.

Mr. C. Lehane

From the date it became apparent.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

From the date it became apparent. Under Section 3 of the Public Authorities (Protection) Act, 1893, which at present protects local authorities, the period of limitation runs from the causing of the damage or injury. There is at least that precedent for dating the limitation from that period. It has not been difficult to ascertain in practice and I do not think it would cause much difficulty if something along these lines was provided for. I urge on the Parliamentary Secretary, from an ordinary drafting point of view, that something clearer should be decided upon than the word "commencement" in the amendment. Perhaps the most satisfactory compromise would be that suggested by Deputy Sweetman, namely, the completion of the work. There again I leave open the question when such work is completed. I do think that some attention should be paid to this on the Report Stage.

Sir John Esmonde

I take a rather different view from everybody else.

Mr. Killilea

Now we have the legal opinions.

Sir John Esmonde

I would rather have attention given to the wording of the Parliamentary Secretary's amendment which is to the effect that a claim to be made be brought in 18 months after the commencement of the work. As far as I can see, that does not interfere at all with the time that is laid down under the Public Authorities Protection Act. I should say that as the amendment stands at present it prescribes that if a claim is to be made notice in writing must be served in 18 months. Having regard to what the various Deputies have put forward in this particular amendment I think it should be reconsidered between now and the Report Stage.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I want very briefly to add my voice to the pleading with the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider this matter. Quite frankly I would like Deputy MacEntee's amendment No. 23 (a) if it were tidied up a bit. I think the period of six years is far too long. Something in the neighbourhood of 18 months or two years would improve it. Secondly, some of the speakers have pointed out the difficulty of ascertaining when the work commences. I think there would be far more difficulty in ascertaining when the work is completed. If the Parliamentary Secretary thinks well of the idea of allowing the claims to date from the completion of work it would be necessary to add some further provision stipulating the definition of when the work is completed. I suggest we might consider making it a duty of the engineer and county surveyor to certify and, if necessary, certify by public advertisement, the date of the completion of work. If something of that sort were done, at least it would remove one of the difficulties which might arise in courts on that question. I should like to recommend to the Parliamentary Secretary that he reconsider this amendment with a view to dating the time for the claim from the completion of the work and further define when the work should be deemed to be completed.

Mr. Smith

Such a certificate of completion as mentioned by Deputy O'Higgins might be all right except if it were found after the certificate of completion had been issued by the county surveyor or engineer that damages had resulted from the work and that these damages were likely to be recurring. It might then be necessary for the local authority to undertake further works. The issue of a certificate of completion is provided for in the Act of 1945 but that would be in a case where the most elaborate survey would have taken place in connection with any drainage work carried out. I would plead with the Parliamentary Secretary to listen to and take heed of the point made by Deputy Moran when he mentioned the fact that even if you make it 18 months from the date of completion and even if you were able to decide exactly when the work is completed, you would still have the difficulty of a dry winter. We do not get very many dry winters in this country, we must admit.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

We had a wet summer.

Mr. Smith

We have had cases of dry winters in our time. I remember inside the last 25 years two dry winters following each other. If works are carried out in a period like that, it would be impossible for a person whose property might have been injured to come before a court inside the time specified and prove, as it would be necessary to prove, that damage had resulted to him as a result of carrying out these works. I think it is not unreasonable to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to insert a period that would at least give the individual who might be affected an opportunity of going to a stronger body and seeking there redress for any damage that might result from the work carried out.

Mr. Corish

Most Deputies are agreed that the period of 18 months is more reasonable than six years, but some of them seem to differ as to from what particular time that period should date. I would be more favourable towards relating it to the commencement of the work, because it can readily be seen that in a lot of cases it will be very difficult to determine when work has actually been completed. To all intents and purposes, a particular scheme might be completed, but it might be necessary for an engineer to go back and make adjustments or to effect some minor changes. From that point of view the actual execution of a small scheme might take a period of, say, six to nine months. That is to say, the work might be actually completed in three months, but it might be discovered after another three months that some minor repairs or adjustment or minor digging work might have to be carried out. From that point of view I think it would be very difficult in a lot of cases to prove when the work was actually completed.

As far as Deputy Lehane's suggestion is concerned, that is, that it should date from the time when the damage became apparent, it could not be easily determined because any claimant is entitled to protest, and he may very well protest, that he did not know of this damage until such and such a time. In effect, the damage might have been there for six months but he was too lazy or did not bother his head to make any claim at the time the damage actually occurred. Therefore, I would be inclined to reconsider this amendment on the Report Stage but I would like to tell the House that I will stick to the dating of the period from the commencement of the work and consider a smaller extension of the period.

Mr. Moran

Will the Parliamentary Secretary not consider the point that I have made that, for instance, because of a dry winter, or for a similar reason, a man would not realise that he was going to suffer damage, he will not be debarred from making a claim? I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider this question of protecting the small man as against the large local authority with all its power behind it. If he is genuinely going to suffer damage I do not think there is any good reason why a technical clause of this kind should cut him out. After all we are providing that if damage is done the local authority is going to pay for it. If there is a genuine case, and even if a man does not bring his claim within, say, 18 months of the commencement of the work, provided he can prove damage, surely he should not be penalised by a section such as this. I would again urge the Parliamentary Secretary to bear this in mind.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 12 p.m., until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 7th June, 1949.