Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Oct 1949

Vol. 118 No. 1

Private Deputies' Business. - Repair of Embankments—Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That, in view of the extensive damage caused by the breaking of the sea embankments in the areas of Calinafercy, Gurrane, Douglas, Cromane, and Rossbeigh, County Kerry, and having regard to the fact that hundreds of acres of arable land are rapidly being destroyed and the livelihood of 100 families endangered, Dáil Éireann is of opinion that the Government should regard this matter as of urgent public importance and take action at the earliest possible date.—(Deputies Flynn and Palmer.)

Mr. Kissane

It is so long since this motion was debated that it is very hard to know where to begin. I think it is nearly eight months ago since I moved the adjournment of the debate on the motion and in order to give the House an idea of what is contained in it, I had better read it (motion quoted).

While it might be regarded as a motion that is entirely local in its nature and scope, nevertheless it deals with a problem the importance of which cannot be overstressed. Everybody knows that there are embankments, not merely sea embankments but river embankments, which at the present time are very badly in need of repair. If there is any fault that I have to find with this motion, it is that it does not go far enough because I observe that reference is made to sea embankments only and that there is no reference at all to river embankments. I think it would be very difficult to separate the two. As has already been pointed out by the proposer and seconder of the motion, there is great need for the Government to pay some attention to this particular problem of the repair of sea embankments and river embankments because we all know from experience of years past that a considerable area of land, sometimes arable land, has been covered with water for considerable periods of the year owing to breaches in the embankments. The unfortunate part of it is that the problem is not tackled in time and it becomes greater and greater as time goes on.

I remember that, when I moved the adjournment of the debate on the 10th of March last, I was trying to extract a statement from the Minister as to whether he and the Land Commission would accept responsibility for the maintenance of these embankments. The reply he gave was that they might. A period of almost eight months has elapsed since then and I should like to know if the Minister and the Government have yet made up their minds as to what their attitude to this problem will be.

An Ceann Comhairle

I should like to draw the Deputy's attention to the fact that this motion refers to sea embankments, and specific ones at that, and has nothing to do with rivers.

Mr. Kissane

I wanted to know from the Minister if the Land Commission would accept responsibility for the repair of these embankments mentioned in the motion. As has been pointed out, the livelihood of a good many farmers depends on these. The land of the country is the greatest asset we have and we should do everything to preserve it and, if there is any problem more than another which deserves the attention of the Government, it is this. The Minister pointed out, and quite rightly, that it is not the responsibility of the Government— that the land is vested in the tenants and, if the land has been vested, the responsibility devolves on the tenants. I think, however, that it would be unreasonable to ask small, struggling farmers to carry out these repairs themselves. It is a problem which will have to be tackled on a national basis. I know that I cannot widen the scope of the debate, that there are certain specific cases mentioned here, but I would ask the Minister to consider this matter again and look upon it as a problem that must be tackled. I do not know whether it can be brought under recent legislation passed by this House. We have the land reclamation scheme now and the Local Authorities (Works) Scheme. The Minister made reference to these schemes when making his contribution to the debate. In any case, under whatever scheme the work would be done, I submit that it is of very great importance and that it is very urgent.

Mr. J. Flynn

When I tabled this motion some months ago I had hoped that the Minister would take the matter seriously and try to allocate grants for the carrying out of this work, but I have been sadly disappointed. I admit quite frankly that the Minister did his utmost but, at the very outset, the Minister for Finance queered the pitch. He made it impossible for the Minister and his Department to meet our wishes in this matter by stipulating that for any amount expended the tenants concerned should contribute what is, in my opinion, an exorbitant amount. To mention one case, a scheme was initiated on the Marshall estate and the proposed expenditure was £7,000. Of that £7,000, five tenants were expected to contribute approximately £1,400. Is it unfair to suggest that the Minister for Finance, when he made his Order, made it absolutely impossible for the Land Commission to do anything.

The lands of these unfortunate tenants have been subject to flooding for the past seven years. One man has 80 acres and 60 acres of these are frequently under water. How can these people be expected to pay a levy such as that? It was an impossible request. Nevertheless, I must pay a tribute to the present Minister for the fact that, in face of that, without getting these tenants to sign as requested by the Minister for Finance, he started the scheme. His Department initiated and carried out some preliminary work. That will be useless, however, unless the main job is undertaken and the Department is prepared to modify this demand.

It all comes back to the question of principle. The fundamental principle involved is: is the State responsible? Is the State prepared to allow these holdings to vanish? Is the State prepared to disclaim any responsibility? I suggest that the State is responsible. These people, even though they are smallholders, pay an annuity. Deputy Kissane stated that, as the land is vested in the tenants, it is no longer a State responsibility. I submit that it is. Take the matter of the railways which has just been discussed. The big point made by the Minister was that, in order to meet a desperate situation and save the transport system, the Government had to take action. I submit that the same thing applies here, that there is an obligation on the Government to make it possible for those people, whether they are small or large farmers, to maintain their holdings and continue to be an asset to the State.

I dealt with the other estates eight months ago. There are other estates where there are trustee funds available, but not very much. Generally speaking, it comes down to this—that the Minister will have to say whether he is going to deal with the matter on a national basis. I suggest that he should consult with the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Local Government in regard to the the matter. The land reclamation scheme is being carried out by the Minister for Agriculture and the Local Authorities (Works) Scheme by the Minister for Local Government in the public interest. I believe that this could be consolidated with the other schemes and that most of the work which we propose could be done under schemes initiated by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Local Government. I am not asking for anything unreasonable.

I am not blaming the previous Government or the present Government. It is a question whether the State are to leave these people isolated and say that the matter is no responsibility of theirs. That question came up before the previous Government and nothing was done for years. Up to date nothing has been done for those people except what the Minister tried to do last year. He found it impossible to meet the demand from the Minister for Finance and at the same time to meet our demand. I again appeal to him to review the whole position and to accept the general principle that the State will come in and assist us.

There is one other point. The Minister may say that these tenants may have made no recent offer. I attended at the Land Commission offices in Tralee some months ago with one of these people, a man who had 60 acres of land under water. He was prepared to pay a certain amount with the others if the Land Commission inspector would give him an assurance that the State would maintain the embankments after repair. Under the existing system, the inspector could not give that guarantee. I quote that case to show that these farmers realise their responsibilities and that they are prepared to go as far as men could go to meet their commitments, and so make it easy for the Minister's Department to go on with the scheme.

In conclusion, I make that final appeal to the Minister. As I have said, I am just giving the facts without blaming anybody. The position is very serious for us in the case of those estates mentioned in the motion. It is difficult for us, and we are trying to do the best we can. Every man in my constituency in North and South Kerry knows these areas. The Minister himself has visited the place and he is quite aware of the position.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the motion being withdrawn?

Mr. J. Flynn

I would like to hear what the Minister has to say.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister has spoken on it and cannot speak again. The Deputy has concluded on it. It was not the Minister's motion. It was the Deputy's and he has concluded.

Mr. Flynn

Has the Minister anything to say?

An Ceann Comhairle

He may have but he may not say it now. He cannot speak twice. No one can do that except the mover.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.