Before the Minister resumes, may I take it that, since there are only 40 minutes left for this debate, the Chair will consider giving me time to reply?
Private Deputies' Business. - Shannon Flooding—Motion (Resumed).
There are three-quarters of an hour left. I cannot abridge speeches. I know Deputies will take that into consideration in making their contributions.
I do not intend to delay the House very long. On the last occasion I referred to the references in the report of the commission of inquiry into our drainage problems, to the Shannon flooding and to the general conclusion reached by that body that the cost would be enormous, and that the scheme was, in fact, impracticable. With reference to the suggestion that, pending the completion of the scheme, in view of the grave hardships caused to the farmers concerned, suitable compensation should be paid to the landowners who cannot use their lands owing to continuous flooding of the area, if the principle of giving compensation to landowners whose lands are flooded were accepted by the House, I do not know where it would lead us. Probably there are some thousands of holdings affected by flooding to a greater or lesser extent.
If the Minister would excuse me for a moment. Are you being progressively smothered by the atmosphere, as I am? I understand there is no fog outside. Does anyone know where the fog here comes from?
I am supposed to be an authority on order, not on the atmosphere.
This House is the most unhealthy place in Dublin.
I should get notice of that.
Surely there must be a remedy?
How the compensation would be calculated, how the farmers' losses would be computed, the extent of the liability which would come upon the State if it had to provide suitable compensation, are matters on which we may feel the gravest doubts. I think it is absolutely impracticable. Whatever case might be made for the drainage of the Shannon basin, the provision of compensation on this scale, which could not possibly be confined to a particular area, would mean enormous costs for which no Government would be prepared to assume liability.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and myself suggested that the proper way to approach the problem of alleviating the condition of landowners whose holdings are periodically flooded in the Shannon area is to try to improve their circumstances in other ways. I pointed to the fact that the Land Commission over a period of years have been trying to migrate some of these landowners and that, although alternative accommodation was provided for them, they were allowed to retain their original holdings which, as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, in spite of frequent flooding, are valuable summer grazing grounds.
At present a further scheme is under consideration by which it is hoped to migrate two tenants from the Esker district near Banagher who have fairly substantial holdings, and from the surrendered holdings to enlarge the smaller holdings in that flooded area. Since 1945, when this matter has been under examination, the Land Commission would have been very glad indeed to try to solve the problem by getting houses built if suitable sites were available, but in a number of these cases in the Banagher area, which had been surveyed, it was not possible to provide sites and the alternative of trying to transfer the tenants altogether was adopted, although more costly.
On a point of order. May I point out for your benefit and for the benefit of the Irish Press that there are only three Fianna Fáil Deputies here and that we have not a quorum?
Is the Deputy asking for a count?
Yes.
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted and 20 Deputies being present,
The general problem of the rearrangement of small holdings in the West of Ireland is at present under active consideration in the Land Commission. There was a recent conference of inspectors representing the areas from which people were being transferred and the eastern areas to which they might be expected to be transferred, we hope with the goodwill of those amongst whom they were coming to live. The whole problem was the subject of consideration and discussion. In that connection the question of these flooded areas and what might be done to relieve or improve the situation of the tenants affected was considered. Following a recommendation from my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, to have a survey carried out of the economic conditions in the flooded areas near Athlone, which have received a good deal of attention in this discussion and which seem to have suffered a great deal recently, the Land Commission have arranged for a survey to be made of this area. This survey would aim at getting a general picture of the situation and the opinion of the technical officers who would be entrusted with carrying it out as to the steps that might be taken to improve matters in this particular district. Some of the matters, for example, that might be considered would be the question of the rearrangement of holdings, how best that might be effected and speeded up; what improvement might be possible in agricultural methods; what further steps might be taken to improve the housing conditions; whether or not more could be done with a view to the exploitation of bogs and the marketing of turf.
It is hoped to start this survey fairly soon. I can assure the House that when that survey is completed, the Land Commission, in close consultation with the other Departments concerned, such as the office for which the Parliamentary Secretary is responsible, will consider any recommendations that may be made, as a matter of urgency and of great importance and if we can agree upon the constructive steps that may be taken to improve the situation, there is no lack of goodwill on our part or lack of desire to see that these steps will be carried into effect as speedily as possible.
I consider that the motion with which the House is dealing is one which should be given very careful and sympathetic consideration. I welcome the statement that has been made by the Minister for Lands in this connection but surely the House has been hearing similar statements from Ministers, former Ministers as well as the present Minister, for many years past, so far as the Shannon area is concerned. I can say that the present Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Beegan, has a very good knowledge of the conditions that prevail in the Shannon area and it is my honest opinion and sincere belief that if there is any man likely to devote his energies and determination to relieving the plight of the people in that area, it is the present Parliamentary Secretary. All during the years he has represented Galway he certainly has taken a keen interest in the plight of his constituents in that area.
Why do I say this? Because of the fact that for the past five or six years, a committee has been established in that area under the chairmanship of the Parish Priest of Clonmacnoise and they have been actively engaged in making representations to the Land Commission, the Office of Public Works, the Electricity Supply Board and everyone concerned. The Parliamentary Secretary has been closely connected with the work of that committee. I hope, now that he is in charge of the Office of Public Works, that he will use the same assiduity with the officers of his Department as he has shown by his keen interest in the people in the Shannon valley for a number of years past.
In considering the plight of these people we must realise that it is their very livelihood that is at stake. The conditions that prevail in Shannon Bridge, the Shannon Harbour and Banagher are certainly conditions of which no Irish Government, past or present, can feel proud. I, in supporting the inter-Party Government, certainly left no stone unturned to put forward the case of these unfortunate people at every available opportunity. Anyone who knows the history of the Shannon valley knows quite well that flooding has been going on in this area so long as people can remember. As year after year passes, the area is becoming more seriously affected. Some of the older people in Shannon Harbour, Shannon Bridge and Banagher area will tell you that at one time when Mr. Reddy represented King's County in the House of Commons, whenever the Shannon floods rose to what was considered a dangerous level, the local people wired Mr. Reddy and he immediately got in touch with the Chief Secretary and, by whatever means was at the disposal of the Chief Secretary, in 24 hours the level of the Shannon was lowered. It is most remarkable to hear these statements of old people as to what happened when Mr. Reddy was M.P. for King's County. I remember an occasion in more recent years when the Grand Canal Company lost a number of porter barrels from a boat in Shannon Harbour. The Gardaí were making inquiries as to where these barrels went and the Parliamentary Secretary will remember that in 24 hours the level of the Shannon was lowered to find the barrels.
What period of the year was that?
I am not concerned with the period of the year.
That makes a very big difference.
I am concerned only with what happened. They lowered the level of the Shannon to find the porter barrels, and they found the porter barrels, but there is no question of lowering the level of the Shannon to enable the people there to save their hay or their live stock. Surely the Government must consider that the live stock of the people in the Shannon Valley are more important than the porter barrels which the Grand Canal Company lost on that occasion? The Parliamentary Secretary is well aware of the fact that the floods there are becoming more serious every year. In recent years a very comprehensive drainage scheme has been carried out on the Brosna, and one result of the carrying out of the Brosna scheme is that more water is flowing into the Shannon. If another drainage scheme is carried out on the Suck, as is proposed, still more water will flow into the Shannon.
May I ask what evidence the Deputy has for the statement that conditions have worsened on the Shannon as a result of the Brosna drainage scheme? The belief of the experts is that it has not affected it.
It may be a matter of opinion. Engineers, like doctors and other professional men, often differ. We have solicitors who differ, and engineers are inclined to differ.
And politicians.
Agreed. A committee representing the local people in the area—and I am prepared to accept the information imparted to me by the local people—employed the services of an expert, an engineer of very high standing in the city. He came down and carried out a survey in the area. He reported that, as a result of the drainage of the Brosna, the floods were much more serious than before the Brosna drainage was carried out. He also reported that in his opinion, if the Suck were drained, it would have a very serious effect on conditions in the area. The Parliamentary Secretary was present at a meeting on the 22nd February, 1951, when this engineer reported. After carrying out a survey in the area the engineer made a number of suggestions in order to relieve the plight of the people there. I believe those suggestions were practicable. The suggestions were (1) the removal of certain obstructions in the main channel between Athlone and Meelick; (2) a reduction of the navigational level by deepening the channel where necessary; and (3) the removal of the weir at Meelick. These suggestions were considered and were put forward to the Board of Works. The meeting was held in Leinster House very shortly afterwards, and I think Deputy Beegan was present at the same meeting. The chief engineer of the Office of Public Works was present and the engineer representing the Shannon Drainage Committee was present. The chief engineer of the Office of Public Works said that it was nonsense, codology and trash, and that it could not be done, while the engineer representing the Shannon Drainage Committee said that it was a common sense and practical scheme which could be done. What is the use of the Minister for Lands quoting opinions of engineers. They will report in order to suit themselves. I cannot envisage Office of Public Works engineers reporting against the policy of the Government nor against the policy of the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister in charge.
I believe that the removal of the weir at Meelick would give quite a considerable amount of relief. I have never been able to discover the objection to the removal of the weir there. Like the engineer whom the Shannon Drainage Committee employed, I cannot understand why the removal of the obstructions in the main channel cannot be undertaken. As the Parliamentary Secretary is aware, the lands in that area are useless for practically eight months of the year. It is well known that in the same area most of the live stock die from fluke. Fluke is a disease which is caused by waterlogged lands. The homes of the people in that area are often completely flooded and the people have to take to the high road. On many occasions live stock are lost in that area. At the same time, the lands in the barony of Ballycastle in the Shannon Valley district in my constituency are as highly valued as the rich fertile lands of Meath. The people in the Shannon Valley district are obliged to pay their rents, rates and taxes and yet we are told that a measure of relief cannot be provided for these people. There is nothing to prevent any Government from bringing in legislation to this House—when the local authority have not the power to do it—to give the people in the area in question their lands free of rates. There is nothing to prevent the Minister for Lands from bringing into this House a Bill to bring about a measure of relief for these people by leaving them their land free of rent.
This motion has to do with drainage.
Surely, when, as a result of flooding, the lands of these people are rendered useless, these people should not be obliged to pay the heavy rates which they are paying at present—and I fail to see why they should have to pay anything to the Land Commission.
We are told that a comprehensive drainage scheme cannot be carried out on the Shannon. As we all know, the Shannon is the principal river in this country. I fail to understand why the Shannon was not tackled many years ago. As well as the people on the banks of the Shannon being seriously affected, we must consider the fact that the townspeople of Banagher and of Shannon Bridge have been very seriously affected.
Very little relief or sympathy has been extended to those people. At their meeting in January, the Offaly County Committee of Agriculture, being aware of the seriousness of the situation in that area, passed a resolution asking the Government to include the Shannon valley area of Offaly, from Banagher to Bloomhill, in the development schemes proposed to be operated for the benefit of the western area. The request of the Offaly County Committee of Agriculture to the Government was by no means unreasonable. We are told that, under the Act, the Minister has power to include any areas in which he sees, knows or has evidence that distress prevails. There can be no district in the Gaeltacht or in any part of Ireland in which there is more evidence of distress, destruction or disaster than in the area from Bloomhill to Banagher.
The opening words of this motion are: "That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that the drainage of the River Shannon should be undertaken..."
Or that, if it is not undertaken, "suitable compensation should be paid to the landowners who cannot use their lands owing to continuous flooding in the area". I am referring now to "suitable compensation".
It is not relevant for the Deputy to include in his remarks the Undeveloped Areas Bill.
I hope the Government will consider some scheme to alleviate the hardships suffered by the people in the area in question. I do not care what type of scheme it may be so long as some action is taken to relieve the plight of the farmers there. The Minister for Lands has told us that the Board of Works and the Land Commission have been in conference with each other on this issue. The Minister for Lands knows, as well as every Deputy in this House, that the slowest institution in this world to-day—and the world is a big place—is the Land Commission. He told us that they were undertaking a survey of the Shannon, that they were going to examine the situation and were going to arrange for the enlargement of holdings in the area by the removal of holders of certain lands to lands elsewhere. I understand that the survey has started. The Minister made no estimate and gave us no information as to when the survey would be completed or in whose lifetime it would be completed. It is only right that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, if they put their heads together on this issue, should call together the officers of the Land Commission who are going to work on that survey and say to them: "We are giving you a job now in the Shannon area. We will give you two years to complete that survey, to submit proposals to us." If a time limit is not put on this work I am afraid that we shall have no result of the survey in our lifetime. The people in the Shannon valley district have, for a number of years past, been endeavouring to bring together the Department of Agriculture, the Office of Public Works, the Land Commission, the Electricity Supply Board and other parties concerned in order to hammer out a solution to this problem. My request cannot be styled as unreasonable.
I welcome the statement made in this House last week by the Parliamentary Secretary that the Land Commission had been asked to make this economic survey in conjunction with the engineers of the Office of Public Works. I ask him, as a business proposition, to put a time limit on the work so that the people in the Shannon area may know when they may expect a measure of relief. I hope the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary realise that this motion was not tabled for any political purpose, and that it has no political significance whatsoever. The Parliamentary Secretary is quite well aware of the keen and active interest which I have taken in this problem since I first entered this House. I considered that a discussion on the matter would be helpful both to the Government and to the Opposition. I considered that as a result of the discussion that would take place in this House the people that are affected would benefit. I hope and trust that the problem, which I consider of the gravest importance, will be remedied. I am prepared to welcome any suggestion which the Government may put forward and I am prepared to support and cooperate with the Government, both the Minister for Lands and the Parliamentary Secretary, in any measure of relief they may have in mind for the unfortunate people in this area. We all know that these surveys cannot be carried out in a hurry, but I appeal to the Minister and to the Parliamentary Secretary to put a time limit on the investigations in this case, so that the people in this area may see some ray of hope of getting out of the serious plight in which they have been for so many years past. The position is very bad, and I hope that something will be done to relieve it.
I must confess to no little disappointment at the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary with regard to this matter. I had hoped that some proposition might be forthcoming which would bring good news to the Shannonsiders, but when he tells the House that he sees very little hope in our lifetime of the drainage of the Shannon being carried out, I am afraid they will be sorely disappointed. As far as I can recollect, he gave no reasons why that should be so except to point out that the drainage of the Shannon would cost something in the nature of £12,000,000.
It would appear, therefore, that the only reason for postponing the drainage of the Shannon is the cost. I do not think that is a sufficient reason. £12,000,000 is a lot of money but I want to remind the Parliamentary Secretary that, when his Government was in office five or six years ago, they contemplated spending that and much more on the erection of a new Parliament House. I put it to him: Was it just or was it common sense to propose spending £12,000,000 or £13,000,000 on a new House for the Dáil and to begrudge spending a similar sum to bring some measure of relief to people who have been suffering over a long period, and, indeed, to preserve and put into use the results of the labours of these people along the Shannon side? Which was the more sensible proposition? I leave the people who are the victims of this flooding to judge what sympathy there can be in the minds of a Government which looked with indifference upon the sufferings of these people and still were prepared, if that measure were tabled here, to spend an amount that would give them relief on the provision of palatial buildings and comfort for themselves.
I am glad, however, to know that the Parliamentary Secretary has made some recommendations to the Department of Lands in the matter. I hope his efforts will be more successful than mine with that Department. Not so long ago I made representations to the Department of Lands in connection with victims of the Shannon flooding in the parish of Moore. It was a very small matter that I requested of them. Some 28 years ago the Land Commission provided a boat for the tenants in that parish to reach their allotments on Devinish Island. That was their only means of access to the allotments which the Land Commission gave them on Devinish Island. After 28 years one would expect that it was not asking too much of the Land Commission to provide a new boat.
Are they vested?
That is begging the question.
It is not.
I want the Minister to understand that the boat which had been enabling the people in that parish to reach their allotments on Devinish Island was broken by a man who undertook the erection of a house on the island at the direction of the Land Commission. That is the consideration which I submit to him. The mere expenditure of £70 or £80 on a boat to enable these people to reach their land on that island would not be made. That is callous indifference to the people to whom you will go down to-morrow and ask, now that the country is in an emergency, to produce the maximum amount of food.
When was the boat broken?
Two years ago. If that is the attitude which the Department of Lands is to adopt towards any recommendation put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary, I think that the victims of the Shannon flooding will be left to their fate. In view of the fact that it is likely that Deputy Flanagan will approach this problem from another angle, I shall not press this motion to-night and, with the leave of the House, I shall withdraw it.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.