Coast Protection Bill, 1956—Second Stage.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Sweetman)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. As the law stands at present, responsibility for the prevention of coast erosion rests, generally, with the owner of the property affected, who may be a private individual or concern, a transport undertaking or a local authority. The only Departments of State which have any statutory or other responsibility are the Department of Industry and Commerce, which in the exercise of the powers conferred under the Foreshore Act, 1933, is concerned only in so far as the removal of beach material from the foreshore may cause or accelerate erosion; and the Department of Lands, in the limited category in which it administers trust funds for the maintenance of existing protection works or makes occasional grants and advances to assist in the carrying out of minor protection works in a case where the security for land purchase advances is endangered by coast erosion.

The question of coast erosion and coast protection has been the subject of examination and consideration over a great number of years, but the attention given to it has been intermittent. As far back as 1906 a British Royal Commission was appointed to inquire and report as to the encroachment of the sea on various parts of the coast of the United Kingdom, and the damage which has been or is likely to be caused thereby, and what measures are desirable for the prevention of such damage. The final report of this commission was submitted on the 31st May, 1911. The commission in so far as Ireland was concerned reported that the chief erosion in Ireland occurred on the coast-line of the Counties of Dublin, Wicklow and Waterford, and on other parts of the coast-line encroachment only took place at isolated spots.

In October, 1929, the Minister for Local Government and Public Health appointed an inter-departmental Committee consisting of the chairman of the Commissioners of Public Works representing the Minister for Finance and representatives of the Departments of Industry and Commerce, Lands and Fisheries, Local Government and Public Health and the Irish Land Commission. The committee's Terms of Reference were as follows:—"To inquire into and report on the extent to which coast erosion is proceeding or may be anticipated in the Saorstát and on the nature and effect of the damage which is being or may be caused thereby; and to make recommendations, with due regard to the relation between the nature and amount of damage and the cost of preventing it, as to any measures for securing increased protection of the coast which it appears advisable to adopt". This committee reported in 1931. In their view the following general conclusions might be drawn, namely, (a) there was constant erosion as well as accretion going on around the coast; (b) there was no conclusive evidence of any catastrophic action either past, present or imminent. Much of the erosion is of little practical importance. But (c) there are a number of cases in which valuable property is threatened or actually being damaged.

The committee recommended that the Government should not assume general responsibility for the protection of the coast against inroads of the sea, but they envisaged circumstances in which individual property owners might undertake works of coast protection subject to Government control or the State might contribute towards the cost and in cases undertake such works itself. In the case of applications for State assistance the committee suggested that the following considerations might properly govern a decision, namely, that the object to be attained is of national importance, that it could be attained at a cost which is not greater than the purpose warrants, and that the persons whose property is to be protected cannot afford to defray the whole cost.

The Government take the view, and the present Bill has been framed on that basis, that the obligations in respect of coast erosion which might be assumed by the State should be restricted to cases of serious erosion as distinct from storm damage, and that the initiation of schemes for coast protection should lie with the local authorities who would have first hand knowledge of local conditions and needs, and would no doubt be moved by interested property owners, and who should be in a position to decide in a preliminary way that the conditions and needs were such as to justify financial participation in the cost of remedial measures by the authorities themselves and by the interested property owners.

This is the general background, and, although there is no evidence of any urgent necessity for the carrying out of widespread protection works to combat erosion by the action of the sea, representations have been received from time to time in individual cases of varying seriousness. The Government decided in the circumstances that it would be desirable to make statutory provision to enable serious cases to be properly examined and coast protection schemes to be formulated and put into effect in suitable cases. There are no reliable up-to-date statistics as to the general extent of the problem, but such evidence as we have leads to the assumption that the number of individual instances where erosion is taking place to the grave detriment of a town or village or of valuable property is not large. Nevertheless there are undoubtedly a few cases which are of sufficient importance to justify the provision of statutory machinery for dealing with the problem.

I should like to emphasise that this Bill is not intended to cover cases of storm damage as such. It is intended, as is set out in Section 2, to deal with cases where land is being progressively damaged by encroachment of the sea which, if permitted to continue, is liable to endanger the safety of a harbour, the buildings or amenities of a residential area, or other valuable property. The Bill provides that the preliminary examination of coast erosion problems and the initiation of protection schemes are matters for local authorities but there is also provision that, if the local authorities concerned are advised that the preparation of a scheme is practicable and desirable but that the works would be of such difficulty or magnitude as to be beyond their capacity, an approach can be made to the Commissioners of Public Works to undertake a further examination for the purpose of determining whether the preparation and execution of a scheme is practicable and desirable. The costs and expenses incurred by the Commissioners in respect of such examination are to be paid by the local authority concerned. In such cases as are referred to them, the Commissioners will decide whether a scheme should or should not be prepared and, if one is to be prepared, whether the work should be carried out by them or by the promoting authority.

Other important provisions in the Bill are:—

(a) Where land in two or more counties is affected by erosion the councils of the counties concerned shall name one council as the authority to promote a coast protection scheme.

(b) A scheme prepared by the promoting authority, or by the Commissioners, is to be exhibited locally and notice of the preparation of the scheme setting out particulars of proposed interference with land, rights and property is to be served on interested parties, who may within a period of two months submit observations on any matter to which the notice relates.

(c) The Commissioners of Public Works may decide to cause a public inquiry to be held, by a person appointed by them, on the observations received by a local authority on a scheme prepared by that authority, or on observations received by the Commissioners on a scheme which they themselves have prepared. Schemes prepared by local authorities will be subject to confirmation by the Commissioners, with the consent of the Minister for Finance; and schemes prepared by the Commissioners will be subject to confirmation by the Minister for Finance.

(d) The Minister for Finance is to be empowered to contribute out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas such amount, not exceeding one half, as he may consider proper of the costs and expenses incurred in executing a coast protection scheme, the balance to be provided by the promoting authority with the aid of such contributions as may be agreed upon with other local authorities, harbour authorities, and the owners of protected lands.

(e) Completed works are to be maintained by the promoting authority, and local authorities who contribute towards the cost of schemes will be required to contribute towards maintenance costs.

I will now deal briefly with the Bill, section by section.

Section 1 is the usual definition section incorporating the definitions which are used throughout the Bill. I think those definitions are sufficiently clear without any comment from me.

Section 2 provides that the council of a county, which expression includes the corporation of a county borough, whenever satisfied that land within the county is being progressively damaged by encroachment of the sea and that such encroachment, if permitted to continue, is liable to endanger a harbour, the buildings or amenities of a residential area or other valuable property, may declare that it is expedient to promote a coast protection scheme in relation to the encroachment. Where an encroachment affects land in two or more counties and the council of each county makes a declaration under this section, the councils are to name one council to act as promoting authority for the coast protection scheme. The making of a declaration will be a reserved function.

Section 3 provides that where the promotion of a coast protection scheme has been declared to be expedient the promoting authority shall cause a report to be prepared on the nature and probable causes of the encroachment, the extent and value of the lands and property being damaged or liable to be endangered thereby, the works, if any, which may be practicable and desirable to prevent the continuance of the encroachment, and an estimate of the cost of such works. Necessary powers for entry on lands etc., are provided for the purposes of the examination and report.

Section 4 provides that a promoting authority, after consideration of a report under Section 3, may declared that a scheme is not to be proceeded with, or that a scheme is to be prepared and, subject to confirmation as provided for in the Bill, executed by themselves. Alternatively, if they are advised that the preparation of a scheme appears practicable and desirable but that the works are of such difficulty or magnitude as to be incapable of successful execution by them they may request the Commissioners of Public Works to make a further examination for the purpose of determining whether the preparation and execution of a scheme is practicable and desirable.

Section 5 provides that the Commissioners of Public Works may make the further examination referred to in Section 4, and that they may recover the costs and expenses incurred by them from the promoting authority. Provision is made whereby the promoting authority can recover from other local authorities in appropriate cases portion of the costs and expenses incurred by the Commissioners.

Section 6 lays down the procedure to be followed by the Commissioners of Public Works after they have completed their examination of the problem. They may determine that the circumstances would not justify the preparation and execution of a coast protection scheme or that a coast protection scheme would be justified and should be prepared and executed by the promoting authority, or alternatively that it should be prepared and executed by themselves. In the first case the Commissioners will make a report to the promoting authority and they will give the reasons upon which their determination has been based. These reasons will normally have relation to the feasibility of devising a scheme which from the engineering point of view is capable of execution at a reasonable cost and without endangering property other than that which it is desired to protect. As Deputies will realise, interference with the normal course of nature and particularly with elements such as the wind and waves can have peculiar and sometimes dangerous reactions.

Section 7 deals with cases where the Commissioners of Public Works inform the promoting authority that a coast protection scheme would be justified, and that the scheme should be prepared and executed by the promoting authority. In that event the promoting authority have the option of deciding, after consideration of the Commissioners' report, whether or not a coast protection scheme is to be proceeded with. This is to be a reserved function.

Section 8 provides that a coast protection scheme may be prepared by a promoting authority who have made an appropriate declaration under Section 4 or Section 7; similarly a scheme may be prepared by the Commissioners of Public Works in a case where they have made a determination under Section 6 that they are to be the executing authority.

Section 9 gives details of the matters to be shown in a coast protection scheme prepared either by a promoting authority or by the Commissioners of Public Works including the estimated cost and the several sources from which the necessary moneys are to be provided.

Section 10 provides that when a coast protection scheme has been prepared copies are to be sent to specified parties. The scheme is to be exhibited and public notices of such exhibitions are to be given.

Section 11 provides for the serving on every interested party of a notice stating that a scheme has been prepared specifying where the scheme can be inspected and describing any proposed interference with his land, rights or other property. A period of two months is allowed for the sending to the promoting authority or to the Commissioners of Public Works, as the case may be, of any observations which the interested party desires to make in regard to the matters to which the notice relates.

Section 12 provides that when a promoting authority have considered the observations received in regard to a scheme prepared by them, they are to furnish a report thereon to the Commissioners of Public Works who will examine the report and the scheme and if they consider it necessary cause a public inquiry to be held. The Commissioners will then consult the Minister for Local Government, the Minister for Industry and Commerce and other Ministers if necessary and they may then decide not to confirm the scheme, or, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to confirm it.

The section also provides that when the Commissioners of Public Works have considered the observations received in regard to a coast protection scheme which they themselves have prepared, and the report of any public inquiry which they may have caused to be held in regard thereto, they shall present the scheme, accompanied by a statement of any alterations which they consider should be made therein, to the Minister for Finance for confirmation. The Minister for Finance, after consultation with the Minister for Local Government, the Minister for Industry and Commerce and such other Ministers as he may consider necessary, may make an Order refusing to confirm the scheme or he may make an Order confirming the scheme either without alteration or with such alterations as he considers proper.

Section 13 provides the necessary powers for the executing authority in regard to the carrying out of a coast protection scheme for which a confirmation Order has been made.

Section 14 sets out the duties of an executing authority in regard to public roads and bridges which may have to be interfered with in the course of executing a coast protection scheme. Local authorities who benefit from the provision, by an executing authority, of new or improved bridges or roads, conferring substantially greater benefits than the original ones, are to contribute such part of the cost as the Minister for Local Government shall certify. This section follows a similar provision in the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945.

Section 15 provides for the acquisition of and compensation for land, rights, etc., proposed to be compulsorily acquired or substantially interfered with in a coast protection scheme for which a confirmation Order has been made.

Section 16 provides for compensation for other interferences with land, etc., during the execution of coast protection works and lays down a time limit of one year for making claims for such interferences.

Section 17 deals with certain matters to which an arbitrator shall have regard in assessing compensation; these include any benefit to the claimant's property deriving from the works.

Section 18 provides for the disposal by the executing authority of any lands, etc., acquired by them in connection with a coast protection scheme which have become surplus to requirements.

Section 19 deals with the provision of the moneys necessary for the carrying out of a scheme. It provides that the Minister for Finance may contribute, out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas, such amount, not exceeding one half, as he may consider proper, of the costs and expenses incurred in executing a coast protection scheme, the balance to be provided by the promoting authority with the aid of such contributions as may have been agreed upon with other local authorities, harbour authorities and owners or occupiers of protected lands. Provision is made for the borrowing of money from the Local Loans Fund by councils of counties, and other bodies, for the purpose of making contributions under this section.

Section 20 provides for the issue by the Commissioners of Public Works of certificates of completion for coast protection schemes. These certificates shall show the works which have been completed, the protected lands and the total cost of the works, and they shall be conclusive evidence that the works shown thereby have been completed in accordance with the relevant coast protection scheme, with such additions, omissions, etc., as may have been found necessary in the course of the work. One of the purposes of the certificate is to settle the nature and extent of the works to be maintained.

Section 21 deals with the disposal of trust funds for the maintenance of existing embankments, the necessity for which has been obviated in whole or in part by a completed coast protection scheme. It follows a similar provision in the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945 and is of a precautionary nature for any case that might arise. The amount of money likely to be involved would be negligible.

Section 22 provides that where compensation is payable by the Commissioners of Public Works to a person who owes money to them, to a Minister of State, to the Revenue Commissioners or to the Irish Land Commission the Commissioners may pay and discharge out of the compensation, the money so due. This is a usual provision.

Section 23 provides for apportionment of land purchase annuities, etc., in cases where land acquired for a coast protection scheme is subject, in conjunction with other land, to such annuities, etc.

Section 24 provides that the works to which a certificate of completion under Section 20 relates shall be maintained by the promoting authority and gives necessary powers for entry on lands, etc. for that purpose. Beach material within 100 yards of any works required to be maintained under this section may not be removed save under licence, and a person contravening this provision is liable to a fine not exceeding £20. Local authorities who contributed towards the cost of the execution of coast protection works are required to contribute towards the cost of maintenance of these works. The council of a county whose duty it is to maintain works is required to furnish to the Commissioners of Public Works an annual report in relation to the works.

Section 25 provides for inspection by the Commissioners of Public Works of any works required to be maintained by the council of a county. If the Commissioners are satisfied as a result of such inspection that maintenance or repair of the works in question is immediately necessary, they may serve a notice on the council concerned specifying the necessary maintenance or repairs and requiring the council to execute that work within a specified period. If the council fail to execute the specified work to the satisfaction of the Commissioners within the period stated in the notice, the Commissioners may enter and execute or complete such work, recovering from the council concerned the cost and expenses incurred.

Section 26 provides powers for abandoning coast protection works which are no longer capable of being maintained at any reasonable cost. Power is also taken to prevent abandoned works from becoming dangerous or a nuisance.

Section 27 provides powers for the making of by-laws for the protection of works which the council of a county is required to maintain.

Section 28 deals with the procedure for the holding of public inquiries and provides that in each case notices are to be published of the time and place at which the inquiry is to be held. All persons, who in the opinion of the person holding the inquiry are interested therein, shall be entitled to appear and be heard at the inquiry. Power is provided for the summoning of witnesses and for requiring the production of books and other documents.

Section 29 is the usual expenses section and Section 30 is the citation.

I commend this Bill to the House. The problem that has arisen in the one or two areas concerned in relation to coast erosion has been a problem that has been worrying these areas for a very considerable time. I think it is one that can be adequately dealt with within the framework of this Bill.

Mr. Childers

We, on this side of the House, recognise that a Bill of this kind has become necessary, although, for a good number of years, the actual danger to valuable property did not seem to materialise. First of all, I want to congratulate the Minister in as much as he has not adopted the principle of the Local Authorities (Works) Act in which there is no provision for maintenance. So far as the drainage performed under that Act is concerned, an enormous amount of money has been and is being wasted because there is no power and no authority by which maintenance can be insisted upon by either the local authority or by the State, which provides a 100 per cent. grant; millions more will have to be spent if drainage works are to be maintained resulting in far greater cost to the State, to the taxpayer and to those who lend money to the Government. In this Bill there are adequate arrangements for maintenance. I wish the Minister had given us a little more detail as to the general position in relation to coast erosion. We have not been given any particulars as to the areas in which coast erosion of a dangerous character is proceeding. We can see, because of the Deputies who are in the House, where the principal area lies.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Corish)

This could be called the Rosslare Bill.

Mr. Childers

The Bill might be called the Wexford, Rosslare and Other Areas Coast Erosion Bill, as far as one can see. When the Minister comes to reply, we would like to have some details of the other areas where coast erosion is taking place. We would also like to have some information from him as to whether the Commissioners of Public Works have considered the comparative cost of actually moving buildings and of erecting defence works because we have been told that in certain areas the cost is so enormous and the ultimate result of such works so impracticable that compensation for the removal of the sites involved and of the properties and hereditaments may actually be preferable. That does not apply in the case of any particular piece of coast I have in mind; but we have read reports in international publications on coast erosion and, judging by those reports, it would appear to be a tremendously complicated problem. If the Minister could give us a little more information on the financing of these projects, it would be welcome.

The Minister mentioned that the works must be of national importance in order to come within the purview of this Bill. I presume he meant of not only national but of local importance as well. There is a certain amount of vagueness in his definition in that regard.

The Minister also said that storm damage, in itself, would not bring works under the purview of this Bill. We want to ask him whether it is not a fact that storm damage over a succession of years can actually create an erosion problem which would otherwise have been very slow to mature? Where does the Minister draw the line between erosion brought about by a single storm and erosion brought about by a succession of storms in a particular area? Can he give us some information as to what exactly he means when he eliminates storm damage from application under this Bill?

So far as the Bill is concerned, a great deal of it amounts to mere lip-service to the powers of local authorities. I do not know whether the Minister has examined this Bill in very great detail or whether he has an open mind upon it.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister always has an open mind on everything. He is always open to conviction.

Mr. Childers

It would seem to me, if the history of Youghal Bridge is examined and of any other project in which negotiations have to take place, first of all between the various local authorities in relation to the apportionment of the cost and in relation to the importance of the project and, secondly, negotiations not only with the Minister immediately in charge of local government, but with the Commissioners of Public Works as well, who have, shall we say, a very deliberate and careful way of doing things, that the delays will be tremendous, and, although we are well aware that we have taken a long time to deal with coast erosion, we should not mind fairly extensive delays when they take place. Nevertheless, I want to ask the Minister whether he thinks it is necessary to throw the ball to and fro between the local authority and the Commissioners of Public Works in cases where it has been decided that the local authority itself cannot carry out the project, or projects, because of the expense involved.

Would it not be simpler if, the moment a decision was made, the Commissioners of Public Works carried out the project? Is there any need for a complication to arise wherein the local authority has to make a further plan because, when the Commissioners of Public Works have decided that the work is worth doing, they may or may not give it to the local authority to execute? Could we not make the assumption from the point of view of administrative simplicity that, once the local authority decides the job is too big for it, the Commissioners of Public Works may as well carry it out in all its stages, obtaining the consent of the local authority for a contribution to the cost of the scheme?

If, for example, this particular principle were applied in the case of arterial drainage, it would be years and years and years before any arterial drainage could be carried out, because, after a report had been issued by the Commissioners for Public Works, there would be two alternatives: a number of counties could carry out arterial drainage or the Commissioners could do it. It would seem to me that in that case there would be unnecessary delays. I cannot see that it detracts from the authority of local bodies for the Commissioners of Public Works to carry on with the work where the local authority feels the work is too much for it.

The schemes are quite unusual. They involve machinery, staff and administrative surveillance of a kind far beyond the capacities of the ordinary officers of local authorities. If the local authority executes the work, then special officers and special consultants will have to be appointed, It is not as though one would take away from the normal prestige or authority of the engineering service of a local authority for the Commissioners of Public Works to do the entire job themselves. There will not be many cases involved. I do not suppose the number of erosion projects will be very great. We, on this side of the House, are quite open to argument on the matter, but it does seem to me to be a tremendous complication.

When sub-section (c) of Section 4 of the Bill comes into operation, would it not be more suitable, as from then on, that the Commissioners of Public Works decide to do the whole work themselves, working out costs and getting the advice of the local authority and the consent of the various bodies? If they did that, will it not take years and years to obtain all the consents, to apportion the contributions and to deal with all the various matters in relation to compensation, invasion of various private rights and so on?

To some extent, the Bill is, of course, a Commitee Bill, and we can discuss these matters later, but to amend the Bill to make that kind of a change would be very difficult, and therefore I would like to have the Minister's point of view in regard to it, because, as I have said, it does seem to complicate the whole question. We noted that in the Bill there are a number of sections where there is a time limit, but looking back at experiences we have had in connection with bridge projects, the delays would appear to very great indeed.

Finally, I would like to ask the Minister whether he has any general information about the financing of erosion works and whether he can give us some picture of the more important areas where erosion has taken place, and even to the nearest £500,000, the approximate liability which the State will have to face in this matter?

Dr. Esmonde

I would like to thank the Minister and Government for bringing in this Bill. For a very long time, we have been faced with erosion affecting many parts of our coasts, but more particularly the east coast. The difficulty that any Deputy representing a maritime or coastal constituency has been faced with is that the strong representations he may have made were falling to a certain extent on deaf ears in that he could not find where exactly to make those representations and he was always thrown back on the argument that it was finally the responsibility of the local authority to deal with the matter. The Minister knows quite well that I and my co-Deputies have been seriously concerned with the situation that is developing in Wexford and I noted in his opening remarks when he was quoting reports of commissions from time to time that it was stated that the principal counties that were suffering erosion were Dublin, Wicklow and Waterford, and for some reason or other, Wexford had been omitted. Admittedly, the erosion is not going on in its entirety on the coast of Wexford, but we have a certain area there in which the situation has become extremely critical within the last ten years or so. What is known as the littoral drift of tide in the Irish Channel goes from north to south and if there is any interference with it, or any barriers created, there is a tendency for that tide to scoop into the coast and evacuate or clear out the sand and extensive erosion takes place.

I am primarily interested in this Bill because of the very critical situation which prevails at Rosslare where virtually thousands of pounds' worth of property is gradually being encroached upon to such an extent that in the course of the next ten years or so, unless some drastic action is taken, it will disappear altogether. Further, the situation that obtains there does not only apply to Rosslare strand itself, which is a long peninsula jutting out into the sea, but it also applies, in the course of time, to the town of Wexford, because when Rosslare strand is completely eroded—as it would be in the course of time without protection— then Wexford will be exposed to the full force of these south-easterly gales and tides which are so injurious and it would be flooded and eventually eliminated as well as Rosslare.

The proof of that lies in the fact that, in the memories of older people living in the town of Wexford, there were originally islands situated off the harbour where people lived and carried on their business and these islands have completely disappeared, leaving just small sand dunes standing out at low tide. I said earlier that any interference whatever with the course of this littoral drift is responsible for erosion. That, in effect, is what happened throughout the areas that I know personally in Counties Wicklow and Wexford.

I am very grateful to the Minister for introducing this Bill. It was an extremely difficult Bill to introduce because it was very hard to know exactly who was to be made responsible for this particular work that it will be necessary to do to save certain parts of our coasts from disappearing altogether. I think most countries have a scheme of some sort whereby they deal with erosion. I think this matter has been more thoroughly studied in America than anywhere else and in fact they have introduced gigantic schemes for that purpose there with a view to saving territory. I would like to suggest to the Minister—although perhaps it would be unnecessary to have any particular legislation in relation to that—that it would be a very desirable place, perhaps, for the Commissioners of Public Works, who would appear to be the experts in this matter, to get some up-to-date, modern advice. Of course, that would be a matter, I suppose, for the Commissioners themselves.

There are a few instances arising in the Bill where I think the Minister could have gone a little further. In Section 5, the Bill says that where a scheme comes back to the Commissioners from the promoting authority, which is the county council "the Commissioners may undertake such further examination...". I may have a suspicious mind, but I know that the Commissioners of Public Works have many things to examine and I feel, somehow, if we leave the Bill as it is, the Commissioners may make the further examination, but it will be an extended period before that examination takes place. I would suggest to the Minister that he should go the whole hog and say "the Commissioners shall make further examination", because, otherwise, I can envisage schemes coming up from county councils, in combination or singly, that will be put on the long finger and we may have to wait a considerable time before the examination takes place. Perhaps the Minister might consider that.

I have the feeling that a lot of erosion could be prevented if we had a certain amount of afforestation along the foreshores of the eastern coast. I recently had the experience of trying to induce the Forestry Section of the Department of Lands to plant a few trees along the Wexford foreshore in order to prevent further erosion, and the explanation given as to why they could not embark on such a scheme was that they were tied up with the Department of Industry and Commerce as regards foreshore rights and that it would be very difficult for them to plant trees on the foreshore. I know that most countries concentrate largely on the afforestation of their foreshores as a protection against erosion.

The Bill mentions several Ministers and says that the Minister for Finance may consult with other Ministers. I should like to see the Minister for Lands tied up considerably with this problem of erosion, its prevention and cure. I do not know whether that could be brought about. However, if we are spending money on erosion, we should step in now and do some work on prevention and protection through the afforestation of the foreshores. That is why I want to see the Department of Lands tied up with this scheme. I should like to see it made mandatory on the Department of Lands to initiate schemes of afforestation along our coasts as a protection against this tidal suction and as a prevention rather than a cure of erosion of the land. It would be a great help to the country as a whole and a great saving of money.

From my experience of the Department of Lands, I would say it would be futile for me or any other Deputy to go to the Forestry Division and make representations to have trees planted on the foreshore for the purpose of maintaining or preserving land from erosion. I wish we could embody in this Bill a provision for the initiation of a protective scheme. With regard to the method of carrying it out, I think the Bill is extremely well drafted because, in effect, it means that if you are to deal with erosion the schemes will come from the local authority or from the local people concerned. I feel also that the Commissioners of Public Works are the proper body to carry out such schemes as will be carried out under the Bill because they are the only people who have any knowledge of such work. I know that there are people in that office who were competent to deal with this work and, I might say, willing to do it. However, heretofore they have had no authority to do anything.

It is for that reason that I am so pleased at the appearance of this Bill. From now on, when people make representations they will do so with the knowledge that something may be done to act on them. I think it is a great credit to this Government that they introduced this Bill because successive Governments previously have never really done anything about it. Questions have been asked in the Dáil from the various affected districts but the usual answer was that it was a matter for the local authorities concerned. It was quite impossible for the local authorities to do this work.

I am sorry to bring the House back again to Rosslare, but it seems to me that it is the pivot on which this Bill hinges because it is a little town which will be very much in danger in the near future. The Bill provides that schemes are to be drawn up by the promoting authority and presented to the Commissioners of Public Works for their consideration, and that it will be incumbent on the local authorities to pay for whatever work is done. In the case of Rosslare, a very elaborate scheme was drawn up some years ago by a firm of British engineering experts whose name escapes me at the moment. That was about 20 years ago, but things have not altered since.

I should like to ask the Minister if it would be necessary to have a new scheme drawn up. Since the British firm considered the matter, the Rosslare Development Association, a pretty active body, have been in touch with this firm who gave them sound advice. The officials of the Commissioners of Public Works have had considerable intercourse with our engineer in Wexford. I am wondering if the existing scheme in respect of Rosslare could be adopted for execution under this Bill. If so, it would save a considerable amount of money and it would facilitate expedition in the matter of the execution of a scheme.

Another point I noticed in the Bill is in regard to the financial arrangements. In Section 19 it is stated that the Minister for Finance may defray the cost and expenses to the extent of 50 per cent. out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas. That seems to me to preclude the possibility of dealing with erosion schemes entirely out of capital expenditure. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that money collected in the ordinary way in taxation would not be available for such schemes.

Naturally, these schemes will cost a great deal more at their inception than at later stages, particularly if the Department of Lands are not given authority to plant trees along foreshores. Considerable sums may be needed to deal with emergency schemes. There are only about half a dozen districts urgently in need of attention. I wonder if the Minister would consider expending capital moneys on schemes for a certain limited period at the beginning. That probably seems rather a bad idea, coming from me; it might seem that I just want to get Rosslare done and that I am not bothered about the country as a whole. But, as I say, there are only three or four such areas in the country causing anxiety. It might be possible to advance some capital moneys for these schemes in the first few years. That would help local authorities in the matter of schemes which need almost immediate attention and which probably would require considerable sums of money.

Unless this is done I foresee that schemes to which the Government might contribute £500,000 would fall down through the fact that half of that amount must be subscribed by local authorities. The difficulty about it is that this work must be done through the county council and it is quite possible to see that where county councillors are elected sectionally or for the various districts within the county, if a big sum of money, which ultimately will be thrown back on the ratepayers, is required for a scheme of erosion prevention, certain councillors will not vote in favour of such schemes which do not affect the districts they represent. I can envisage a scheme being drawn up, being perfect in every way, being ready for execution and a county council simply turning around and saying: "We cannot provide the money."

I would be obliged to the Minister if he would give consideration to these points. Again I would like to thank him and the Government for introducing this Bill. They can be assured of the gratitude of the Wexford people for it. We have long waited for a Bill like this. I know that the father of the Minister for Social Welfare, the late Alderman Corish, put any amount of work into this years ago trying to get a scheme implemented. I have that from the local people. It is a very sound scheme, it is very necessary and I hope the Minister will be able to implement it for us in the Rosslare district as quickly as possible.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Corish)

I have a particular interest in this Bill as have Deputy Esmonde, Deputy O'Leary, Deputy Dr. Ryan and Deputy Allen. The five of us, during the time we have been in Dáil Éireann, have concerned ourselves with coast erosion, particularly as it affected Rosslare. No matter what our positions in the House were, we tried to impress on the inter-Party and Fianna Fáil Governments the necessity for some legislation to deal with the problem of coast erosion or at least the necessity of pinning the responsibility on some particular Department of State.

I remember that one of the first parliamentary questions I put down when I entered the Dáil about 11 years ago was in respect of coast erosion. On that occasion, as happened in the case of Wexford Deputies on many occasions, I was given an evasive reply. I would not say it was deliberately given, but the fact was that there was no legislation to deal with coast erosion and no Department of State was prepared to accept the responsibility, even to the extent of answering questions about the problem. A particular answer would immediately pin the responsibility on the Department of the Minister who gave the reply.

I know it is very hard for the majority of the Deputies to be enthusiastic about this particular Bill. There is only a limited number of maritime counties and consequently a limited number of public representatives for them, but it is good to see an ex-Minister like Deputy Childers, and one who is from practically the centre of the country, show, as he did in his speech here to-day, an interest in the problem which concerns us particularly in the maritime counties.

It has been well said that Rosslare has been to the fore in making this Bill possible. I think that is correct. The problem of coast erosion in Rosslare is much greater than in most other parts of the country. Rosslare has suffered immensely during the last 45 years, and the tragedy is that some native Government since 1922 did not take the steps which the present Minister for Finance has taken to try to deal with the problem. In the meantime all this procrastination, all the research and examination have meant that Rosslare town has lost dozens of yards of its land surface. That has interfered severely with the tourist potential of Rosslare. Those of us who know the position, especially those of us from that county, know that Rosslare has declined to some extent. The strand itself is damaged; the golf course has been eaten into and much valuable property has been lost as a result of coast erosion over the past 45 or 50 years but particularly in the last dozen years. I do not know the real reason for its intensity in the last few years, but I do know the people there have suffered very badly. If something is not done very quickly —and it can be done under this Bill—it will mean that even further damage will be done to Rosslare Strand.

I do not want to reply for the Minister, who is usually well able to take care of himself, but Deputy Childers asked about the extent of the problem in the whole country. I think it would be very hard to determine the extent of the problem, but I have a list here before me—how I got it I do not remember now—of schemes that were submitted to the Department of Local Government in respect of coast protection. From that list there appears to be a problem of coast erosion at Lahinch in County Clare, in various parts of County Cork, in Youghal urban district, and Garrettstown; in some Donegal areas and in various areas of Dublin—Malahide, Portmarnock, and Portrane.

I believe the problem in Dublin is somewhat similar to that at Rosslare. The evidence is that coast erosion has done substantial damage there over the last dozen years or so. The problem is in Galway to a very small extent but it is very hard to understand why there should be any severe coast erosion in Galway with its steadfast and rocky coast. The problem is present in Kerry, but not to any large extent; it is in Louth to some extent; in Meath, at Laytown and Bettystown. In Dungarvan, according to the Dungarvan Urban Council, there is a very big problem; and, of course, in Wexford, at Rosslare, Courtown and Ballyanne. In Wicklow, it occurs at Brittas Bay, Greystones, Arklow town, Bray town and Wicklow town.

This was a list of schemes submitted some few years ago. I think it was submitted in connection with the National Development Fund. The estimated cost at that time was £812,000 and the proposed cost of the various schemes varied considerably. The nature of the erosion in practically all these cases varied very much as did the nature of the work designed to correct the erosion. The very fact that there is a Bill now before the House and that there will be an Act of Parliament within a few weeks does not necessarily mean that this problem of coast erosion will be arrested in reasonably quick time.

Deputy Dr. Esmonde referred to a scheme that was submitted in respect of Rosslare a good few years ago. As the Deputy admits, it is difficult to know now whether or not that scheme would be the best to correct coast erosion at Rosslare strand. Various schemes have been mentioned and submitted to the county council and to various Departments over the years but, as yet, I do not think any body in authority or any body that is responsible, such as the Wexford County Council or the Commissioners of Public Works, has definitely favoured one scheme as against another.

The one merit I see in this is that the local authority that would be primarily concerned have the initiative. The initiative rests with them; they make the first move and practically every single move until the scheme is in operation. It is a good thing that the responsibility should be laid on the local authority in this case.

Deputy Dr. Esmonde also suggested that it would be difficult for inland areas in the county to vote with any enthusiasm any large sum of money as their contribution towards a coast erosion scheme but I think Deputy Childers and the Minister for Finance and Deputies from inland counties would take the same attitude in respect of moneys that would be voted from the Exchequer. Having, naturally, no problem of coast erosion in their constituencies, it is very difficult for them to be enthusiastic about spending hundreds of thousands of pounds or £2,000,000, £3,000,000 or £4,000,000, whatever the cost might be, for the correction of coast erosion in Malahide, Portrane, Brittas or Rosslare Strand.

The financial arrangement is a good one, whereby the Minister for Finance or the Government will pay 50 per cent. of the cost and the local authority will be required to pay the other 50 per cent. Perhaps, if I may ask my colleague, the Minister for Finance, he may, when replying, say whether or not the cost of the preliminary investigation and examination and preparation of a scheme would be subject to this 50 per cent. Government grant. My impression is that it would be but it is not quite clear in the Bill. Deputy Childers said that there was no provision for maintenance in this Bill.

Mr. Childers

I said there was.

Mr. Corish

I beg pardon. I misunderstood the Deputy.

Mr. Childers

I said there was. I was complimenting the Minister on having maintenance in the Bill.

Mr. Corish

I am sorry. I misinterpreted what the Deputy said. As Deputy Childers also said, it is a Committee Bill and I am sure that the Minister will seriously consider any suggestions he receives for the improvement of the Bill. I think the House generally acclaims the Bill as being a step in the right direction. It is the first time that a Government has taken any degree of responsibility for coast erosion and coast protection. It is the first time that a Government has decided to make grants available to local authorities to tackle the problem and I think the provisions for the safeguarding of the interests of the local authority and of private individuals and practically everybody concerned are admirable.

From the wording of the Bill, it does seem that there may be a certain amount of shuttlecocking of proposals between the local authority and the Board of Works and various Departments but, if the local authority play their part, I cannot see that there will be any undue delay in the preparation of a scheme and its implementation.

Local authorities should embrace the Act, when this Bill becomes law, and endeavour to tackle the problems of coast erosion in their areas. As a Deputy for a constituency that is affected by coast erosion, I should like to say how pleased I am to be a member of the Government that introduced this Bill. I should like to congratulate the Minister for Finance on the work he has put into it and to express the hope that the House will pass the Bill very, very quickly in order to enable local authorities to engage in this work and to deal with the problems and difficulties which they have encountered for such a very long time.

Mr. O'Leary

I join in welcoming this Bill because in the constituency which I represent coast erosion has been the most urgent and pressing problem since I became a member of the Dáil. I have met people from Rosslare Harbour and other coastal districts. Rosslare is in danger. Last winter I attended a meeting of the Vocational Education Committee in an hotel in Rosslare and right behind the hotel the sea was washing away the strand. A few months ago, hotel owners, shopkeepers and all concerned met Deputies in Wexford Chamber of Commerce. But for the fact that Deputy Corish was able to tell them that a Bill would be introduced to deal with coast erosion, I do not know if we would have got out of Wexford that night, they felt so badly about it.

I am a member of the county council and I hope that the cooperation that the Minister expects will be forthcoming because I am afraid that the 50/50 basis will not be very acceptable to some of the members of the county council. I am afraid it will be very difficult to get county councillors of all Parties to agree. It is a pity Deputy Allen is not here. Last Monday, I am sorry to say, he told the council about this Bill and that we would have to vote against it and almost told the Deputies to vote against it. That was a very wrong attitude because the Bill had just been circulated. The county manager and the county secretary had not seen it and many of the members knew nothing at all about its contents. It is a pity that that attitude should be adopted on this subject, when some attempt to deal with the problem is so urgently needed. The livelihood of about 6,000 people is at stake in Rosslare Harbour. Along the coast, houses are being eaten away. I refer in particular to a house at Curracloe. I often went there up to ten or 15 years ago and could get down to the coast. There is no access to the coast there now, as a result of erosion.

This problem is not a new one. It has been with us over a number of years. I have been on the county council for a number of years. The county council has received deputations from the areas concerned and it was very hard to have to say that there was nothing we could do. Many people suggested that it should be a State responsibility and that the local authority should have no say in the matter. I do not know whether that is right or not because, if we try to help the people, the people will also have to help themselves. We cannot look to the State for everything.

The Minister and the Government are to be congratulated on taking the necessary steps to bring in the Bill. It is long overdue and I hope there will be no delay in passing it. The five Deputies concerned were powerless to help the people. We told them we could no nothing and that the Wexford County Council could do nothing until a measure was introduced in the Dáil. Now it is here and I hope it will get co-operation from all Parties.

Mr. Sweetman

I am grateful to the House for the manner in which Deputies have met the proposals submitted in this Bill. The Minister for Social Welfare referred to the fact that Deputy Childers and I both represented an inland constituency and that those constituencies might not perhaps relish the burden of meeting the cost in this Bill. In case there was any doubt in anybody's mind, let us be quite clear about it: I have no intention of changing my constituency.

The areas that are concerned in this Bill are difficult to specify precisely at this stage partly because, until the machinery of this Bill is in operation, there is no machinery by which the extent of the problems at various places can be ascertained. What I meant to imply by excluding storm damage from the scope of this measure was to draw a distinction between what might be isolated instances and what would be the continuous damage by storms that would gradually erode a coast away. It is not possible, I am afraid, as Deputy Childers suggested, to give a more precise definition on that point because in each case it is a question of fact. In the areas where there is a gradual erosion, that erosion operates more in the winter when it is stormy and when there is a lot of bad weather than in a mild winter when there is not. That is a matter that must be related to the facts of the case.

There are, in fact, four main areas where there is substantial erosion. It is not necessary for me to mention Rosslare. Every Deputy who has spoken was well aware of the position in Rosslare and was quite determined to bring Rosslare to my notice. I had already had Rosslare brought to my notice. I was invited to a meeting down in Rosslare to which Deputy O'Leary referred a few minutes ago. I do not know whether I was invited because it was dangerous and difficult to get out of the meeting, as he suggested, or whether it was because, as he also suggested, the danger of erosion was so great there that some of the people who were at the meeting might not be able to get away. As the Deputy said, at that time we had already decided to introduce a Bill of this nature and accordingly the necessity for me to risk either form of danger did not arise.

We cannot at this stage give to Deputy Childers any estimate of the alternative cost of moving back buildings for the simple reason that, as I have said already, until the machinery set up by this Bill is in operation it is impossible for us to give anything like precise estimates. However, the Deputy will notice the Bill refers to reasonable cost and obviously one of the things to be considered in deciding whether the cost of a coast protection scheme as such was reasonable would be whether it would be less costly to move buildings than to institute a protection scheme. Again, that is a matter that must be considered in relation to the facts of each individual case.

I passed inadvertently a second ago from mentioning the four areas I had in my mind: Rosslare; curiously enough another one is also in Wexford, Courtown; Wicklow; and Lahinch, in Clare. There is also perhaps a fifth one at Ballinskelligs in Kerry but the first four are the four that have been mainly the cause of representations throughout the years. When one realises that these are the four or five main cases of coast erosion, I do not think Deputy Childers need be apprehensive about the provisions for bringing in more than one local authority. Only the one local authority will be concerned in these main cases but it is desirable that there should be a provision in case in other places there were separate authorities, though I must admit, while not being an expert on that matter, if the picture as given indicates that Wexford town might also be affected as well as the rural area, or the county council area of Rosslare, that might be a question for consideration by two authorities.

Deputy Dr. Esmonde regretted that the Minister for Lands was not brought more into this Bill, and suggested that we should do more in relation to afforestation to prevent coast erosion. The type of work that is envisaged here is more where erosion has already taken place and further erosion has to be restricted and contained but it is a fact, as the Deputy suggested, that planting is one of the best means of avoiding erosion. However, I think that bent grass and other planting of that sort has perhaps been more successful than the type that he was suggesting, but this is a matter which would have to be considered in a different context from this.

The Deputy also asked what is the position in relation to existing schemes, whether they could be resubmitted or whether new schemes had to be drawn up. He will appreciate that in relation to coast erosion the very essence of the problem is that it is a continually changing one and that, therefore, in relation to any scheme it is essential that it be brought up-to-date. That does not mean, however, that much of the work that had been done before would not be of great value in bringing it up-to-date, but it would not be of any assistance if a scheme were to be furnished which had been made some years before and if there was substantial variation in the facts and in the circumstances since the scheme was introduced.

The Minister for Social Welfare asked me about the cost of the scheme. I think that if Deputies consider the provisions of Section 19 the position is clear enough, that where the scheme is confirmed the cost of the preparation of that scheme is considered as part of the scheme and that, therefore, the promoting authority gets relief to the extent that is given by grant in relation to the cost of the preparation.

Some Deputies felt it was not necessary that I should have schemes referred back to local authorities. There will be small schemes which it might be desirable to refer back. I think it should not be the case that we should always have those schemes carried out by the Commissioners of Public Works. There might be small trivial schemes which would be desirable and which could very well be carried out by the local authority. I think that is a wise provision.

Apart from the general principle that the schemes are to be promoted by a local authority and then to be carried through on the basis of a grant not exceeding 50 per cent. out of the Supply Estimates, the rest of the matters included in the Bill are really matters for Committee Stage and we can discuss that aspect on the Committee Stage.

Question put, and agreed to.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Nov 1956