I must say that I agree largely with what my colleagues have stated on this section of the Bill. I have not seen a more cumbersome type of section than this for a very long time. It would appear to me, from the manner in which this section is drafted, that there can be no end to the postponement of what may possibly be urgent schemes. To start off with, under the previous section, there is the necessary notice which must be given to an owner whose property may be affected. That is a period of two months. After that, you have the inter-departmental reports and inquiries, and it appears to me that there is no end to the amount of time that can be wasted in having a scheme go from one Department to another. These reports will of first to the commissioners and then from them to one, two, three or four Departments.
It appears to me that in a case where an inquiry will be necessary it should be quite obvious within a period of two months that it will be necessary. In that instance, the matter could be proceeded with quite simply, without the cumbersome procedure that is now laid down. Immediately the objections are received from the interested parties, it will be quite clear whether an inquiry is necessary or not. Such an inquiry is provided for here and I do not see why, if an inquiry is necessary, it should not be set on foot immediately the objections are received.
I assume that, like all other such inquiries, both sides will be represented to put their different cases and I do not see, under the circumstances, why these inquiries cannot take place at once. I do not see why a scheme could not be put into operation within a reasonable time. It appears to me that the schemes contemplated under this Bill will be of an urgent nature. Coast erosion, in any case, is as urgent matter, and I am satisfied that, if the machinery contemplated in Section 12 is left in, it might be three, four or five years before a scheme could be implemented. If every "t" is to be crossed and every "i" dotted in the passing of these reports from the commissioners to the Departments, I think that a man seeking relief under this Bill would be out in the middle of the Atlantic before he would get it.
Deputy Corry referred to the fact that the local authority has to pay for the cost of holding these inquiries, but it would appear to me that there is no provision made here for the people who are mainly concerned in the inquiries. I am taking the case of people who would be interested in valuable property rights and who would have to be represented legally at these inquiries in order to protect their rights. It would appear to me that what is provided for here is the cost of the inquiry and the cost of the gentleman sent down to preside at it; but there is no authority given here to pay the costs of the people who have to be legally represented and whose rights may be affected by the inquiry. I think it is only fair that, should these people be represented, provision should be made for the payment of their costs.
Taking the section as a whole, I entirely agree with what has already been said about it. To my mind, the section is unworkable and most cumbersome and one that will provide whatever Minister is in power at the time with unlimited opportunities for exercising delaying tactics. There is no reason in the world why the Minister and his advisers cannot slash the time provided under this section by 60 or 70 per cent.
I cannot see why this cumbersome machinery is provided for and I think the matter could be dealt with in a much simpler and more expeditious manner than is provided for here. I think it will be found that whoever will have to operate the section will be confronted with the position that, wherever you have an urgent case, some private rights will be involved and the whole business will be strung up and delayed. He will find that nothing can be done for years if this cumbersome machinery is left in.
