In accordance with Section 3, the promoting authority shall examine the land and other property being damaged or liable to be endangered in the functional area. That seems to leave the power to the promoting authority to carry on with it even though another local authority would be concerned and would not agree.
Committee on Finance. - Coast Protection Bill, 1956—Committee Stage.
Section 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
I do not quite understand the Deputy's point.
The Minister should read the section.
Would the Deputy read it or explain himself?
If the Minister reads it he will understand it.
If the Deputy wants to carry on this on the basis of that type of discussion it suits me, but if he wants co-operation and explanation, I am available if he explains what he wants.
The Minister is a member of this House and he has no right to call the tune as to how the debate should be conducted in this House. The Ceann Comhairle looks after that matter. The Minister is very foolish starting off in that fashion on this Bill.
It was not the Minister but Deputy Corry who started it.
The shadow Minister.
The Minister is foolish because that attitude will not get any of us anywhere.
I entirely agree and the Deputy ought to address his remarks to the Deputy sitting beside him.
The Minister should have had a look at the Bill before he brought it in.
The Deputy ought to try and read it before he comments on it.
The Minister should try to get himself into a good humour—he is seldom in a good humour—and be slightly affable.
The Minister is always in the best of humour.
Section 3.
Section 3 deals with the question of the preparation of the report, the council having already decided to make a declaration. It is a machinery section. It would appear from this that the council must put up a whole scheme and the Commissioners of Public Works as a result of that will proceed to further examine the matter. This is a justification section for the Commissioners of Public Works to proceed further. That is all it means but why put the council to the expense of providing all the necessary information that is in that section in order that the Commissioners of Public Works will send down their engineers to further examine the scheme? I want to put that to the Minister in all seriousness.
I understand Deputy Allen's point now and I will deal with it.
If the council in their wisdom and judgment, under Section 2, declare that the promotion of a coast protection scheme is expedient they will naturally not declare such a thing expedient unless they are aware it is expedient. The council are being put to a great deal of expense. They would probably have to call in an outside engineering staff to prepare the scheme on that basis. It seems all waste to say that the next stage is that the Commissioners of Public Works will send their staffs down and the council must undertake to pay the Commissioners of Public Works for all they do in further examining the situation.
It might cost the local authority a considerable amount of money to put up all the data asked for. If the council declared that it was necessary to promote a scheme for a certain section of the coast, that should be sufficient without having to provide all the technical data asked for in this section. They will have to provide that information at their own expense and will probably have to call in an expert engineer to do that.
Perhaps I might explain to the House exactly what is visualised. Under Section 2 the consideration will be of a very general nature. If the council or local authority concerned knows that there is a problem in general, then they will deal with the matter as visualised in Section 2. Section 3 is not for the purpose of deciding on the best method of dealing with the matter but to ascertain the extent and the nature of the problem.
I do not visualise that it will be necessary to go outside the ordinary engineering staff of the local authority to get the information that is visualised in Section 3 because it is not information as to the method of prevention of erosion, which might be, perhaps, of such a technical nature to require a consultant and so on, but it is more to see exactly what the nature and extent of the problem itself is. It is when that information has been provided under Section 3 that the county council are in a position to take a more affirmative decision under the next following section, Section 4.
I would like if the Minister would read line 16 in Section 3:—
"the promoting authority shall cause a report to be prepared on the nature and probable causes of the relevant encroachment of the sea."
That is a very technical matter, anyway. If it is to be strictly adhered to, it appears that the Commissioners of Works will not move until they get that technical information. That is information which, I believe, no authority in the country could provide.
Why put the council to all that trouble? They would need highly qualified technicians to give them information of that kind and prepare a report. Somebody would probably want 1,000 guineas for a report like that relating to a large area.
I would ask the Minister to look into the matter again and consider whether it is necessary to have all that data prepared at considerable cost. Certainly in preparing a major scheme where there was no previous experience——
This is not the preparation of a scheme.
I know. The probable cost is asked for. No engineer will send in a report without examining the probable cost. I can see what will happen. The county manager or county engineer will say: "You must get an outside engineer to do that job; our staff are incapable of doing it." The council will know, even before they come to Section 4, that it will cost something like, say, £6,000. The county manager or county engineer, or whoever is charged with the responsibility under Section 3, will not advise the council without going into all the details. They may say right away: "We have not the technical knowledge or experience of doing such a job" and advise that an outside engineer be brought in. That does not seem to be necessary where the facts are already known. They are already known under Section 2, otherwise the council would not act under Section 2 at all. They know there is a particular portion of the coast which requires attention.
As I read Section 2, it is really for the purpose of the local authority deciding that there is a problem to be dealt with. That has been the great trouble we have had to meet all along—that it has been impossible for the local authority really to do anything about it or to make any contact with the central Government whatever. Section 2 is simply leading up to Sections 3 and 4. Section 2 makes it possible for the local authority to say there is a problem. Surely it is conceivable that the engineers of a county council would be in a position to produce a rough draft just to state that a problem exists. They are not asked, as Deputy Allen seems to imagine they are, to prepare a report; they are asked only to state that there is a problem——
Section 2 has been passed.
We are discussing Section 3.
I was listening to Deputy Allen discussing Section 2. If he is allowed discuss it, I should be allowed to do so also. Section 2 is the section leading up to Sections 3 and 4. The great difficulty so far in trying to deal with erosion has been that, even if the local authority decided that this trouble existed in part of the county, there was nothing they could do about it. Section 2 enables them to do something now and it leads up to Sections 3 and 4. I think it is eminently desirable and without it the Bill would be a total failure.
Will the Minister look into the matter?
I think Deputy Allen does not still quite appreciate exactly what is involved.
I fully appreciate it.
If he fully appreciates it, I think he will agree that it is desirable that the county council before they make their declaration under Section 4 would have before them some idea of the nature and extent of the problem.
I think the Bill is perfectly correct. Deputy Allen is dealing with this as something just about to happen which must be dealt with immediately. Is it not a fact that this has been going on for hundreds of years and no Government before did anything about it? Something is being done about it now. I have experience of the problem. The same thing as is happening in Rosslare is happening in the village where I live. We have coast erosion in Laytown and it is a serious cases can be dealt with in the big problem there. I believe the really manner suggested by the Bill. If the local authorities are to take cognisance of the fact that the danger is there, surely if they do anything at all they will be doing better than has been done up to now.
Deputy Tully comes from a constituency where there is just one parish touching the sea——
And a pretty large parish.
——and he has as much hope of getting any proposals through for the prevention of coast erosion, of getting the county council to spend five bob, as he has of flying up to Heaven.
I will be dealing with Meath men, not the people Deputy Corry is dealing with.
I know the Deputy's position; I have the same experience——
Do not compare the counties.
Up to the stage of the report, the whole expense in relation to this is under Section 3. The whole regulation for the preparing of the report is in Section 3. The expense of that is going to be pretty considerable as it will cover a lot of ground and I suggest that the Minister should reconsider the position.
What I am concerned about is that I see no need to put the council of a county to the expense entailed in Section 3, of providing all the technical data that must be provided. I can see no necessity for that, seeing that the Commissioners of Public Works are going to further examine the whole thing. A much simpler form of information should be submitted at much less expense.
After the general declaration has been made, as set out in Section 2, Section 3 is then meant to provide the general information as to the nature and extent of the problem on foot of which the Commissioners of Public Works can later go in and examine the problem in their capacity of specialist consultants. Under Section 3 the general basis will be provided for the consultants to come in, the consultants in this case being the commissioners.
This section would seem to me to be more a provision in respect of the minor schemes because the Minister and the commissioners already have a knowledge of the major schemes and there should be no need of going to any expense when they know where the trouble exists. There should merely be an invitation that they ought to go back and examine the provisions.
I can see duplication throughout this whole Bill. It would take the local authority at least six months to get the technical data which is provided for under Section 3. Delays in this instance are undesirable and it seems waste of time and money to have the local authority spending six months in getting the information that is required. I think it should be possible to leave out Section 3 altogether and come along to Section 4 where the council would then invite the Commissioners of Public Works to come in and do the job. As the Minister has said, the whole objective behind all this seems to be that the council will have to bear the major portion of the cost.
No.
That is what the Minister has just said—that the Commissioners of Public Works will come along and examine what has been put to them.
That is not what a consultant does.
I think that it should be enough to have a simple report from the council under Section 3 and that they should not have to prepare the technical data. If the Minister would undertake to look into the matter further, I would be satisfied.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."
Section 4 states that after consideration of the report under Section 3 the promoting authority shall declare that a coast protection scheme is not to be proceeded with. Under Section 3 it simply means that the report is furnished. Under sub-section (c) of Section 4 it is stated that, if advised that the preparation of a coast protection scheme appears to be practical and desirable but that the works involved are of such difficulty or magnitude as to be incapable of successful execution by the promoting authority, that authority shall request the commissioners to undertake a further examination with a view to determining whether the preparation and execution of a coast protection scheme is practical and desirable.
As far as I can see under Section 5 the commissioners can come down anyway and examine a scheme. It is bad enough to have to pay 50 per cent. of the cost but in sub-section (2) of Section 4 it is stated that the resolution by which a request is made under this section to the commissioners to undertake a further examination shall include a declaration that the promoting authority will pay to the commissioners the costs and expenses incurred in carrying out such examination.
This Bill ensures that the State will not have to pay more than 50 per cent. and that the local authority will be liable for the other 50 per cent. In addition to being liable for 50 per cent., the local authority will also have to pay the Commissioners of Public Works for their expenses in coming down to inspect any scheme. That is altogether apart from the 50 per cent. and I suggest that that expenditure should be included in the capital charge of 50 per cent. that the local authority has to pay. Under this section as it stands, it is safe to say that in very many cases the local authority is going to be mulcted up to 75 or 80 per cent. of the total cost of the scheme.
As I have said already, the majority of such schemes should be paid for by the State because the State, in the person of the Land Commission, is largely responsible for the present condition of affairs. There were estates all over the country which were compulsorily acquired under the 1923 Act. The Land Commission had power then to withhold any portion of the purchase money it considered necessary in order to prevent erosion and encroachment. In a large number of cases they did not do that. They let the landlord get away with the loot. They are coming along now and throwing the burden on to the ratepayers of any particular county to make up for their failure in that respect.
The least we could expect from the Minister, under Section 4, is that all these expenses, whether caused by the Commissioners or by the local authority, should be paid by the State and that the local authority should not be compelled to pay the cost of having the Commissioners come down to examine a scheme. I think it would be very unfair to put that cost on to the ratepayers.
There is no doubt that, under Section 4, when the local authority receive a report with the technical data required under Section 3, they will then have to bear the expense of the Commissioners coming down to examine the scheme and going over the same ground that has already been gone over. Although the particular job visualised in Section 2 is an urgent job, the authority, knowing as a result of advice from their technicians that the financial burden will be heavy, will probably act under paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) and declare that a coast protection scheme is not to be proceeded with.
They might go a little further and act under paragraph (c), if it is a major scheme, and may ask the Commissioners to undertake a further examination. The resolution asking the Commissioners to undertake a further examination must be accompanied by a solemn declaration by the promoting authority that if the Commissioners undertake further examination the promoting authority will pay the costs. That seems childish. If it is not passing the buck, I do not know what is.
The taxpayers have already provided that there will be Commissioners of Public Works with staffs and technicians and everything else. The taxpayers have already provided for the payment out of the Exchequer. I cannot recall any other piece of legislation that was passed by this House where the Exchequer proposed to make a 50 per cent. grant towards a project designed to protect the property of the people where the local authority was asked to pay, out of limited funds, the costs of an examination by the State authority. It stretches things too far.
The principle that it is sought to put across there is a new one in legislation. The Minister was a member of a local authority for quite a long time and he realises what is involved. At least, the State should send its technicians to examine and report on a scheme that is considered necessary in order to save the lives and protect the property of a section of the community. The suggestion contained in this section is wrong. It is a mean, rotten suggestion that the promoting authority must make a solemn declaration that they will pay. The Minister may say that, if the scheme proceeds, finally the State will pay 50 per cent. of the cost of examination but I think local authorities have a high standard of decency—and, if it is necessary to pay, they should not be required to make a solemn declaration that they will pay. That has not been the standard set here. I ask the Minister to consider that. Would he give us some justification for this unheard of suggestion that the State technicians are not available to advise on a coast erosion scheme in any part of this country unless the little ratepayers down the country pay for that advice? That is a new principle that it has been sought to enshrine in legislation here.
I appreciate the views expressed by Deputies Corry and Allen but I must say I cannot agree with them. Deputy Allen went so far as to say that were it not for Rosslare Harbour these provisions would not be here. There is much more than Rosslare Harbour in this country. Section 4 (c) says:—
"if advised that the preparation of a coast protection scheme appears to be practicable and desirable but that the works involved are of such difficulty or magnitude as to be incapable of successful execution by the promoting authority..."
Where do we go from there? We have in every local authority competent engineers. We hear a lot about Governments passing the buck, but I am afraid too often in local authorities, and I speak as a member of one, we are inclined to pass the buck. In this case we have engineers who could do many of the jobs we are anxious to have attended to under this Bill and it is within the competence of these people to report on these works. We may differ as to the type of scheme we want and we know there may be work of major importance to be done, but even at this stage if we can introduce through this Bill some measure of improvement in relation to small jobs we will be achieving something worth while.
There are more important things in this Bill than the Deputy seems to think. I have often heard Deputy Corry say, and I agree with him, that there are too many cases of appointing consulting engineers and asking Department officials to do work instead of allowing our own officials to tackle these problems. Deputy Corry, in respect of part of his constituency, is faced with the problem of coast erosion just as I am in my constituency of South Cork. I am convinced our country engineers are in a position to advise us from their own experience as to what should be done, and the contribution of 50 per cent. towards the execution of these jobs which are urgently required at the present time is a step in the right direction.
I agree with the remarks made by Deputy Desmond. I am surprised at Deputy Corry and Deputy Allen. Deputy Allen knows from the papers this morning that another portion of Rosslare has been taken away. Therefore this is an urgent matter and there should be no playing politics in regard to it.
Recently a hotel owner in Rosslare spent over £200 in an effort to save his property. We have the Rosslare Committee which is composed of all political Parties and members of the Wexford County Council who have been pressing to have somebody made responsible for coast erosion. I wonder are the Fianna Fáil Deputies jealous because this Government has introduced this Bill, and is it because they do not want to give the credit to the Minister and the Cabinet that we are told the Bill is this and that? It is what the people in my constituency are looking for. All along the coast from Rosslare right up to Deputy Allen's door in Courtown Harbour——
And further.
And further along, farm houses and other property are in danger and are being washed away. We have been asked if the Department should send down a man from Dublin to look at the harbour and Rosslare Strand and report back. Our own county engineers to whom we look for guidance should be able to make a survey and advise as to what should be done in an urgent matter of this kind. That is what the people along the coast are waiting for and this House should not in any way try to hold up this measure. Deputy Allen has met the people of that area along with other Deputies and now he has a different attitude——
Not a bit.
——altogether towards this question. The people of Rosslare are satisfied to have a survey made immediately that will give them some hope of saving their property, and when we come to the county council let the Fianna Fáil Party, who have the majority there——
They have not.
They have ten votes plus the casting vote, and they can sanction this or reject it. I did not hear anything from Deputy Allen about ratepayers when other Bills were brought in here that were going to saddle the ratepayers and have saddled them.
For instance?
The Health Act of 1953. That is a big burden on the ratepayers and on the Wexford County Council—the maternity grant alone.
Why did the Labour Party Vote for it?
Did you want us to oppose it?
We are dealing with coast erosion.
The people of Rosslare are looking for some relief for the urgent situation which exists there and if the Opposition were sincere they would support the proposals in this measure and not be thinking of a few votes they might lose in a general election by supporting it. If the Minister could meet the people concerned with an improvement on the 50/50 basis, it would be very welcome but if that cannot be done then let us make some progress at least. If it is a bad winter the situation will become infinitely worse, and the longer we stay talking about it here the greater the danger the people concerned are in.
I wonder is Deputy O'Leary in touch with the people down there at all. I have here a resolution passed by the Rosslare Development Association last Sunday night which says:—
"We consider the contribution of 50 per cent. by the local authorities a grave imposition on maritime counties in carrying out a work of national importance. We also consider it most unlikely that the schemes envisaged in the Bill will ever be implemented if the proportion of the Government's contribution is not greatly increased."
On a point of correction. Did Deputy Corry get that from a Fianna Fáil member who opposed it at that meeting?
This is a resolution passed by the Rosslare Development Association last Sunday night.
I was at the meeting.
I am not worrying where you were.
I know what was said. Deputy Allen met that committee in this House yesterday.
Deputy Corry, on Section 4.
What we are opposing here is that a declaration must be given by the county council that they will pay the expenses of the commissioners and the costs of anyone sent down by the commissioners, and they must have that declaration lodged before any official of the commissioners will go down. I suppose nobody will leave Dublin in future unless they have a guarantee beforehand they will be paid their expenses. That is the position despite the fact that the taxpayers of this country have to pay the whole of them here. Is the office of Public Works for the benefit of Dublin or for the benefit of the country and if they are for the benefit of the country does it mean that before an official does a job every local authority must pay him? If that is so, then what is the State paying for? That is the point at issue in this section, the point as to whether in addition to paying the 50 per cent. that the Rosslare Development Association are opposing, we must also pay the commissioners if they go down to inspect, and we must give a guarantee that we are going to pay them before they come.
As Deputy Allen said, this is a completely new departure to my knowledge and from my experience in public life. Is it that the Minister is no longer, in his financial straits, able to pay the civil servants but must have them paid by a local authority in this way? If we in East Cork pay them for doing a job of reclamation apparently that will be deducted from their salaries or will be held by the Minister and go towards paying their salaries. That is a new way of paying them as far as I can see. Or is it that the commissioners have no longer any faith in being paid by the State and that they consider the local authority would be a better stake for the money than the Government. That is what is wrong. This whole thing is a new departure and in my view the Minister should withdraw that request for a declaration.
There is no doubt about one thing and that is what is galling Deputies on the opposite side. This Bill is a new departure. In 1929 an inter-departmental committee was set up by the then Cumann na nGaedheal Government to examine the problem of coast erosion.
Is the Minister going back to Cumann na nGaedheal now?
Order!
That committee reported in 1931, just before Fianna Fáil came into office. Fianna Fáil were in office with that report in front of them from 1932 up to 1948 and we saw no Coast Protection Bill. Deputy Beegan was in the Office of Public Works from 1951 to 1954 and we saw no Coast Protection Bill. During the whole of that period the line taken by the Party opposite, when they were in Government, was that this was entirely a local authority responsibility; it was entirely the responsibility of local authorities whether anything was done in relation to the prevention of coast erosion or in relation to coast protection.
I come along now and I do something. I make an offer to pay and I provide machinery under which grants from the Central Fund up to 50 per cent. can be given; and we are treated by the Opposition to the crocodile tears we had last night and again this morning. I am not surprised that Deputies opposite find it necessary to say something. They have a great deal to excuse themselves for and they are hoping and endeavouring, by the line they are taking now, to confuse the people who are affected by this problem.
The fact is that this is the first effort that has ever been made by the State to deal with this problem, the first effort to cope with this problem, to repair the damage that has been done and to prevent the damage that might be done if these proposals were not introduced now. I do not suggest for one moment that the proposals in this Bill are the most perfect proposals. Anybody who came before this House and suggested that any Bill was a perfect Bill would be a fool. Nothing that one produces in connection with a problem like this—and, despite that Deputies opposite have said, the extent of the problem is not known— could be a perfect Bill.
Apart from that, we all know from our own experience that, no matter how much we may try to make Bills satisfactory during their passage through the House, it is nevertheless necessary to come back and amend them subsequently. I do not claim that this is a perfect Bill. But I do say and I do claim that this is the first time that there has been any approach by any Government to the problem. Because of that approach now we will be able to get a reasonable survey of what needs to be done in the various areas. The provisions towards the cost of such schemes as may arise are reasonable having regard to other commitments of the State.
There is always of course—I can quite understand it on the part of those who have not the responsibility of providing—an anxiety, as Deputy Desmond said, to "pass the buck" to somebody else. It is the duty of the Government fairly to distribute the load. Bearing in mind the approach that existed hitherto, that no part of the load should be borne by the Central Fund, I think I am making a reasonable proposition when I make the arrangements and put forward the suggestions that are included in this measure to meet whatever need there may be, a need which, as I say, we cannot completely determine in its accuracy, in its exact extent and in its exact nature in relation to the country as a whole until such time as we have got the surveys and the detailed examinations which have, so far, never been attempted.
The Minister is talking through his hat. I can excuse his ignorance in this particular matter; the Minister represents an inland constituency which is not affected by coast erosion. The Minister is a dry-land sailor. I can understand his attitude, but I would like to call his attention to a job done by the Board of Works without any Bill. That was in Gortroe, Youghal, something like 15 or 16 years ago and it cost £10,000.
On coast erosion?
Yes, and the protection of land.
We could not get a penny for Rosslare for the last 20 years.
The Minister did not know how to go about it. We did. The Minister can inquire in the Board of Works. The details are there for him to see. That work cost £10,000 and there was no contribution by the ratepayers.
How many years ago is that?
About 15.
A lot of water has flowed under Youghal Bridge since then.
There were a few more but I cannot recollect them at the moment. That is just one scheme that came to my mind when I heard the Minister for Finance say we did nothing. We had no occasion to bring in any Bills because anybody who wanted to get a job done knew how to get it done. It was all in the know-how.
Do not be too hard on Deputy Allen now. Apparently he did not know the know-how.
I know Deputy Allen's problem and I know my own problem. The views expressed by the Rosslare Development Association on this Bill are the views that we will meet with wherever this problem exists.
Who sent the Deputy the resolution?
Deputy O'Leary got a copy, too.
I was at the meeting.
A resolution was passed. I do not know where Deputy O'Leary was.
The resolution was to come and meet the Deputies.
Order! Deputy O'Leary should allow Deputy Corry to make his case.
We have their decision here signed by a lovely young lady named Jacqueline Kelly.
And she is all of that.
Deputy Allen was to sign that.
The people are complaining of the additional burden, quite apart from the 50 per cent. Apart from that we will have to pay the officials for the examination. In addition, we will have to pay the commissioners. That is the burden of which they complain.
What are they paying for Youghal Bridge?
I do not want to have to deal with Deputy O'Leary's interruptions at all. I do not think we are unreasonable in asking the Minister to do one of two things. Those officials are being paid by the State now. I think they should be at the service of any local authority that requires them, cooperating in the joint action which is envisaged in this Bill. If the State pays its own officials and we pay our own, we shall arrive somewhere. But if we have to pay our own officials and the State officials as well, that will be an undue burden on the ratepayers. In view of that, I ask the Minister to give us some guarantee that that sub-section will be removed from Section 4. I do not think I am unreasonable in that. If the Minister wants information as to what was done in regard to coast erosion when the Fianna Fáil Government was in office, he will not have any difficulty if he does a bit of poking. I know what we had to do and the ways and means we had of achieving results.
The Deputy was a good Deputy.
If my people did not think I was good, I would not be here. I have seen a lot of fellows come and go here and I expect to see a great change when I come here the next time.
I would like to ask the Minister one question in relation to a scheme prepared by the local authority engineer—assuming that Deputy Corry will not be shouting to get somebody down from Dublin. Provided a scheme is prepared by the local authority engineer and submitted to the Department for examination, if an official of the Department wishes to go down to that locality and examine the plans as prepared by the local engineer, in view of the fact that the local authority is not making a request for the commissioners to prepare the scheme, if he goes down solely to check on the scheme as prepared by the local authority, is there a charge then imposed on the local authority for that trip or inspection?
Is the Deputy visualising a case in which the local authority has said it is going to do the scheme itself?
Exactly.
Have a look at Section 5.
I might perhaps make one thing a bit clearer to the House. Section 19, if I may just jump to there for a second, is the section by virtue of which moneys are provided for the carrying out of the scheme and by virtue of which there is provision of the 50 per cent. grants running right through the operation. It is a matter of drafting. I think it might be better, rather than relying on Section 19, merely to deal in Sections 4 and 5, not with the total cost, but with the 50 per cent., rather than that it should come back to Section 19. It would mean, therefore, in effect that the local authority would be only through Section 4 and 5 convenanting to pay 50 per cent. in the first instance, instead of offering to pay 100 per cent. and then having another provision by which 50 per cent. of what they had paid might come back to them. I think that might be clearer——
I am glad the Minister said "might".
If the Deputy would rather have the word "would" I am always quite obliging. The point that Deputy Desmond has raised, I gather, concerns a promoting authority in the case in which it has decided that it is going to go ahead with the coast protection scheme itself and that it does not want, shall we say, the consultative services of the Commissioners of Public Works. I presume it will be a case in which they will be looking for a grant?
Yes.
I did not imagine it was a case which would be dealt with without a grant. If a local authority was not looking for State assistance at all it would not be necessary, of course, to introduce any inspection by the Commissioners of Public Works but if there is no request made under sub-section (2) the Deputy will see that it is in the request that the undertaking as regards payment eventuates whereas the scheme that the Deputy has in mind is one under 4 (b) rather than under 4 (c).
I would like the Minister to make it perfectly clear. If, for instance, a local authority decides to build a certain number of houses they may submit plans to the Minister for Local Government. If the Minister and the officials are not satisfied they may send down an inspector and that is that. In this case if the local authority engineer prepares a scheme, and if the local authority, as such, composed of the members with the manager agree that that scheme is feasible and if it is submitted in this instance——
It is a reserved function all the way through.
Yes, Nevertheless I am still coming to the point I want to make. I maintain that where the local authority—naturally they are looking for a grant; we need not bother with this Bill if there was not a grant—is not asking the commissioners to prepare the scheme, where they prepare it themselves, should it happen that an official here may wish to find fault with certain aspects of the plan as prepared by the local authority engineer, I maintain it should not be within the jurisdiction of the commissioner to charge the cost of their inspector going down to examine, not the scheme, but the plans in detail, as prepared by the local engineer.
As the Deputy will see, under the terms of the Bill, the promoting authority in those circumstances can prepare the scheme, decide to carry it out themselves, exhibit it, and ultimately, it is confirmed by the Commissioners of Public Works, but if the promoting authority has done that work themselves, then there is no question of paying the Commissioners of Public Works.
Let us get clear on one point. A scheme has to be sent up to the Commissioners of Public Works. Does the Minister suggest they will pass it without examination and without sending anybody down?
No. The Deputy has misunderstood the two paragraphs.
No. I am afraid I have not.
Under paragraph (b) the local authority does the work itself, or says it is going to do it. That is the case put to me by Deputy Desmond. When that happens, when it is prepared and exhibited and so forth by the local authority, there is no question of the local authority being responsible for 50 per cent. of the charges for the commissioner's inspection. The case where the 50 per cent. of the charge for the commissioner's inspection is borne is where the local authority declare they are not going to do it themselves and send up a request to the commissioners to do it.
It states here: "Such further inspection ..."
What section?
Section 5: "A certified copy of the resolution by which a request is made under Section 4 for further examination ..." That takes it for granted that an examination has already been made by the commissioners.
That is a reference to paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 4. The case that Deputy Desmond put up is under paragraph (b) of sub-section (1).
That a coast protection scheme is to be prepared and executed by the council. When they decide on that they then apply for 50 per cent. and is that scheme going to be passed without any inspection by the Minister's Department?
There is no question of its being passed without an inspection. It is where the commissioners prepare the scheme under a request contained in paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) that the 50 per cent. of the cost comes in. Obviously a grant will not be paid without the State satisfying itself it is going to get good value for any money spent in this way. We will not charge for that inspection. That question arises under paragraph (b).
That is the point in which Deputy Desmond and I were interested.
But it did not take Deputy Desmond so long to tumble to it.
Whenever you exceeded a couple of thousand pounds in the past the Department of Local Government always insisted on your employing a consultant. I feel sure the same situation will arise under this Bill. What I am objecting to is the insult offered to local authorities by telling them they must sign a solemn declaration that they will pay the commissioners the cost and expenses incurred by the commissioners before they carry out any examination. There must, under this Bill, be a pre-guarantee of payment. Under sub-section (2)——
That comes under Section 5.
It seems there is some little erosion in that bench opposite.
The Minister has been suffering from rapid erosion recently. I am afraid he will be washed away entirely the next time we hear from him. He should now try and make a deathbed repentance. The local authorities are being insulted in this by being asked to make declarations beforehand that they will pay. Why should officials already paid by the taxpayers in their wholetime capacities be paid again by the local authorities? That is the underlying objection to this provision. These are wholetime officials, paid by the taxpayers, contributed to by everybody in the State. Now, even before they leave Dublin to go down the country to examine a scheme, they must be guaranteed by the local authorities that their return tickets will be paid, plus whatever additional expenses they incur. That is the declaration local authorities are asked to make under this section. It is going far beyond the bounds of common sense. I suggest that the Minister would give the House a definite assurance that he will do something to remedy that situation before Report Stage.
A few moments ago the Minister got quite "ratty" with the Deputies on this side of the House because they dared to criticise any of the provisions of this Bill.
Devil a bit "ratty" I got.
Quite "ratty". He proceeded to preach a sermon about how delinquent we had been in the past.
I am glad the Deputy so realises his delinquency that it is not necessary for me to stress it.
He talked about all he did for the nation. I am afraid the nation does not appreciate all he has done. He talked about a report that came in in 1931. I happen to have a copy of a report of an advice given from the commissioners' office to the then Government. The report advised the Government not to undertake any work or to spend any money in Rosslare. That report was furnished by an eminent engineer.
What does that prove?
It does not matter what it proves. I just mention it in passing. Since the Minister talks about all he is going to do I should like to point out the danger that it will be many a long year before anything can be done under the provisions of this Bill. I want to say that coast erosion schemes were dealt with by the Office of Public Works under Fianna Fáil Governments. Substantial sums of money were spent by the Fianna Fáil Government on the foreshore between Dublin and Wexford.
For as long as I can remember, the C.I.E. railway line has been frequently washed away near Kilcoole and the Government have had to provide funds to erect groynes on the seashore at Kilcoole. I distinctly remember that, after a very bad storm about 15 years ago, Courtown Harbour, my own native place, was in imminent danger and a considerable sum of money had to be spent on it. The local authority made a small contribution. The total amount of spent was something between £5,000 and £10,000. The point I am making is that a State grant could be made towards arresting erosion at Rosslare without the aid of this Bill at all.
Nonsense.
If £15,000 were made available out of the Employment Schemes Vote to put up groynes in Rosslare, a good job could be done and there would be no need for the Bill at all. It was done in Donegal when Deputy Beegan was in charge of the Office of Public Works. To-morrow morning the Minister could get his Government to make a substantial grant towards this work. It is a very urgent work and I think that the laying down of groynes would make a good job of it. The county council are agreeable to put up £3,000 or £4,000 towards it. On the principle that State expenditure is in the neighbourhood of £140,000,000 a year and that the Wexford County Council's expenditure is in the region of £350,000——
The Deputy is travelling very far from Section 4.
The point I am making is that if Wexford County Council got a State grant in proportion to that expenditure a good job would be done in Rosslare. Another point to which we object is the provision requiring local authorities to make a declaration that they will pay certain sums towards the expenses of the officials carrying out examinations. I think the thing is wrong altogether. There is provision for that in Section 5. You should leave out this provision about a solemn declaration altogether. It is an insult to any local authority. The mind that put it into the Bill is a peculiar mind and it is alien to this country. No State Department should be allowed to do so and the Minister should not allow that to be enshrined in legislation. He should not allow it to be said that they do not trust a local authority. They have always paid in the past, without declarations.
The Deputy knows well that, if that was not in the legislation, he would come along later on and say he did not know he was asked to pay for it.
Section 5 covers all that. Such friction has never gone on. Millions of pounds have been repaid to the Commissioners of Public Works for loans by local authorities. They never defaulted by a shilling.
They always executed a formal deed of charge.
There is no deed of charge at all.
It is much simpler.
When a local authority borrowed from the Board of Works under the Local Loans Fund there was no deed of charge.
Was Deputy Allen not chairman of the county council for one period?
They always paid.
I am sure the Minister will appreciate that the remedies for coast erosion can be very expensive and that the coast erosion project requires specialised engineering. I just wonder what the response will be on the part of local authorities in relation to such projects. If a local authority sponsors such a scheme it will naturally try to keep it as cheap and as small as possible. We shall then have the difficulty of the Office of Public Works coming in and saying that that is not sufficient, that they cannot sanction that scheme and then, if it is necessary to have a project in a particular area, there will be a further set of plans and the whole thing will have to be started all over again.
We have sufficient examples in the case of projects of a different nature of where the local authority are prepared to go ahead with a certain scheme but are told that the scheme is not big enough and that therefore the project cannot be carried out.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."
We have the same thing again in this section but in a worse form, if at all possible. You can actually see the hand of the Minister for Finance in this; you can see him standing up at the end of a court case and saying "Costs please."
Sub-section (3) of this section states:
"Where the commissioners have completed an examination under this section, they shall serve on the promoting authority by post a notice——"
—despite the fact that they already got a solemn declaration that they will be paid—
"——stating the amount of the costs and expenses by the commissioners in respect of such examination and the amount so stated shall be payable to the commissioners by the promoting authority and, in default of payment, shall be recoverable as a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction."
Therefore, the poor county council, if they refuse to pay the boys, can be taken into court and decreed for the money. The Minister is making himself ridiculous. Can the Minister visualise any one of those cases and visualise the cost of inspection and preparation of the case? He will find in a very large number of them that, between the consultants and the engineers and the Office of Public Works consultants and the Office of Public Works engineers, and the two inspections, the paper plans will cost more than the actual job.
In this Bill, the Minister is prepared to pay only 50 per cent. of the actual job—not 50 per cent. of the total cost. The engineers, the consultants and everybody else must be paid by the county council or the local authority, in addition to the 50 per cent. If the county council themselves prepare a scheme, will their 50 per cent. of the cost of their engineers and their consultants be paid in the 50 per cent. grant? Is the Minister prepared to have that included? That is one of the things which we should like to know on this section.
This section deals only with cases in which the commissioners prepare the scheme—not with the cases mentioned by the Deputy.
We will consider that baby later on, so, but let us take those commissioners now. Can the Minister yet give any justification to this House as to why, in the case of a permanent official of his Department who goes down and examines an erosion scheme in any local authority area, the cost of his expenses and fees should be charged to that local authority and paid for by that local authority?
The Deputy used that argument on several occasions in connection with the previous section.
It arises again under this section, with bells on.
The previous section was accepted by the House. We are now on Section 5. The arguments relevant to Section 4 may not be repeated on Section 5.
But they are also relevant to Section 5.
The House accepted what is in Section 4 and, therefore, what Deputy Corry said on that section relevant to the payment of engineers cannot be reopened on Section 5.
Then, can we raise the question as to whether the promoting authority, in default of payment, should be summoned into a court of competent jurisdiction in order that the Minister may recover the costs? May we discuss that? Can we discuss that?
The section refers to the recovery of a simple contract debt. The Deputy may discuss that.
That is what is proposed under this sub-section. I suggest to the Minister that that is going a little too far. I have never heard yet of a local authority—and all local authorities have borrowed to the extent of millions of pounds from the Commissioners of Public Works for loans—being sued by the commissioners for default of payment and I will be 30 years here soon. Why then bring in this contemptible Bill, a Bill which the Minister knows he has rendered unworkable already? He knows it is only waste of time and that he will have to pay nothing under it. The local authority is expected to pay 50 per cent. plus the expense of having the scheme examined, plus the expense of having an examination by the commissioners, which could very easily mean 80 per cent. being paid by the local authorities. The Minister knows the Bill is not workable.
Might I point out to the House that on the Second Reading the Bill, in principle, was considered acceptable?
We are dealing with Section 5.
Deputy Childers also said that the Deputies on that side of the House considered that the Bill was necessary.
The Deputies on this side of the House accepted the principle; they did not accept the provisions of the Bill which make it unworkable. We are endeavouring to make an unworkable Bill workable if we can, and if we can get the Minister to see reason and sense we might be able to do so. But nothing can be done unless the Minister is reasonable. This unreasonable attitude, this lawyer attitude, is sticking out all the time. This kind of conduct in legislation is an insult to the local authorities of this country who have never defaulted in the payment of 1/- in the millions of pounds they have borrowed and repaid to the Commissioners of Public Works. Why bring in a Bill bristling with those insults to the local authorities, which the Minister is enshrining in this Bill? However, it is not worth arguing about because in a few months' time the Minister will have gone.
We have wasted a lot of time this morning.
These matters do not arise on Section 5.
That is the reason we are being so light on the Minister to-day. The reason that we are not pressing him too hard is that we realise what the position is.
This is even too much for Deputy Beegan. He has had to leave the House.
Under this section the commissioners undertake an examination apart from the payment they make. Under (a) of the next section——
Does the Deputy mean the next section or the next sub-section?
Under Section 6——
The Deputy may not discuss Section 6.
I wanted to point out that under (a) of Section 6 the commissioners may decide, after an examination has been carried out, that the scheme is not worth going on with.
That is true.
I think it most unfair that the council, having had to take advice already on this scheme, and knowing that the people were so much affected that they would be justified in asking for it, the commissioners can then say that the scheme is not worth proceeding with. There is a means of collecting the cost and expenses through a court of competent jurisdiction. That is often stated in Bills and why that old formula, which was first introduced by the British over 100 years ago when they trusted nobody in this country, should be continued often intrigues me. I suggest that the Minister should start a campaign to get this system eliminated and to trust the people, and their elected representatives in local authorities, more. I remember reading this sort of thing in old British legislation dating back 100 years, and it should not be continued. I have nothing further to say except that it is a formula brought down from former days when the Government of that time did not trust any local authority. They were on a par, as far as trusting the people, with any State Department or ministerial Department of the present day. This machinery should be taken out.
The Deputy cannot have read the deeds which he signed as chairman of the county council dealing with applications to the Local Loans Fund.
Section 5.
I suggest that before the local authorities sign the declaration, and before they get the bill for the costs, they should know how much they are going to be charged for each of the geniuses they will get down from the Office of Public Works and how much per night it is going to cost for their hotel accommodation.
The county council should know that. Before the council signs the bill, they are entitled to know how much it will cost. The Minister should now send down to the local authorities a statement as to how much it will cost for travelling expenses, so that, when we are asked to sign the declaration, we will at least have some idea of how much we are signing for. You cannot expect a local authority to make a declaration in the dark. We would like to know approximately the size of the bill and I think we are entitled to that information. I suggest the Minister should send down to each local authority a statement of the charges per day in respect of each engineer sent down, and if a higher degree "joker" has to be sent down——
On a point of order. The Deputy is perfectly at liberty to use any epithet he likes towards me, but I must ask that he be restrained from referring to my officials as "jokers".
I am sorry. I did not mean anything derogatory. I can assure the Minister of that.
It is a pet name he has for them.
If any higher degree engineer is sent down, we are entitled to have that information. We have often got frights before in connection with consultants' fees as distinct from engineers' fees. Are all the experts in the Minister's Department and the Office of Public Works consultants, or are we to consider them as engineers? Those are the things we would like to find out before we sign the bill and those are the things, as I said earlier, that are going to make the Bill unworkable.
Take, for example, a proposal brought in by Deputy Desmond to have a certain amount expended to prevent coastal erosion in the Crosshaven area. I have another scheme of the same type. Two schemes of mine are for about £150,000. We are clubing together in connection with this matter. He has eight members in his area and I have six, which is 14 out of the 68. The rest of them are the boys who have to pay without getting anything out of it. I know the play they are going to make with the probable cost of those commissioners coming down and inspecting the scheme. They will ask us what happened in regard to the consultants on the regional hospital. We will be asked if we know what happened in respect of the fees which had to be paid for the regional hospital, the fees that had to be paid in respect of Youghal Bridge and the fees paid to consultants on such and such a scheme.
Principles are being enshrined in this Bill under which every local authority is looked upon by the Government as a collection of rogues and thieves who have to sign beforehand a solemn declaration that they will pay and who are threatened with proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction, if they do not pay. We are entitled to know how much we will have to pay and what will be the travelling expenses of the officials coming down and the scale of fees charged.
The Deputy has already covered those points.
Those are the points upon which we want some information from the Minister now since we will have to sign a declaration that we are going to pay up and since we are liable to be taken into a court of competent jurisdiction, if we do not pay. We are entitled to know beforehand from the Minister the scale of fees charged by the Commissioners of Public Works for inspecting schemes of this description. I should like to hear some statement from the Minister on that line.
I do not think Deputy Corry is sincere.
Only to-day.
This is a very serious matter. We all know the officials have to be paid and Deputy Corry knows that better than anybody else.
They are paid already.
I think there has been too much play-acting. References were made to the save Rosslare committee. There are very substantial men on that committee who have done a lot to focus the attention of the Government and the people living along the coast on this matter. The first two men on that committee are clergymen and they have taken this matter very seriously —not this week or last year, but a good many years ago.
That does not seem to arise on Section 5.
Why should Deputies try to ridicule members of the committee whose property is affected? A deputation came here yesterday, but, unfortunately, we could not get in touch with the Minister.
Section 5, which is before the House at the moment, deals with further examination by the Commissioners of Public Works.
What this deputation wanted done was to have a survey made immediately. They would be glad of that. We had Fianna Fáil Deputies popping up and down trying to waste time instead of endeavouring to get something constructive done. I do not agree with their tactics and they will not go down with the Rosslare people.
They have solemnly declared that the scheme will not go ahead.
The county council will decide that. Deputy Allen gave the resolution to Deputy Corry. Deputy Corry knows nothing at all about the matter.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill."
This is a determination by the commissioners. Having examined the proposal and having been paid for it, they can determine that the circumstances are not such as to justify going on with any scheme. In other words, the local authority having examined the technical advice they got and having decided they should apply to the commissioners, the commissioners at this stage have power to torpedo completely any scheme, to say that no scheme is worth while going on with. I think the Minister should look into this matter again.
It should not be left to the Commissioners of Public Works, no matter how responsible they may be. It should be left to somebody else, and I would be satisfied if it were the Minister for Local Government who would be closely in touch with local affairs. Somebody else, whoever he might be, should come in at this stage rather than a group of civil servants to determine whether a village, a piece of land or something else should be saved. Some other final determining authority must be brought into this. When the particular local authority has made application, has obtained technical advice and knows it has to pay the Commissioners of Works for the examination, is it to be then told the job is not worth while going on with? They are the final body to decide that, and I believe that provision is wrong.
No local authority will propose spending the ratepayers' money in the first instance, or ask the commissioners to examine a scheme, unless they believe the scheme is necessary for the protection of property or the lives of a section of the community within their area. I would like if, between now and Report Stage, the Minister would consider the advisability of bringing in a final determining authority in cases where the local authority ask for a further examination. That could be done without any harm to anybody. We know that most of the machinery of this Bill has been lifted out of the 1940 Arterial Drainage Act——
Including the reference to a court of competent jurisdiction about which Deputy Corry was so voluble a minute ago.
And we know what happened in the Arterial Drainage Act, too.
Most of the machinery was lifted out of that Act and, without having looked it up recently, I would say that this section is mainly taken from it. The commissioners may decide whether an arterial drainage scheme is worth proceeding with or not; but that does not apply here because the local authority has nothing to do with determining whether or not an arterial drainage scheme should go on. The local authority is charged with the responsibility of applying under this scheme and some body other than the Commissioners who have examined the scheme should be the final determining authority as to whether the scheme shall proceed or not. I should like to hear the Minister on whether or not he would consider bringing in the Minister for Local Government, or some other determining authority, in the case of a county council appealing against a decision. I believe there should be some individual or some board of persons to whom they can appeal for a final ruling as to whether or not the scheme shall go on.
Deputy Allen suggested there should be some appeal board, but, if we were to have an appeal board in circumstances such as this, we would have to have a board of experts. As I see it, this section is for the purpose of preventing local authorities from producing, shall we say, hare-brained schemes. Do not imagine for a moment that I am suggesting any of the schemes along the east coast would be hare-brained. A considerable period has elapsed during which something should have been done and has not been done. Deputy Allen's argument is that if the local authority produces a scheme, the commissioners can then decide it should not be done——
No; this is a scheme the commissioners have examined themselves.
Yes, but the promotion is a reserved function of the county council. The scheme has been promoted by the promoting authority, which is the county council. As I understand the Deputy, if the commissioners decide not to proceed with that scheme, he wishes to make it mandatory on the Minister to introduce someone else to decide, to be an overriding judge as to whether that decision on the part of the commissioners is correct or not.
If the council at that stage appeal against the decision of the commissioners.
Yes, exactly; they are the promoting authority. The commissioners decide that the scheme is not a suitable one to proceed with. The Deputy's suggestion is that if the promoting authority, which is the county council—in all cases the county council is the promoting authority— decide they should go ahead with the scheme and the commissioners do not consider it is desirable to do so, they should have an appeal to someone else. Is that the Deputy's point? There might be something in that, but, if they are to appeal, they would have to appeal to someone with knowledge of these matters. As I envisage it, if you introduce an appeal like this, the county council or local authority may say it would be a good idea to institute a scheme for the purpose of giving employment. I feel such schemes should be confined to extremely necessitous cases of which there are many in the State already.
Deputy Allen suggested there should be an appeal. If you look at it in another way, there is already a considerable source of appeal. If a promoting authority were to put up a scheme and if it were to be turned down, I take it it would be quite feasible and proper for any Deputy representing that constituency to make an appeal to the Minister for Finance, who is the Minister concerned in the actual Department. Perhaps I am wrong in that——
The commissioners act in a judicial capacity here.
I am not very clear on that point. If they do, I think the Deputy has something in what he says; if not, I do not think he has anything.
The determination that is visualised in paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) can, for example, be a determination on purely engineering grounds. It might be found when the scheme was being examined that it was not possible to do what was necessary. In various cases, it has been found in dealing with the wind and the waves that you can have all sorts of the most extraordinary results, results the reverse of what were anticipated. It might well be that, although the scheme might prevent erosion at point A, the effect might be to create erosion at point B. That is a technical matter, on which, with all respect, neither Deputy Allen nor I would be competent to express an adequate opinion. That would be a matter which would have to be determined by those qualified from an engineering point of view. Therefore, in relation to that type of technical engineering quality in a scheme, I do not see what great advantage there would be in the suggestion of another layman coming into it. Of course, for such a purpose anybody—the Minister for Local Government, the Minister for Finance or anybody else—would be a layman.
One of the difficulties which I mentioned when I was speaking on the Second Reading is that there has not been such an examination of these problems around our coast as would enable us accurately to judge the exact extent of the problems and the best means of remedying them. We will not be able to get accuracy in that judgment until we have got the information that is necessary to lead up to Section 6. The determination that is there in the commissioners is probably the best method of dealing with the matter. Deputy Allen knows, just as well as I do, that when a determination is made by the commissioners, and it is an adverse determination, he will raise the matter in the House and that there will be consideration of the matter. From a statutory point of view, I think it is best to have this method. It will be largely on technical grounds that consideration of any scheme will be given, on technical reports probably couched in technical language. I do not think that any people, other than those who are themselves technicians, would be more suitable for dealing with these matters than people who are dealing with technical problems every day. Such people are the best people to deal with technical problems of that nature. The matter is not one of great principle either way but it seems to me that the problems will be so technical that the commissioners are the best people to decide on them.
I can agree with the Minister up to a certain point. I have an area in mind in the vicinity of Valentia and I doubt if any protection could keep the Atlantic breakers away from that area. I can understand that side of it all right and I can see that the cost of protection to 20 acres of land might be such that it would not be justified. I can see such things arising but I would make this suggestion to the Minister—that assuming (a) comes into operation and the commissioners decide that the preparation is not justified they should then give their reasons to the promoting authority.
Certainly.
Secondly, the promoting authority should have the right to ask the Minister to reconsider the matter.
If the Deputy will look at sub-section (2) he will see that the commissioners are statutorily bound to give the details.
I see that.
Obviously that is very desirable.
There is no doubt about that. The promoting authority, having paid for the information which the commissioners now have, are entitled to get some information as to why the commissioners turned down the scheme. I further suggest that the Minister should consider, between now and the Report Stage, some provision that the local authority, having considered the report under sub-section (2), would have the right to ask the Minister to reconsider the matter.
I am prepared to consider whether I can arrive at a method by virtue of which, if the promoting authority was to make representation to the commissioners after they are aware of the situation, they should have an opportunity of doing that and getting a reconsideration of the matter at that stage. I will try to draft something in that regard.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill."
Here we have a reserved function again.
Does the Deputy object?
I am not objecting to having a reserved function at all but this is the third occasion on which we have come across this reserved function.
I have put it in everywhere.
They will now have before them the probable cost of the scheme but there is no provision in this Bill to deal with the situation where additional cost may arise. Assume that the Commissioners of Public Works are undertaking a scheme and something happens in the course of the scheme which will give rise to additional cost.
We will deal with that when we come to it later on.
Here we have the case of a further determination by the promoting authority. This will be the critical stage at which it will be decided whether the scheme will go ahead or not. Assume that the commissioners are working under (c) or even under (b), who will decide that the scheme should go on?
I thought that we were now dealing with Section 7.
I know that we are dealing with Section 7 but I am going back to Section 6 for a moment. The commissioners have accepted that the scheme should go on. The local authority will now have before them the probable cost of the scheme and it is at this stage that they will make the final determination of whether the scheme should go on or should be dropped. They will now know what the cost is going to be to the local ratepayers. If they feel that the burden on the local ratepayers is too great they definitely will not go on with the scheme. I want to impress on the Minister that this is what is meant.
The local authority has the reserved function. Is not that what the Deputy wants?
The Deputy should appreciate that Section 7 deals purely with cases which have already been dealt with under paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 6.
Suppose the local authority is advised by their technicians that the scheme is too big to undertake, and that the commissioners say that the scheme should be carried out, has the local authority any redress? That is just the point. I think they should. If the local authority, with the technical advice at their disposal, desire that the commissioners should still undertake the scheme, they should have a right of appeal to the Minister to have the scheme carried out. If they are unprotected and have not available to them the technical advice necessary for the preparation of such a scheme, they should have the right to call upon the Commissioners of Public Works.
They have. Under Section 4, paragraph (c), they have that authority, as I read it:—
"If advised that the preparation of a coast protection scheme appears to be practicable and desirable but that the works involved are of such difficulty or magnitude as to be incapable of successful execution by the promoting authority, request the commissioners to undertake a further examination with a view to determining whether the preparation and execution of a coast protection scheme is practical and desirable."
No. This is under (b).
Section 4.
Section 7, sub-section (1), reads:—
"Where the commissioners, pursuant to sub-section (3) of Section 6 of this Act, inform the promoting authority that the circumstances are such as to justify the preparation and execution of a coast protection scheme and that the scheme should be prepared and executed by the promoting authority, the promoting authority, after consideration of the report transmitted by the commissioners, shall—
(a) declare that a coast protection scheme is not to be proceeded with, or"
The local authority can make that declaration under paragraph (a) of Section 7. Paragraph (b) of the same section reads:—
"declare that a coast protection scheme comprising the works considered by the commissioners to be practicable and desirable is to be prepared and (subject to confirmation in accordance with this Act) executed by the promoting authority."
Assume that the promoting authority feel that paragraph (b) is unfair to them, that they have not the technical means at their disposal to carry out the scheme and the Commissioners of Public Works have refused to do it under the previous section, should there be some appeal or some right in the local authority to ask the commissioners to do the scheme? I put that to the Minister. I can see all these things happening.
I am afraid I cannot understand the Deputy's difficulty. It must be obvious to the Deputy that the Commissioners of Public Works will not ask the promoting authority to do a scheme, in respect of which the Commissioners of Public Works will be the channel through which grants up to 50 per cent. will be paid from public moneys, unless the commissioners are really satisfied that the promoting authority is capable of doing the work. If the commissioners were not satisfied that the promoting authority were capable of doing the work, obviously, they would not give a grant for work that would not be efficiently carried out. Candidly, if I were arguing it, I could see that the tendency would be the other way.
Local authorities are doing minor schemes quite well but they are incapable of tackling a major or semi-major scheme and could the commissioners just get out of trouble, like everybody else, by saying that their engineers are fully engaged and they are not available for the work?
I think Deputy Beegan and I will agree that the Commissioners of Public Works never try to get out of trouble. They are prepared to undertake it.
Always looking for trouble and always in it. That is the same in all Departments. If the Minister thinks that only schemes of a minor or semi-minor nature will be referred to local authorities——
Only schemes well within their competence. Otherwise, we would be paying out money for something that would not be a good job.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."
Section 8 is the section under which the commissioners undertake to carry out work under paragraph (c) of Section 6?
No. This is referring to paragraph (b) of Section 7.
It deals only with the general preparation of a, scheme—is that not right?
We are still dealing with the case in which the promoting authority will go on with the job itself.
I see. There is nothing in that.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That Section 10 stand part of the Bill."
It is the promoting authority that does the work envisaged in this section.
They have the reserved function throughout.
Not in this case.
The Deputy will see in the first sub-section:
"Where a coast protection scheme has been prepared by the promoting authority...."
Consider all the things that they have to do: send a copy of the scheme to the commissioners and a copy to several other people. Will publication be free in the official publication? The Minister controls that.
Does the Deputy think that any Minister for Finance would give it to him free?
There is considerable delay provided for here—two months, one month and three months' delay under almost every phase of the Bill. Could the Minister not shorten the time?
Deputy Beegan will be able to give Deputy Allen details of how necessary the exhibition periods are, from his experience of the Arterial Drainage Act.
Every member of a local authority knows all about delays and the way in which Departments can delay, if they desire to do so.
Local authorities sometimes do the same.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Question proposed: "That Section 11 stand part of the Bill."
How long will all the phases mentioned in Section 11 take?
That would depend, for example, on whether there were ten people or 10,000 people affected by the scheme.
I agree. My experience is that, from the time a scheme is proposed to the time action is taken, granting everything is safe and free, it could take anything from five to ten years.
With the Deputy's provison that everything was free, it might take from five to ten years, but that is not the fact in this world.
No. In this case there are to be all these notifications. A great deal of this trouble has been caused by State Departments.
State Departments?
Yes. I am very surprised that the Minister has not brought the Land Commission into this Bill. Is it because the Land Commission did most of the damage that the Land Commission is hardly mentioned in it, except in a later section, to collect the loot, to take anything that is left? We will come to that section later. I wonder if anything could be done to reduce the period laid down in Section 11. There will be many delays in that regard and they will probably take anything up to six months.
This section has some pretty severe things in it. There is a powerful example of compulsory acquisition in paragraph (a) of sub-section (1). It is reasonable where that power will be exercised that people should have ample opportunity of considering whether they wish to object or not.
I am speaking from experience and I can quote an example of this. We had a request for the compulsory purchase of sites in Ballinacurra, Midleton.
Surely the Deputy does not propose to argue the pros and cons of that matter on this section?
I am giving the Minister an example of the period of time he can expect to elapse in this connection. That inquiry was held in September, 1955, and the result of the inquiry has not yet come from the Department of Local Government. It is now 14 months since the inquiry was held. I know there are obstacles that can be put in the way and I am glad the Minister for Lands is here because he knows that, too. In one instance, plans for rectifying coast erosion have been lodged with the Department of Local Government for the past seven months, in the expectation that the scheme would be carried out on the original basis of funds from the National Development Fund. The whole trouble arose out of a small holding that the Department of Lands left after them in other days.
That has nothing in the world to do with this section.
The Minister will understand what I am coming at in a few minutes.
The Deputy has not read the section.
The Minister for Lands and his predecessors endeavoured to remove that obstacle and failed. I can visualise the obstacles that that gentleman and his legal advisers will put in under all the opportunities that the Minister has given them in Sections 11 and 12, and I can visualise how long it will take before these compulsory powers are in force that will enable this erosion scheme to be dealt with. It failed the Minister for Lands before. I am referring to the Gaskell estate in Garryvoe, Youghal.
The Deputy may not argue that case on the section.
I am giving an example to the Minister of the kind of delays that can occur. However, later on, if the Minister is here for his Estimate, I will read out the Minister's reply to me on it. I do not wish to go into that at this stage, except to point out to the Minister the delays and the opportunities for delays that can be availed of in this section by gentlemen like the owner of that piece of land in the Gaskell estate.
I would like to know whether the Party opposite are subscribing to the views put forward by Deputy Corry on the section. This section gives a person who will be affected by the works to be done under a coast protection scheme a period of two months to consider whether the works will adversely affect him or not. The works may involve a compulsorily acquiring that man's property, or they may involve dealing in a drastic manner with the bridges of a local authority in the area. This section gives to the farmer concerned or the local authority concerned two months for the purpose of examining the plans and seeing whether they are likely to be adversely affected and the opportunity afterwards of seeing that their objections are properly considered. I believe that is a most reasonable thing to do and I am not prepared to put a Bill through here jackbooting farmers or local authorities and not giving them an opportunity of a reasonable period to examine what is proposed. I do not know whether the remainder of Deputy Corry's colleagues stand with him or not, but I would like to know where they stand.
I would like to give an example to the House as to the kind of case I mean and I would like to know how the Minister will meet it under this section. In this case about half an acre of land was held——
We cannot discuss every case of this kind.
I am giving an example to the Minister of the kind of case I have in mind.
It does not arise on this section.
It involves coast erosion of some 15 miles from Ballymacoda to Ballycotton. The gentleman involved there stands to lose a couple of hundred pounds a year on his duck pond into which he converted the surrounding country, with the assistance of the Minister for Lands.
The Minister can go in on his duck pond, in spite of him.
The duck pond does not arise on this section.
There is no doubt, and the Minister does not deny, that there will be considerable delays through every phase of putting this Bill into operation before work can commence.
We are discussing Section 11 and it is purely the question of giving a farmer a period of two months to get the procedure examined. I think that is reasonable.
The Minister cannot get away with it that way.
It is not a question of getting away with it. It is a question of fact.
There is no use in the Minister talking about jackbooting farmers. We know what it means when these things go into lawyers' offices. They are held up for considerable periods.
Perhaps Deputy Allen will now satisfy Deputy MacEntee as to whether the Fianna Fáil Party is or is not against the expropriation of private property.
The Fianna Fáil Party can look after themselves.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.