Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Feb 1963

Vol. 199 No. 10

Special Committee on Companies Bill, 1962. - Coast Protection Bill, 1962— Second Stage.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. O'Malley)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Since 1931, there has been no general investigation of the extent to which our coasts are being damaged by erosion. In that year an interdepartmental committee reported to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health that there was no conclusive evidence of any really grave erosive action and that much of the erosion was of little practical importance; there were, however, six cases in which erosion was taking place with so much damage or danger to property as to assume what may be termed public importance.

Over the years, the Commissioners of Public Works have received complaints regarding erosion at many points on the coast. As the Commissioners are not generally empowered to deal with coast protection, few of these cases have been investigated and it is not possible to say if all the complaints refer to true cases of coast erosion and, if they do, whether protection work is merited. Some of the complaints may relate to storm damage which is a separate problem. Some of them may cover genuine cases of erosion but the cost of protection works may be disproportionate to the value of the property endangered. The fact that the complaints have been made is not an indication that there has been any worsening of the position since 1931. It is probably true to say that the conclusions reached by the committee more than 30 years ago still hold good.

There were three cases in which it was known that the danger to valuable property was imminent and State assistance was made available for protection works—at Bray sea wall, Wicklow town and Rosslare. In each case it was possible to put the work in hands without administrative difficulty. The work was sited on the foreshore and any difficulties of access or interference with privately-owned property were readily overcome.

Rosslare Strand, County Wexford was the most important. As is well known, erosion there has been a serious problem for many years. In 1937, an English expert made an investigation and recommended that groynes and extensive retaining walls, etc. should be erected at a cost then estimated at £340,000, the equivalent of about £1,000,000 at present; but in face of this estimate, no action was taken. However, the Wexford County Council continued to press for Exchequer aid, and in 1957, the Government decided that a programme consisting of a survey and some experimental and direct protection works should be proceeded with. The works were then commenced by the Commissioners of Public Works, they are still continuing, and will probably be completed in 1964. Proceeding from the experimental stage a system of groynes and protection works has been evolved which it is hoped with proper maintenance will give reasonable long-term protection. The Wexford County Council have made a substantial contribution to the cost which will be about £120,000.

The need for some statutory machinery to deal with coast erosion has been recognised by Deputies in all parts of the House. In 1956, a Bill was introduced by our predecessors and was being discussed in Committee when the Dáil was dissolved and the Bill lapsed. This Bill is on the same general lines. There are, however, some important differences. Under the earlier Bill, it was envisaged that the Commissioners of Public Works would carry out only the more difficult schemes leaving the smaller ones to the local authorities but now it is proposed that all the construction works as well as all the maintenance work will be done by the Commissioners.

The major change is in regard to the financial arrangements. In the 1956 Bill, State grants for coast protection works were limited to half the cost. Under this Bill, State grants up to 80 per cent. of the cost may be made. In the 1956 Bill, county councils were required to pay the full amount of the costs and expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Public Works on schemes which did not proceed. Under this Bill, they will pay only half such costs. These new provisions are generous and I hope they will make the Bill acceptable to all Deputies.

The Bill provides that where the council of a county or a county borough are satisfied that land within their area is being progressively damaged by the continuing encroachment of the sea, and that the encroachment is liable to endanger valuable property, the council may promote a coast protection scheme. If the encroachment affects land in two or more counties, the councils are required to name one council as the authority to promote the scheme. The council or councils shall cause a report on the encroachment to be prepared before a council as a promoting authority under the Bill requests a preliminary examination to be made by the Commissioners of Public Works. The purpose of this provision is to arrange for a form of screening of applications before the Commissioners of Public Works are approached for assistance and to place the responsibility for initiating action towards a protection scheme on a local authority which would be expected to reject applications unworthy of serious consideration. It would be quite impracticable for the Commissioners to deal initially with every request for a scheme from private individuals, commercial concerns and others. If, following the preliminary examination, the Commissioners report that a coast protection scheme is feasible, they may at the further request of the promoting authority and subject to the consent of the Minister for Finance prepare a scheme.

The word "feasible" used in the Bill is intended to mean practicable within economic limits of cost. The scheme, which will show the percentage grant available, will be exhibited by the promoting authority. They will notify any persons affected and consider any observations received and report to the Commissioners on the observations and any alterations which they propose should be made in the scheme. On consideration of that report the Commissioners will submit the scheme to the Minister for Finance with their recommendation. At any stage prior to the submission to the Minister the promoting authority will be at liberty to decide that the scheme should not go ahead and they would then be liable for half the cost incurred up to that stage. The Minister may refuse to confirm a scheme, or may confirm it with or without alterations. His confirmation of a scheme will empower the Commissioners to carry out the works. The difference between the cost of a scheme and the State grant will be payable by the promoting authority subject to such contributions by other local authorities, harbour authorities or other beneficiaries as may be arranged.

In the Bill, powers are provided for entry on lands, etc.; for compulsory acquisition or interference with lands or other rights; for payment of compensation; and for the holding of a public inquiry in relation to proposals for a scheme.

Maintenance of completed works is so important that it is proposed to make it the responsibility of the Commissioners of Public Works. Costs and expenses incurred by the Commissioners on maintenance will be refunded by the authority who promoted the scheme.

Certain necessary provisions of a miscellaneous nature are made, e.g., to make bye-laws, to abandon protection works no longer capable of being maintained at reasonable cost and to employ contractors.

So little is known of the extent of the coast protection work needed and so much is left to county councils by the Bill that it is not possible to give any estimate of the expenditure which will fall to be met from the Exchequer if the Bill is enacted. In planning coast protection works, the aim of the Commissioners will be to secure reasonably effective protection at the lowest possible cost.

Taking the Bill section by section, Section 1 does not need any comment.

Section 2 enables a county council or the corporation of a county borough to investigate and to have a report prepared on any proposal for coast protection works. If they are satisfied that land within their area is being progressively damaged by the continuing encroachment of the sea, as distinct from an occasional storm, and that valuable property is being threatened, they can promote a coast protection scheme and ask the Commissioners of Public Works to carry out a preliminary examination. Where the encroachment affects land in two or more counties a single report will be prepared and one council will be named as the promoting authority. Necessary powers for entry on lands, etc., are provided for the purposes of the preparation of a report. The consideration of a report and the making of a declaration shall be reserved functions.

Section 3 provides that on receipt of a request from a promoting authority under Section 2, the Commissioners of Public Works may undertake a preliminary examination. Before making this examination the Commissioners will, in addition, require an undertaking that the promoting authority will pay one half of the cost of the examination if a scheme is not executed later. Powers of entry on lands, etc., are provided for the purpose of the preliminary examination. The intention of the preliminary examination is to avoid the expenditure of time and money on unnecessary detailed investigations by eliminating at an early stage cases which would have no prospect of being dealt with at a reasonable cost or are not in fact true cases of coast erosion.

Mr. T. Lynch

Hear, hear.

Mr. O'Malley

Under Section 4 the Commissioners after the preliminary examination may determine that the circumstances are such that a coast protection scheme is not warranted or the circumstances are such that a scheme is feasible in all respects. In each case they will report their determination to the promoting authority.

Section 5 provides that where the Commissioners report that a scheme is feasible the promoting authority shall make a declaration that a scheme is not to be proceeded with or that the Commissioners should be asked to prepare and execute a coast protection scheme. In the latter case, the promoting authority will undertake to pay the appropriate contribution towards the capital cost of a scheme that is executed, and the entire costs of maintenance or abandonment of a completed scheme. If a scheme does not proceed, they will be liable for half the costs of preparation. The consideration of a report and the making of a declaration shall be a reserved function.

Section 6 provides that where the promoting authority resolves that the Commissioners should be asked to prepare and execute a coast protection scheme the Commissioners may, subject to the consent of the Minister for Finance and to any conditions stipulated by him, prepare a scheme and shall send a copy of it to the promoting authority and to any other council who named the promoting authority. Powers of entry on lands, etc. are provided for the purposes of the preparation of a scheme.

Section 7 outlines the matters to be shown in a coast protection scheme prepared by the Commissioners including the estimated cost and the percentage thereof—not exceeding 80— which the Minister for Finance is prepared to contribute.

Section 8 lays down the procedure to be followed by the promoting authority on receipt of a coast protection scheme sent to them by the Commissioners. In the first place, the authority shall declare whether or not the scheme is to be proceeded with. Where the declaration is in favour of proceeding with the scheme, the promoting authority will give public notice and exhibit the scheme. The making of a declaration under this section is to be a reserved function.

Section 9 requires the promoting authority to serve on every interested party 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 person who receives a notice is allowed two months for sending his observations, if any, to the promoting authority.

Under Section 10 the promoting authority will consider the observations received and submit a report to the Commissioners. If the authority want the scheme altered, they will say so in the report. The Commissioners will examine the report and determine what alterations, if any, are to be made. They will give notice of their determination to the promoting authority, who will make a further declaration that the scheme is, or is not to be proceeded with. If the promoting authority decide to go ahead with the scheme, the Commissioners will submit it to the Minister for Finance. The Minister, after any necessary consultation with other Ministers, may make an order refusing to confirm the scheme or confirming it either with or without alterations. Copies of a confirmation order will be sent to the Commissioners and to the promoting authority who will notify all interested parties.

Section 11 provides that a confirmation order will give the Commissioners of Public Works power to do all things necessary for the carrying out of a coast protection scheme.

Section 12 covers interferences with public roads and bridges. Where there are substantial advantages from new or improved roads or bridges, the local authorities shall contribute such part of the cost as the Minister for Local Government shall certify.

Under Section 13 the Commissioners may acquire compulsorily lands, rights, etc. as shown in a coast protection scheme. Compensation will be payable for land or rights acquired. In default of agreement the amount of compensation will be fixed by arbitration.

Section 14 provides for compensation for interferences with land, etc. other than interferences which have been the subject of a formal notice under the scheme. Again in default of agreement compensation will be fixed by arbitration.

Section 15 provides that in assessing compensation an arbitrator will take into account any benefit which a claimant will get from a coast protection scheme.

Section 16 relates to the financing of schemes. The Minister for Finance will contribute out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas the percentage of cost shown in the confirmed scheme. The balance will be contributed by the promoting authority.

Section 17 enables the promoting authority to obtain contributions towards the amount payable by them from other local authorities, harbour authorities and owners or occupiers of protected lands. The section empowers the promoting authority to enter into and carry out agreements in that regard. Harbour authorities may borrow from the Local Loans Fund for the purposes of such contributions.

Section 18 provides that where the Commissioners of Public Works are satisfied that a coast protection scheme has been completed the Minister for Finance will issue a certificate of completion.

Section 19 covers the disposal of Trust Funds for the maintenance of existing embankments, which are rendered unnecessary by a completed coast protection scheme.

Section 20 provides for the maintenance of completed works by the Commissioners of Public Works. Minor improvements will be regarded as maintenance.

Section 21 prohibits interference with the works of any coast protection scheme or action hindering their efficient operation.

Section 22 provides powers for the making of bye-laws for the protection of completed works.

Under Section 23 powers are taken for the abandonment of coast protection works which are no longer maintainable at a reasonable cost. The Minister for Finance may direct the Commissioners to take steps to prevent abandoned works from becoming dangerous or a nuisance.

Section 24 provides for any necessary apportionment of land annuities, etc. in respect of land acquired for a coast protection scheme.

Section 25 provides that debts due to a Government Department, for example, the Revenue Commissioners or the Irish Land Commission may be discharged out of compensation payable under this Bill. This is a customary provision.

Section 26 provides that a promoting authority will pay to the Commissioners half the costs and expenses incurred in connection with a scheme which does not proceed, the full amount of the costs and expenses incurred on the maintenance of a completed scheme, and the full amount of the costs and expenses incurred on works which become necessary in the event of abandonment. Provision is made for contributions by other local authorities and harbour authorities towards the amounts payable by promoting authorities.

Section 27 provides that before making an Order refusing to confirm or confirming a coast protection scheme the Minister for Finance may cause a public inquiry to be held by a person appointed by him. The section deals with the procedure and powers for the holding of such inquiries.

Section 28 is the usual expenses section and Section 29 is the citation.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. T. Lynch

We should be glad that this Bill has been introduced at last. I have here a copy of the 1956 Bill, from which this Bill is taken, with a few amendments. I want to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary on its introduction. His predecessor had the 1956 Bill in 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1960 and nothing was done about it.

The very interesting feature of this Bill is that the Commissioners will make inspections and the intention of the preliminary examination is "to avoid the expenditure of time and money on unnecessary detailed investigation by eliminating at an early stage cases which would have no prospect of being dealt with at a reasonable cost or are not in fact cases of coast erosion". I quote from the Parliamentary Secretary's statement. That is a very important matter, especially in this country where people in various counties have no conscience about putting up dud schemes for which they could get a big subvention from the State and a small subvention from the county council. The amount of money that can be given by the county council, according to the Parliamentary Secretary's statement, is up to 80 per cent.

Mr. O'Malley

No; that is by the State—up to 80 per cent. by the State.

Mr. T. Lynch

By the State, yes, under Section 7. It does not say how a county council qualifies for the 80 per cent. Is there any way in which a county council can qualify or is it confined to certain localities? Is it a special "Gaeltacht grant", as the saying is? Would it be possible for an unfortunate constituency such as mine to qualify for the 80 per cent.?

I know the Parliamentary Secretary to be a man of his word. He has been to me. I would point out to him that schemes such as are envisaged in the Bill are a temptation to county councils and to county councillors on the basis that they will get so much money and will have to strike a certain rate. It is piling up the rates. I want to put it on record that I was informed by the Minister for Local Government that the people of Waterford county paid the highest per capita rates in the country. I have an idea that genuine schemes will be put up from the county of Waterford to the Parliamentary Secretary's office and I would ask him to contribute up to the 80 per cent. for those schemes.

One such scheme would be in connection with Tramore where in 1912 the banks were broken down. No real attempt was ever made by the State to reclaim that very valuable land on the Tramore foreshore. A few half-hearted attempts were made. I have heard it suggested that modern engineers considered it an impossibility to reclaim the land. I am not an engineer but I would discount that suggestion. At one time, the land was reclaimed by men who were equipped only with shovels and baskets and races were held there. I am old enough to have been there. There was a magnificent racecourse on portion of these lands. That land has been under water all that time. I would submit that if a scheme is put up for the reclamation of that land, the Parliamentary Secretary should be merciful to the Waterford ratepayers, considering that they are paying the highest per capita rates in the country.

Mr. Tully

They have the lowest valuations.

Mr. T. Lynch

No, the highest valuations also. We were revalued in 1926 when the Deputy's constituency was getting away with it. We are reasonably generous in respect of health services as, I am sure, a Labour Deputy would like us to be.

The Parliamentary Secretary has taken power of compulsory acquisition. That is important. I should not like to see State money spent on the reclamation of land that is practically worthless. I have been shown places outside my constituency as examples of coast erosion but, in my opinion, the land in question was worthless and useless for any purpose. The people who owned the land wanted the State to spend money on it and make it good for them. Some of them were interested in the work being undertaken so as to provide employment for themselves, their horses and lorries.

It is a good thing to have this Bill under which it will be possible to protect good farm land from erosion. The farmers concerned, some of whom own small portions and some of whom own large portions of land which is subject to encroachment of the sea, have managed to maintain banks and have farmed their acres well. These lands are regarded as useful only for grazing but I have seen wonderful crops of corn and roots taken out of them.

I remember the Parliamentary Secretary being under fire from members of his Party when he had banks repaired on the Shannon in the Foynes area. The suggestion was made that that was done because it was his constitutency that was involved. I commend the Parliamentary Secretary for it. The land which was reclaimed was good land and the expenditure of State money on reclaiming it was a good investment. Members on all sides of the House would commend the Parliamentary Secretary for such action.

I have often protested against the frightful waste of money involved in reclaiming enormous tracts of land which is of no practical use, 60 acres of which would not keep a cow. Millions of pounds have been spent on that kind of thing. I think the Parliamentary Secretary has the right idea. When he went to build banks and to carry out drainage, he looked for places where the land was good. The Dungarvan and Tramore areas are subject to inundation and I am sure schemes will be put up by the local authority.

This is a Bill which can be dealt with in greater detail on Committee Stage. We are glad that it has been introduced and we wish the Parliamentary Secretary success with it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Paudge Brennan.

Mr. Tully

On a point of order, is this not an unusual procedure?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No. There is nothing unusual about it. I am calling Members from both sides of the House. It does not preclude the Deputy. The debate has only begun.

Mr. Tully

It is rather unusual for the Chair to call two members of the Government Party.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Only one Deputy has been called so far. I was not aware the Deputy had offered. I am sorry.

Mr. P. Brennan

I join with Deputy Lynch in welcoming this Bill, which is a big improvement on the previous Bill, so far as the contributions to be paid by the State are concerned. However, I do not think we have gone far enough, particularly in regard to the urban areas. Anyone who knows the east coast will have to agree that since 1931 the sea has made terrific inroads into it, and not all of that was within the urban areas. My seaside resort is in County Wexford, close to where Deputy Esmonde lives. I am sure he will agree with me when I say that within the past 25 years, the sea has encroached from 50 to 100 yards in that area. The same applies all along the east coast. While no property as such is being affected, the sea is taking over from the land.

The big problem we have in Wicklow is in the urban areas, particularly Bray and Wicklow town. Very substantial grants have been made available to both these local authorities in the past. Quite recently, there was a grant of £14,000 to Wicklow town with a local contribution of 20 per cent. Nevertheless, the Government might consider the urban areas as a separate problem. Asking an urban area to contribute 20 per cent. is perhaps asking a bit too much. In a place such as Wicklow, where a penny is worth about £40, you cannot expect the local authority to put up £3,000 or £5,000 as a local contribution, thus imposing a heavy burden on the ratepayers.

This problem is likely to continue in Wicklow for many years and it must be faced up to. The ratepayers are not in a position to meet such a burden. Even though the Government have given a bigger grant than previously— this year, it is 80 per cent. as against 75 per cent.—the demands on a small urban authority such as Wicklow are great. The same is true to a lesser extent in regard to Bray. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to have another look at the matter to see if it is not possible for him to come to the assistance of the small urban authorities in some way.

The area between Wicklow and Bray has been protected in recent years because of the fact that the railway runs along the coast there. It has cost CIE a considerable sum to maintain. Every year, the railway is affected, particularly during storms. This year for weeks on end, the railway was washed away night after night. I have no doubt that, but for the railway, Greystones and other areas would have been affected by coast erosion.

The State is contributing 80 per cent. of the estimated cost of any scheme designed by the Commissioners of Public Works. It is quite possible, however, that because of the time-lag and increases in costs of materials, wages and so on, the final figure may be far higher than that originally estimated. I should like to know whether the 80 per cent. will be based on the final figure rather than the estimated cost. If it is not based on the final figure, then I should like to know who will be expected to pay the difference. This can happen. During the course of construction, you may have further damage caused to the work and in that way you may considerably increase the cost above the original estimate. I do not think a local authority should be asked to carry that burden. The burden of 20 per cent. will be sufficiently heavy.

Again, I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary. He deserves the congratulations of the House on bringing forward this Bill, particularly in view of the fact that it is a big improvement on the Bill introduced in 1956.

Mr. Tully

Like the previous speaker, I wish to congratulate the Government on, shall I say, the reintroduction of this Bill. From my brief look at it, it appears there is very little difference between it and the Bill introduced in 1956, except the substantial difference in the cost. The Government are putting up an extra 20 per cent. which can be a very substantial amount of money.

Mr. O'Malley

An extra 30 per cent.—from 50 per cent. to 80 per cent.

Mr. Tully

I stand corrected. I hope the Bill will result in having work carried out in areas where, because of the lack of finance, such schemes tended to die out very quickly.

The procedure for preparing to do the work seems to be very cumbersome. It would appear that the matter has to go backwards and forwards between the county council, the Board of Works and the local authority before finally coming to the Minister for Local Government. That could mean that a very long period might elapse before the work was done. I do not think we want a Bill such as that because it will be merely promising something which will be offered to the people manana. We have had too much of that in the past.

I notice a couple of changes in this Bill as compared with that of 1956. Section 20 of the Bill is being substituted for Section 24 of the earlier Bill. According to the Minister's speech, this section provides that the maintenance to be carried out is to be the responsibility of the Commissioners of Public Works. Under the other Bill, it was the responsibility of the county council. I do not think the new suggestion is the best one. It would be much better if local authorities were left to see after their work rather than have it carried out by the Board of Works who will bill the local authority with the cost.

We have had examples of that where arterial drainage is concerned. While everybody clamours for arterial drainage to be carried out, people complain because the cost of maintenance has to be borne by the local authority and because the Office of Public Works is entitled to say what it will cost. Provision must be made in the rates, irrespective of whether the money will be spent and irrespective of whether it is the correct amount. I suggest the section be amended by reverting to the original arrangement whereby the local authority carried out the work.

Section 17 enables the promoting authority to levy a contribution on the owners and occupiers of protected lands. Two problems arise here. One is the problem of the contrary fellow. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary has had a good deal of experience in that regard in connection with rural improvement schemes. This contrary fellow is the man who knows the job should be done and yet, because the work will benefit his neighbour, objects to its being carried out, the more so if he has to pay something towards the work himself; he may be asked to pay if his lands are going to be improved. We know there are people who do not care whether or not the land is improved; they are only too anxious to be awkward and to hold up the work.

The second problem is connected with people who have land along the coast; they may be asked to pay while those further inland, who may benefit more, may go free. Sometimes the tide comes inland for a considerable distance up a river and, in doing so, may flood land further inland. The person living nearer the sea would have to pay, while the man living inland would not have to pay at all. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will have to have another look at this to ensure that everything will be done properly when this Bill becomes law.

There is a reference to a public inquiry. I am not quite clear what is intended. The section provides that, before making an order or confirming a scheme, the Minister for Finance may cause a public inquiry to be held. Does that mean that, if somebody objects, the whole matter can be held up pending an inquiry, despite any evidence produced to the Minister prior to the making of the Order? Someone out of cussedness may decide to delay the scheme. What exactly is the intention in Section 27?

In Meath, we have approximately seven miles of coastline and we have been losing land to the sea for a very long time. I have no idea how much land has disappeared over the centuries, but I do know that in the last 20 years the coast between Delvin Bridge and the Boyne at Mornington has suffered pretty severely. South of the River Nanny at Laytown a privately-owned house is threatened by every high tide. The owner has done everything possible to combat the situation, without any assistance from any outside body. He has put up railway sleepers, concrete posts and barrels of sand. He has succeeded in holding on to his home. His people have lived in this house for generations. According to the Griffith Valuation, his great-grandfather lived there in 1857; only the Lord knows how long his family occupied the house before 1857. Provision should be made for cases such as his. The onus should be on the local authority to do the work. It may be suggested that he should move elsewhere. The fact is he has no land. He has no property except the house he lives in and a little bit along the sea. Every assistance should be given to people like him to enable them to hold on to their homes.

It is only a matter of time before the Laytown water scheme is affected by erosion. This Bill cannot be put into operation too quickly to deal with the two problems I mention. From Laytown to Bettystown the sea is breaking down the walls erected by the local authority. Money spent on the things I have suggested would be money well spent.

The possibility is that a big number of schemes will be presented when this Bill becomes law. The Minister for Local Government said here today that, because some engineer is sick, all his schemes are held up until he recovers. Adequate technical staff must be supplied to enable works to be carried out as quickly as possible. Finance may cause another headache. It will have a big bearing. There is the possibility that the Department will be inundated with applications from interested local authorities and the result might well be that the excuse would be made of a temporary shortage of money. Adequate financial provision must be made to ensure no worthwhile scheme is held up. The fact that local authorities will be doing the work will mean pressure from a large number of applicants. Adequate staff and adequate provision will be the answer to that.

Whether or not something further than the protection of existing fore-shores is envisaged, I do not know, but if the people responsible for it would have a look at the way problems are tackled in Holland, they would see that the people there have the right idea. There they are interested not alone in protection from the sea but in the reclamation of land on which crops can be grown within a year or so and on which towns and cities can be built in an area below sea level. Of course, we have not got the same situation here but I cannot see any reason why land now covered during high tide should not be protected and made available for cropping, grazing and for building and other industrial purposes.

The point made by Deputy Brennan about the cost of such projects is a very important one. Definite arrangements should be made to ensure that at the end of any job, somebody in the Parliamentary Secretary's Office will not come across with the story that although the estimate at the start was so much, the local authority must bear a very heavy cost because of extra expenditure on material and labour in the interval. The re-wording of the particular section might remedy that problem which certainly deserves careful consideration. We welcome the Bill and hope the Parliamentary Secretary will get it through and have it in operation very quickly.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

Representing a maritime constituency, I naturally welcome this Bill. The only thing about it is that one cannot help asking why the previous Bill, introduced in 1956, could not have been continued by the Government instead of waiting for seven years to introduce a further Bill. Of course, the Parliamentary Secretary is not responsible for that, since he was not in office throughout that period, but I feel he will accept the assertion that the question of erosion is something that is troubling many constituencies. I must confess I am somewhat disappointed because I thought we would have something more revolutionary in this Bill.

This Bill is probably the result of Deputies, both in Opposition and on the Government side, from time to time tabling questions on particular difficulties in their constituencies and it must have been quite obvious to the Government and to others concerned in the introduction of the Bill that there are cases of emergency in this country. I cannot see anything in the Bill that will deal with an emergency, if it suddenly arises. In case the Parliamentary Secretary doubts what I am saying, I would draw his attention to the portion of his opening speech in which he refers to three places—Rosslare Strand, where there is serious erosion and has been over the years, Wicklow and Bray.

There is, however, another place in my constituency which is in a state of complete emergency at the moment, so much so that it was the subject of an article in an Irish newspaper, either the Sunday Independent or the Evening Herald, some time back, that is Cahore, a small village in Wexford which is very seriously threatened by the inroads of the sea. So badly was it threatened that the bank protecting the road that runs along the coast was breached and had the sea gone two or three yards further, it would have gone over the road and into a huge catchment area beyond it, destroying a large drainage scheme being carried out by the county council. I fail to see what earthly use a Bill of this type is in an emergency such as that. Such cases may not arise in all areas, but emergencies do arise and this Bill makes no attempt to provide for them. I therefore suggest that during the consideration of this Bill the Parliamentary Secretary should introduce a section under which it would be possible to deal with emergencies caused by erosion.

That brings me to the question of what the Parliamentary Secretary considers will be the estimated delays in the implementation of schemes. The procedure laid down for the administering of this Bill is admittedly very much the same as that in the previous Bill. First of all, application is made by the local authority and that application must be transmitted to the Commissioners of Public Works. That in itself is a good thing because while it places responsibility on the local authorities concerned to do something, it also imposes responsibility on the Commissioners of Public Works.

The local authority submit their bill to the Commissioners of Public Works but does the Parliamentary Secretary consider he has adequate staff in his Office to deal with the many applications that will pour in? People have been been waiting since 1921—indeed many have been waiting for legislation of this type since the British days —for legislation to deal with erosion of which there must be many cases in many parts of the country with which the Board of Works may not be conversant. All these applications will pour in on the Parliamentary Secretary's Department, and I must say I have the deepest sympathy for the Board of Works. They appear to have inadequate technical staff, engineering staff, maritime staff, to deal with the many problems they will find themselves faced with. Applications from probably every maritime area in Ireland will pour in for benefits under this Bill and my main worry is that the Parliamentary Secretary may not have adequate staff to deal with them. Will he have staff with the particular skills necessary to send out to examine all these schemes?

It is quite safe to assume that there will be at least a dozen applications in the very near future. That is a very conservative estimate. Has the Parliamentary Secretary got a dozen different experts whom he can send out to deal with the problems as they come in, or will it be a question of one application being dealt with at a time and the others being compelled to wait? If such is the case in so far as Cahore is concerned, the people there stand in grave danger of losing that huge catchment area to the sea. If that happens, they will lose thousands of pounds' worth of land and property.

It is easy to introduce legislation: this Government are particularly good in this Dáil and in the previous Dáil at introducing legislation wholesale. You can always introduce legislation but you must be absolutely certain you can implement it. I should very much like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us if the necessary staff are available and if they possess the necessary experience to deal with the particular problems they will have to face. I should also like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell the House if, in the drafting and framing of this Bill, he has taken expert advice from other countries.

Deputy Tully cited the case of Holland. However, the problems of Holland are somewhat different from those with which we are faced here. This Bill deals with coast protection and erosion. Holland has a terribly difficult problem in that her dykes are being continuously breached and she has had to spend millions of pounds on them. There the problems arise because portion of their land is below the sea. As I have said, this Bill is designed for coast protection. A country which has up-to-date knowledge of coast protection, having made a thorough study of it, and which has spent large sums of money and achieved considerable success is the United States of America. I wonder if the officials concerned and the advisers to the Parliamentary Secretary have sought advice from them so that in presenting this Bill, they would have some cut and dried plan to deal with the situation.

I am glad to see that maintenance is to be a matter for the Board of Works, although Deputy Tully does not seem to agree with that. It is not so much a matter of the cost but if the central Government are carrying out any particular scheme, if the Department of Finance is responsible for its maintenance, then they will ensure that the scheme will be as effective as possible so that its maintenance will cost as little as possible. If schemes are carried out by the Board of Works and if they are not responsible for their maintenance, there is the possibility that they may not ensure that the conditions which existed before the scheme was carried out will not recur. For that reason, I think it is better that the central Government should be responsible for the maintenance of all these schemes. Then they will ensure that they are effective, durable and lasting.

It is the drifting sands that are responsible for all this erosion and for that reason, I would suggest that the Board of Works should consult with the Department of Lands to ensure that the requisite planting is done to make certain that there is no recurrance of erosion. There are several types of long, hardy grasses which can be sown so as to bind the sands together in a network which would be much more effective than the putting down of large blocks of concrete. In that regard, the closest and most up-to-date consultation should take place between the two Departments. If the Parliamentary Secretary has any general plan in mind, he should tell the House what it is when he is replying.

Mr. O'Malley

Each scheme would have to be dealt with on its merits. It would be impossible to have an overall plan. There will be different problems in different locations.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I fully accept what the Parliamentary Secretary says but some attempt must be made to see that these schemes are durable. There is no use in doing a scheme, creating a lot of sand and having the whole lot washed away in the next gale. We want to ensure that we will pass legislation which will be beneficial for future generations.

There is another matter in the Bill which puzzles me. It says that the promoting authority, which is the county council, promulgates the scheme and the Board of Works carries out the survey. When the Commissioners of Public Works have done that, they may report back to the local authority. In the event of their reporting that the scheme is feasible, the local authority may decide not to go on with it or may decide to go on with it, as the case may be. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to clarify that position. I do not see the point in the local authority asking the Commissioners of Public Works to carry out a survey, the Commissioners carrying out the survey and saying it is a feasible scheme and then its not being mandatory on the local authority to go ahead with the work.

Mr. O'Malley

It is a let-out clause for the local authority. It may be that the Commissioners of Public Works would report that the scheme was feasible and would cost £400,000. The members of the local authority would calculate that their contribution, which would be 20 per cent., would be £80,000. They might be quite appalled at that figure. When they sent the scheme up for consideration, they wanted to know what the final situation would be and there might be many members of the authority who, when they knew the cost, would not be prepared to go further.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

The Bill says that the Department of Finance "may"—not shall—"provide 20 per cent. of the cost." In that case, it may well be that the boot is on the other foot, that the local authority might find that the central Government were not as generous and that they would give only such and such a percentage. There is nothing in this Bill which says that 80 per cent. shall be paid.

Mr. O'Malley

That is the usual phraseology in all these Bills.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

It would be quite easy to say "shall." The word "shall" is very often used in these Bills. "May" is one of these abstruse words which may mean anything. It is seven years since the former Government tried to put a Bill such as this before the House. We fell on it, partly because of the promises contained in the electoral addresses of my friends opposite, and the Bill was allowed to lapse.

Mr. Corry

It was "may" in that Bill also.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

Was there any reason why the Government should have let that Bill lapse? That was seven years ago and erosion is still going on.

Mr. O'Malley

The Exchequer was eroded by our predecessors.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

It is seven years since the former Government produced a coast protection Bill in this House and Fianna Fáil have done nothing about it since then. I would not put the matter so forcibly, were it not that Deputy Corry interrupted me. It is a hard fact that it is seven years since this Bill was first produced here and the Government have done nothing about it since. Why had we to wait seven years? I am not speaking as a member of the inter-Party Government; I was only an ordinary Deputy supporting that Government then. I am speaking as a Wexford Deputy. We waited seven years for a coast erosion Bill——

Mr. O'Malley

With one proviso, if the Deputy will allow me. The Deputy should be a little more generous. When he says that they waited seven years, he should bear in mind the very generous subventions from the Exchequer to his constituency in that period made by the present Minister for Finance.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

Yes, because representations were made to him by myself and other Deputies in the county that if he did not do something about Rosslare strand, it would be washed away. One of the reasons for the introduction of the 1956 Bill was that I pressed for it here in the Dáil as a Wexford Deputy because Rosslare strand was in danger. If Fianna Fáil feel they can make any capital out of the latest intervention of the Parliamentary Secretary, I hand it to them.

Does this Bill cover the protection of railways also? I think this was mentioned by Deputy Brennan of Wicklow but I have a particular interest in this question, as have the people I represent. In my part of the country in the recent storms, considerable damage was done to our railway. In fact, it was washed away—which comes under the heading of erosion—along by the coast nearly every day over a period of a week or ten days and was hurriedly repaired. It is quite obvious that a very dangerous situation exists in which the railway may be permanently and completely destroyed there. The reconstruction is only a temporary job and a train may only go over it very slowly. I should like to know if this Bill would cover that situation.

That brings me to the question of emergency. If a situation disimproves, if the weather disimproves—that is hardly possible in the light of what we have had—and the gales continue as they are, there is emergency work to be done at present there. Have we to wait and risk the railway being swept away, an important railway such as this which is vital not only to the people of this country but also to the tourist organisation? Would the Minister embody in this Bill—with Deputy Corry's permission—a provision whereby immediate action can be taken to deal with such problems? Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would clarify the matter but I cannot see any of these schemes taking less than at least six months to get going. Knowing the inadequacy of the staff in the Board of Works and that they continually have a backlog of work, I want to say publicly that my sympathies are with them. They have been given inadequate staff to deal with the many problems that confront them, particularly technical staff. As the position is, we would expect all these schemes to take a prolonged period.

Otherwise, I am glad to welcome the Bill although I have one or two reservations. One of these is the escape clause for the local authority. Is the promotion of a scheme the function of the elected representatives or——

Mr. O'Malley

Yes, it is.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

It is a matter for the county council?

Mr. O'Malley

It is a reserved function.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I am glad of that because in much of the legislation introduced here we are handing over more and more to the State officials and depriving the elected representatives of their rights. I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on having that provision in the Bill, although I do not agree with everything else in it.

Mr. Corry

I suppose whatever criticism is to be made of this Bill, we had it from Deputy Esmonde but I should like to put a few questions to whomsoever will follow him on that side. The Bill of 1956 was being discussed on Committee Stage and surely it would have taken only another couple of weeks to have it put through. Why did the Government clear out of office without finishing the job? What pressure was on them to leave? They had been in office only a little over three years. Why did they leave without finishing this most important job, according to Deputy Esmonde? I should like somebody in Fine Gael to tell us about that. I can assure Deputy Esmonde that it took nearly the seven years he speaks of to repair the financial damage done to this country by the three-and-half years of messing around of Deputy Esmonde's Government.

Mr. Coogan

And Singer.

Mr. Corry

It took the seven years to build the country up again to the position in which we are able to go ahead with the Coast Protection Bill. As I had to state last week, the inter-Party Government cleared out leaving the country in such a position that the local bodies could not get hundreds of thousands of pounds——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I cannot see how that can be discussed on this Bill.

Mr. Corry

I am discussing why we had to wait seven years for the introduction of this Bill and I am giving the reasons. I am endeavouring to answer Deputy Esmonde. That was the position. The unfortunate civil servants, and even Deputy Esmonde himself, were wondering, when the 30th of the month came, whether the cheques they got would be honoured. The Government cleared out at that stage with the Committee Stage of the Coast Erosion Bill before the House and they could not take time to finish it because there was no money.

I welcome this Bill and anyone who had the experience I have had for the past few years of travelling today to the Board of Works, tomorrow to the Land Commission and the following day to the Department of Local Government and having them refusing responsibility for my worries and troubles, will realise that somebody had to fill the gap. I am very glad the Parliamentary Secretary is filling the gap in this case.

It is a very big problem. This is more than a coast protection Bill. There is a very great problem in respect of embankments which the Land Commission are bound to maintain but for which you find when you inquire they have neither the necessary machinery nor the finance. That was the condition of affairs in my constituency where land was purchased from a landlord and the sum of money set aside for the maintenance of embankments was such that if you offered the whole amount to one man for a week's work today, he would almost kick you out or at least he would go on strike.

I am glad Deputy Esmonde realises there is a difference also in this Bill. The financial part of the 1956 Bill set out that if a scheme was not proceeded with, the full cost had to be paid by the local authority. In this Bill, that has gone down to 50 per cent. That is one of the changes, and a rather welcome change from the point of view of the ratepayers. Another change is that instead of stating that the State may contribute 50 per cent. to the scheme, in this Bill it is stated that the State may contribute 80 per cent. I am sure if we amend the word "may" and make it "shall" on Committee Stage, it will be a help to all. I am glad Deputy Esmonde drew my attention to that point. We will make it "shall" instead of "may".

Mr. O'Malley

I may accept the amendment.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

You shall.

Mr. Corry

I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will. I am sure he will. When I speak of coast protection, I visualise what has happened in my constituency from Ballymacoda to Youghal and around from Garryvoe to Ballycotton where unfortunate landholders are paying annuities on land that has been buried under the sea for 20 years. Surely they are entitled to some protection even at this late stage. There is a beautiful strand in Garryvoe and attempts costing thousands of pounds have been made to protect it but all the work was wiped out in one storm. The tide came in in Dunkettle and followed its old course right to Little Island and down to Glounthane. The total area of land covered by the tide was some 350 acres. That land carried a poor law valuation of 35/- an acre. The county council stepped in and relieved those people of rates on the flooded land and in doing so they dropped £1,800 in rates. That money would go far to meet the 20 per cent. cost of this scheme.

In the village of Glounthane, there are two national schools, the parish priest's house, a pub and about 25 houses. If other people knew of the terror in that village this time 12 months ago when the people had to clear out in the middle of the night because of the tidal waves, they would realise the absolute necessity for some protection against that type of thing happening again.

If we succeed in this scheme, we will save the 350 acres that are flooded periodically and we may also succeed in reclaiming from the sea some 800 acres. In my opinion at any rate as a layman — although I did get some engineers to see it—the job will not cost a large amount of money because of the fact that the Land Commission have had to come down every couple of years to repair bridges and so on. There is one farmer in Little Island— he is the chairman of Macra na Feirme in the county—and the tide wiped out 45 acres of land on which he had spent £4,000 odd on reclamation and bringing the land up to a proper state of fertility in the previous three years. That was wiped out in one night and the flood remained at his door for nearly eight months before the Land Commission were able to give some protection against the tide coming in again. In those conditions, I certainly welcome anything that can be done in a Bill such as this. There are some matters which could be dealt with by way of amendment here to make the Bill as perfect as possible before it leaves the House.

Coming to the urban areas, the Parliamentary Secretary had the advantage of seeing the condition of affairs there when he was in Youghal opening the bridge. He could see the results of the erosion and tidal waves. As a matter of fact, in one place the strand has gone and there is nothing left but the sods of turf which were there 300 or 400 years ago. During the emergency, we might have chanced cutting and drying them to see if they would burn, but I do not think they would because of the salt. However, the strand has gone and unless some protection is given immediately, the finest seaside resort in Cork county will be wiped out. A few months ago, we had the job of endeavouring to keep the railway there so that the people could get down there from the city on Sundays. Immediate steps must be taken to protect that strand. There is the advantage that the county council have already prepared a scheme and I am sure they will heartily welcome the 80 per cent. grant that will be given towards it. Those are the difficulties we have to surmount and those are the reasons why I heartily welcome the Bill. I am sorry that we were not able to bring it in earlier but I have given the reasons as to why that was impossible. I have not got that poor opinion of the brains and skill turned out by our universities that Deputy Esmonde seems to have. In my opinion, our universities turn out engineers whose abilities are greater than those of anybody you will get from Holland, America or anywhere else, to work out these schemes.

Debate adjourned.