Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Feb 1963

Vol. 199 No. 10

Private Members' Business. - Coast Protection Bill, 1962—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Corry

When the debate was adjourned, I was dealing with the statements made by Deputy Esmonde on the necessity for getting foreign engineers to assist in this matter. I had pointed out that, in my opinion, the engineering skill and ability of our own people are second to none. Deputy Esmonde remarked also on the durability of the job to be done. It is a pity he would not take a trip down to Minane in County Cork where the late Seán Moylan, God rest his soul, through the Land Commission and the Board of Works did a perfect job. He succeeded in saving there some 350 acres of land for a sum of, I think, between £16,000 and £18,000. In the opinion of our engineering experts in Cork, this is a job that will hold for the next 100 years. It is a credit to both the Land Commission and the Board of Works engineers who took charge of it and carried it out.

I wonder whether the 20 per cent required from the local authority can be raised by way of loan. Provision should be made for that, remembering what the position of ratepayers is throughout the country at the moment. Our rates in Cork will be up by more than 4/- in the £ in the coming year. There would be a reluctance on the part of ratepayers' representatives to go very far under this measure unless we can get some help.

Consideration should also be had to the necessity for preparation for the Common Market. If the agricultural community are to prepare for the Common Market, then they should be allowed into it with as good an opportunity as their competitors in Britain and Northern Ireland who pay no rates on agricultural land.

Deputy Esmonde raised this question of "may" and "shall". I suggest we got the first instalment towards the Common Market in the rates last year. Now the sliding reduction of tariffs is to continue. I think we are also entitled in equity to a sliding scale directed towards wiping out all rates on agricultural land.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary has no responsibility for the derating of agricultural land.

Mr. Corry

He is looking for a 20 per cent. contribution from the local authority. I am suggesting to him that, in view of the sliding reduction in tariffs, this would be a good time to have a sliding reduction in rates on agricultural land. I admit the Bill is pretty generous. After all, in 1956, they gave us only 50 per cent of the cost of the job. This requires us to contribute only 20 per cent of the cost. That is fairly decent assistance from the central authority. Other differences in this Bill have already been enumerated. Smaller schemes will be executed by the Commissioners; under the 1956 Act, smaller schemes had to be executed by the local authority. The Commissioners will be responsible for upkeep. That may make them do a better job initially to prevent the danger of their being hauled over the coals later. Having seen the work of our engineers in the Minane bridge scheme, I have no doubt they will be able for any scheme or any problem that comes up.

I should like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on introducing this Bill. It is badly needed. I saw the terror within a few miles of my own house within the past 12 months and everybody is anxious that we should have an opportunity of removing that terror. There is a good deal of noise about ratepayers but I should like to point out that in one area alone—the Little Island-Glounthane-Dunkettle area — the county council lost around £1,500 last year because landowners, whose lands were flooded for over five or six months, had to be relieved of rates.

In Little Island, one man spent £3,000 reclaiming land and putting it into tiptop pasture; that was all wiped out in one night. He has to start all over again now, and he does not know the morning he will wake up and find the tide once more washing over his doorstep. That land is some of the highest valued land in the county, carrying a PLV of 35/- per statute acre. Such land is well worth reclaiming. I am sure this will be one of the first schemes put before the Office of Public Works. I remember a long time ago when the late Mr. Hugo Flinn, God rest his soul, was Parliamentary Secretary in charge of the Office of Public Works, a scheme for that area was partially examined. That is a long time ago. In view of the engineering skills we have now, there should be little difficulty in removing the terror that lies over the countryside there.

Mr. Coogan

I rise to welcome the Bill and, in doing so, I wish to congratulate Deputy Esmonde for the part he has played over the years in keeping up the pressure on the Minister. Deputy Esmonde comes from the same constituency as the Minister for Finance and there has been a problem there for years, and I feel the Minister has been prompted by this pressure to introduce this Bill. For that reason, Deputy Esmonde is to be congratulated. The Minister also probably knows there is the possibility he could be washed out of this House on a tide of public protest if he does not face up to this problem that confronts his own county in a particular way.

I am not interested in that county but I hope this Bill will not have its beginning and its ending in Wexford. From the point of view of protection from the danger to valuable property through coast erosion, I welcome this Bill. We in Galway have felt a great need for such protection during the recent storms. Grattan Road was particularly badly hit and were it not for the grace of God, many lives would have been lost. As it was, there was considerable damage to property by the sea. The Parliamentary Secretary should know the area of which I speak. There is continued pressure on the Galway Corporation to prevent future damage and the matter has now been referred to the county council who are beginning to realise how big a problem it is. They are very anxious that the Board of Works should take an interest in it.

I hope and pray this Bill will meet the particular situation I have mentioned. In passing, I would refer the Parliamentary Secretary to an area which is not in my constituency but in which I have an interest because of what I have seen. I am speaking of Tawin in Oranmore, where one can see over and over again the work of a year's farming operations gone for nothing, swept into Galway Bay. These farmers have to pay rates and taxes, irrespective of the results of their year's operations, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell me that they will be eligible for assistance under this Bill for the protection of their property.

I think the percentage of grant provided for, 80 per cent of estimated cost, is laudable but I think there should be some elasticity in the upper direction in cases where major schemes are necessary. My point here is that where big protection schemes are carried out local ratepayers should not be saddled with a bigger bill than they can afford to pay. This would, of course, apply only in cases of catastrophe but the remedy should not create another catastrophe for the ratepayers who might not be able to bear the 20 per cent balance of a major scheme, which is all the Bill provides for. I would urge on the Parliamentary Secretary to allow up to 90 per cent of the cost in certain such cases.

I do not think I should let the occasion pass without paying a tribute to the staff of the Board of Works. It is with pride that we in Galway can look at the work they have done on the Corrib scheme. We also take pride in the fact that this excellent work was carried out under the most arduous conditions.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That scheme would not arise for discussion under this Bill.

Mr. Coogan

I was but trying to illustrate the confidence we have in the personnel of the Board of Works and to say that they would be able to measure up to any task they may be faced with, however difficult it may be. I should not like to let the occasion pass without paying that tribute to those who have proved themselves in the past.

Mr. Faulkner

With the other Deputies who have spoken, I should like to welcome this Bill, particularly its provision of higher grants as compared with the previous Bill, because I feel these increased grants will ensure the success of the whole project. When one considers the high cost of the work in connection with coast protection, I think it becomes pretty obvious that if the Parliamentary Secretary were to give only 50 per cent of the total cost no use would be made of the legislation by county councils. This is more or less borne out by what has been stated by Deputy Coogan when he said even an 80 per cent grant might not be sufficient. If we were to give only 50 per cent, the whole legislation would be ineffective.

This problem of coast erosion is one which has required attention for a long time, but because of the immensity of the problem, it took considerable courage to bring a Bill of this type before the House. Therefore, I should like to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary for having had the courage to bring it in. There is hardly a section of our coastline not affected and this applies to the east as well as to the south, west and north. People have a tendency to look on the coast in my constituency as not being affected.

Efforts have been made over the years to tackle this problem but the efforts were sporadic, without cohesion and therefore ineffective. Now the matter is being dealt with in a comprehensive way and while it would be wrong to expect miracles or to think the problem will be overcome in a very short time, nevertheless it gives considerable hope to the people affected by coast erosion. If we were only to judge by the number of questions tabled here over the years and the flood of representations which the Parliamentary Secretary receives on this matter, we can see the problem is a very big one and that it will be a very difficult one to deal with. In my constituency, there are numerous cases in need of urgent attention.

I made representations on a number of occasions but because there was not any legislation whereby money could be provided for this type of work, I did not succeed. I am hopeful now these matters can be handled under the legislation before the House. I agree with Deputy Brennan that coast erosion is going on all the time. What I find is that people become seriously perturbed only when property is in danger, when they fear that the erosion is beginning to endanger their houses and other property. There is no doubt it is going on all the time along the coast in my constituency and people are losing a lot of good arable land. Because of the excellence of the land in Co. Louth any loss in that respect in that area is a serious one.

There is a case in point in which I had to make representations some time ago with regard to coast erosion outside Castlebellingham. In that particular area, the gardens of a number of houses were being rapidly cut away and the people became very anxious about their houses. It is clear from that that there is a considerable amount of good land being taken away by the sea. If that had happened in some other place where the houses were not in danger, it might have gone unnoticed until considerable damage had been done. In this case, the Board of Works had no authority to do anything about it and the county council did some work on it. I should like to have it looked into again under this Bill.

There is also difficulty in the districts of Baltray and Blackrock in my constituency. There are sea walls there which are in bad condition and in Blackrock, the wall has subsided to some extent. In Baltray, improvements have been made recently by the local people but there again the sea is doing considerable damage and endangering property. I do not know if this particular question comes under this Bill, but in Drogheda a number of the streets are regularly flooded by the Boyne and the unfortunate people there have become so used to being flooded out that they are beginning to take it as part of their way of life. I wonder if anything can be done to help them under this Bill? Another matter which I would like to bring under the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary is the case of the Castletown river.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is aware that this Bill deals only with coast erosion.

Mr. Faulkner

This river is affected by tidal flooding.

Mr. A. Barry

The Bill does not deal with flooding.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Other Deputies have been ruled out of order on that point. The Bill does not deal with flooding per se.

Mr. Faulkner

What I am concerned with is the breaching of embankments on the Castletown river by tidal flooding.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Bill deals with coasts damaged by erosion and I do not think the point raised by the Deputy would relevantly arise on the Bill.

Mr. Faulkner

At least I have put the matter before the Parliamentary Secretary for his consideration. The manner in which the whole question of coast protection can be dealt with is clearly laid down in the Bill. It was suggested by a Fine Gael Deputy that the procedure is cumbersome but I feel that the work can be done more quickly under the Bill than if the plans were entirely a matter for the Commissioners. If we had not the promoting authority preparing the plan in the first instance and then bringing it to the Commissioners, there would be no other method of dealing with the matter except that the Commissioners would draw up the first plan themselves. As has been said by a number of speakers, there will be a flood of applications from various counties and if the Commissioners were responsible for planning in each county, it would be a long time before any scheme would be carried out.

I think the system laid down in this Bill is a very good one in so far as it gives the local council the opportunity of putting their own staffs to work on this problem and it gives them the opportunity of deciding as to whether they will continue with the project if they feel the cost is reasonable or to reject it if they feel the cost is too high. For these reasons the procedure outlined in the Bill is as good as can be got. The councils can investigate proposals for coast protection in their own areas. These investigations should not take very long. For many years: members of councils have been dealing with this matter of coast protection as it affected their areas and asking that something should be done. All that is necessary now is to resurrect these proposals, decide on their merit and an order of priority, and put them before the Commissioners.

I should like to know if it is intended that a promoting body must first make a total survey of its area, decide on the order of the projects and then place them in that order before the Commissioners or if they can begin by selecting a particular project and put that one before the Commissioners for consideration.

Mr. O'Malley

Yes.

Mr. Faulkner

I am also glad to note that the making of a declaration is a reserved function. I feel that the layman's point of view is very important in cases such as this. The engineers can draw up a technical plan but quite often that plan can be improved by indivdual members of councils. I also like the scheme because it gives more power to the elected representatives. The trend to do that has been noticeable not only in this Bill but also in the Bill brought in recently by the Minister for Local Government.

We all recognise that local government has become so complex over the last number of years that it is necessary that the right to make decisions must in many instances be placed in the hands of certain people but it is a good trend to see that elected members of local bodies have the right to say that they will or will not go ahead with a particular project. According to the Bill, the Commissioners will determine, on the completion of a preliminary examination, whether a scheme should go on. Here I should like to know on what grounds such a decision will be based. For example, will the size of the scheme have anything to do with the decision? Will a small scheme be decided against just because it is small? These small schemes could be of vital importance to the individuals concerned.

I am glad to note that the Bill goes a long way to protect the rights of individuals. Every opportunity is given to anybody affected to note the proposals and he is given full knowledge of what is planned before the scheme is finally accepted. Where the Commissioners decide to go ahead with the scheme and the promoting authorites are agreeable the Commissioners will give an estimate of the cost. It is stated in the Bill that during the course of the work the Commissioners may, where they deem it necessary, make changes in the scheme. Obviously, this will alter the cost and I wonder whether it would be possible to give a fairly close estimate of the cost when the local authority decide to proceed?

I am glad to see provision made for maintenance of the works by the Commissioners. If that provision were not in the Bill money spent on the schemes would in general, in this type of work, be useless. I am glad that is not to be the case. I want to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary on the Bill and I am very hopeful that it will do good work in coast protection generally and particularly in my own constituency.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

I welcome this Bill which is long overdue. A Bill with very little difference was introduced here in 1956 and we are now in 1963, having waited seven years for this Bill which was actually printed before we, in the previous Government, went out of office. But better late than never; this is a step in the right direction. I trust the Bill will benefit my own county, a maritime county bordering the Atlantic, a county which suffers considerably from flooding. The Gortahork area and the area around the island of Arranmore and many other parts of the county, particularly west Donegal, should benefit under this Bill.

My first objection to the Bill is that it is completely wrapped up in red tape. The Parliamentary Secretary is a man for whom I have nothing but the greatest respect. When he assumed the office which he now has the honour to hold, I said: "Thank God, it is somebody who will cut through red tape." But somehow he has got it tangled around his legs again and it strangles and stultifies the benefits which should flow from this Bill.

However, I welcome the fact that the promotion of these schemes is a reserved function and not an executive one. I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on that. Schemes must be initiated by the members of a local authority as distinct from the county manager. But what happens, if we find in West Donegal or West Kerry that we have coast erosion? The local councillor is called in and he makes a preliminary examination. He asks the local authority to promote a scheme to prevent erosion. They send out their engineers to make a preliminary examination. One can imagine how long this will take. The engineers report back to the authority saying: "Yes, there is flooding there and a feasible scheme can be promoted." In other words, they are satisfied that the land in the area is being progressively damaged by the continued encroachment of the sea and that the encroachment is likely to endanger valuable property. The local authority discuss the report and say: "Here is a scheme that could be promoted." They report to the Commissioners of Public Works. I have great respect for the Commissioners and for their officials. They are kicked about this House and around the country but all they are is a plug in the gap between the Department of Finance and any promoting authority and whenever the Department want to hold up the flow of money, they say to the Commissioners: "See that they dot the i's and cross the t's of any scheme they promote and hold it up as long as you can." Neither the officials nor the Parliamentary Secretary can be blamed for that. The root of that trouble is the Department of Finance.

However, the Commissioners receive this preliminary report from the local authority. One would think that once the local authority have sent out engineers to examine the area, that should be satisfactory to anybody, but no, they report to the Commissioners. What do the Commissioners do? They report to the Minister for Finance who looks at the preliminary report and then says to the local authority: "The next thing you must do is notify all interested parties, put notices in the newspapers, publish notices in the area and hear objectors and those in favour of the scheme." Having done that, the local authority again report to the Commissioners. What may the Commissioners do? They may refer the matter back to the local authority and may say: "We do not think you should go ahead with this scheme and that you should drop it. If you agree to drop it you must pay half the cost up-to-date." If the scheme is a big one, I would guarantee that the Commissioners will recommend it should be dropped like a hot brick. If it is a small one, particularly coming up to an election, you will be told go ahead as fast as possible and knowing the Board of Works—somebody described it as the Board of Jerks, and knowing the way it works through no fault of itself or the officials, there is a lot to be said for that nickname—that may take time.

The scheme comes back to the Minister then and he may refuse to sanction it. Or, having considered it carefully and having looked at what is in the "kitty" he may say: "Let us go ahead." Here we have spent valuable months and, mark you, time and tide wait for no man. The tide will not await its inroads on the land for the decision of the Commissioners of Public Works or the Minister.

The Minister may refuse to sanction the scheme and that ends it, but then the local authority is responsible for half the cost up to that. Suppose the Minister decides to go ahead and says: "We will give you a grant." He says to them: "Will you undertake to pay 20 per cent of the cost and we will pay 80 per cent, but you must further undertake to pay the full maintenance of the scheme hereafter, in perpetuity?" I reckon from my experience that from the day the member of the local council is called in for the purpose of examining some place where coast erosion is taking place until the day when the plug is put in the gap and the sea prevented from coming in, will be at least two or three years.

If the Minister said to the local authority: "Promote a scheme. Tell us the full cost. Send it up to us. We will have our expert look at it in the office to see if your costs are right. If your costs are right, we will give 80 per cent of the costs and you can get on with the job", a lot of time would be saved. In that way, we would be doing something to prevent coast erosion, but, as I say, we are actually undoing the good work which the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary intend to do under this Bill by being bound up and would up in red tape.

My next objection to the Bill is that the local authority is being asked to pay 20 per cent of the cost and a full 100 per cent of the maintenance hereafter. I know the Parliamentary Secretary will hit me back and say: "Look, you introduced a Bill in 1956 and you wanted the local authority to pay 50 per cent of the cost." That is a very good answer, but I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to examine what the rates were in 1956 and compare them with the rates of today.

We had not felt the impact of the Health Act on the local rates in 1956. I heard the President of Ireland saying from this bench in 1956: "We have reached the limit of taxation at local authority level." Since then, the rates have gone up throughout the country by approximately 10/- in the £, and local authorities are seeking a further 10/- this year. In some counties, the rates will reach £3 in the £ and out of that £3, 20/- in the £ will go to the health services. We had not these extravagant rates in 1956 and it was reasonable then when a plug was needed for coast erosion, to ask the local authorities to pay 50 per cent of the cost, but it is unreasonable and unrealistic today with mounting rates and a falling numerical strength of ratepayers to ask them to contribute 20 per cent of the cost and undertake the maintenance of the schemes for all time.

When I first examined this Bill, I thought it was a great thing that it was a reserved function and not an executive function, but I can see counties where a councillor from a seaboard area is anxious to promote a scheme, but his colleagues from the hinterland of that county who have got to pay the piper and pay the costs will unfortunately oppose such a scheme because it will increase the rates. We will find that a number of schemes that should be promoted will not be promoted, and we will find that people will sink their political differences and what I may describe as inland councillors will outvote the representatives of the seaboard when it comes to imposing on the rates 20 per cent of the cost of promoting a coast erosion scheme. In other words, there is method in the madness of the Minister in making it a reserved function because if it were an executive function and the county manager thought it was a good scheme to promote, he would proceed with it, irrespective of what the impact might be on the rates. That is what has left the rates where they are today.

Mr. O'Malley

No. What about Section 4 of the City and County Management Act under which the elected representatives can force the manager to act as they wish?

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Of course, they can, and the same thing would happen here. The Parliamentary Secretary should remember that the Department of Local Government are now trying to cloak Section 4. They do not issue the pamphlets which were issued in my time explaining the functions which are conferred on the members of local authorities under Section 4.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot have a discussion on the City and County Management Act.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

I am always glad to have a discussion with the Parliamentary Secretary. It is always refreshing and interesting.

Mr. O'Malley

I often used Section 4.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Does the Parliamentary Secretary's successor use it?

Mr. O'Malley

No; it costs a lot of money.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Let us get back to the Coast Protection Bill.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

We will try to plug these holes now. As I said before, there is method in the madness of the Minister. He is ensuring that there will be a fight in the local authorities between the inland and the maritime councillors as to whether a scheme should be promoted. I can imagine what will happen in County Dublin if Deputy Burke, as the representative of Skerries, wishes to have a certain coast erosion scheme promoted. I can see councillors from other parts of the county who are not interested in the seaboard opposing a scheme because 20 per cent of the cost would go on the rates. Deputy Burke can say that the same thing will happen in my constituency and I agree. It will not be his political opponents who will oppose him; it will be a representative of the ratepayers from his Party who is not interested in the seaboard. Unfortunately, probably, whether we like it or not, they will be in the majority and we will find difficulty in carrying through these promotions. The Minister could help us by saying to the local authorities: "Promote a scheme and the Exchequer will pay 100 per cent of the grant."

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I think Deputy Burke is a maritime councillor.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

I know. I know also that Deputy Burke has the interests of the maritime area of County Dublin at heart. I know he will speak in this debate and if he does not intend to, I hope I will be able to prod him to speak and support me.

Mr. T. Lynch

I know by the signs that it would be well to prevent him.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

The Minister may say to me: "If we were to give 100 per cent grants, the local authorities would be sending them up by the dozen." Of course, they would, but the Minister would have power of veto. The Commissioners would have power of veto and they could refuse to sanction promotions, unless they were genuine and all the red herrings would be cut out.

I sincerely ask the Minister between now and Committee Stage to reconsider the section which makes it mandatory on local authorities to pay 20 per cent of the cost. If he wishes to throw some responsibility on the local authorities, he could make them pay five per cent. of the cost. After all, they will be employing their officials in the preliminary examination of the schemes. We will soon be dealing with the local authority estimates and I assure the Minister that anything he can do to stabilise the rates of the country will receive the blessing and thanks of the ratepayers.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I welcome this Bill.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

I knew he would speak.

Mr. T. Lynch

It was a certainty.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Over my past 19 years in public life, a lot of my constituency has been washed away, especially around Skerries——

Mr. T. Lynch

I can see Deputy Burke as King Canute with the waves washing over him.

Mr. P.J. Burke

——Donabate, Portrane Strand, Malahide and parts of the Portmarnock peninsula. This Bill is long overdue. We have made representations to the local authorities, the Board of Works and everyone concerned, to have something done about the severe coast erosion where it was affecting built-up areas. We tried over the years in every possible way to get grants. The pressure from the northern part of the constituency has been very strong over the years. There is property in the Skerries area which is in danger of toppling. The same applies in some portions of Rush and the Portrane north shore. But for the fact that a small job was carried out eight years ago by means of a grant from this House, a number of houses would have been washed away.

There is enshrined in the Bill the right of the local authority to make a decision. I appreciate that very much. When a reasonable case is put to the members of a local authority, they see the justice of the case even if the area in question is one in which they are not personally concerned. It is a very good feature of the Bill that the decision to carry out works should be a reserved function.

I should like to see much more power being left to local authorities. Public men will not do anything that is unjust. They have to face the verdict of the people at successive elections. If they have done anything unjust or dishonourable, the verdict will be given against them at the next succeeding election.

When the Bill is in operation, I hope the most urgent cases will be dealt with first. Priority should be given to North County Dublin. Otherwise, I might not have any constituency in the next few years and would have to go down to Waterford.

Mr. T. Lynch

That would be terrible.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Deputy Lynch would not like to see me going down there.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Deputy would be welcome.

Mr. P.J. Burke

The position is really bad in parts of North County Dublin. I do not want to hold up the House. The Bill can be dealt with in detail on Committee Stage. Members of the Opposition asked for 100 per cent grants from the State but the Parliamentary Secretary has improved the position considerably vis-à-vis the 1956 Bill, which provided for a 50 per cent grant from the State.; The 1956 Bill is one of the Bills that never went through, for some untold reason. We on this side of the House welcome the 80 per cent State grant and if we are left in office long enough and if the prosperity of the nation improves, some future Parliamentary Secretary— perhaps the present Parliamentary Secretary as Minister—will go the whole hog when times improve.

Mr. T. Lynch

The times are not as bad as all that.

Mr. P.J. Burke

They have improved so much that we are able to increase the grant by 30 per cent.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Deputy was caught.

Mr. P.J. Burke

We are able to give a 30 per cent. increase on the grant proposed by Deputy Lynch's Party during their period of office. I am concerned with the vital feature of the Bill. I welcome the Bill. I consider that it is a good Bill which will be beneficial to my constituency and to other coastal areas.

Mr. O'Connor

I certainly welcome this Bill as a step in the right direction, particularly as far as Kerry is concerned because there is a vast problem there with regard to coast erosion. I would, however, have preferred to see a much higher State contribution as Kerry County Council are facing a very difficult position because of the possibility of rates going over the £3 figure in this year. The raising of the necessary rates for large-scale coast protection work will be a very difficult matter. Where large-scale works are concerned at heavy cost, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider giving a 100 per cent grant.

I have in mind the carrying out of protection work in the Maharees in Kerry. There are 250 people living in that peninsula, if it can be so described. It is practically cut through at the inner neck, making practically islanders of the people who are winning a living out of the soil and the sea. There is the very valuable onion planting and onion industry there, based almost entirely on the Maharees, and these people deserve the maximum help possible from the State.

Many years ago, a coast wall was erected which has been completely washed away and the sea has encroached as much as 50 or 100 yards at various parts. In a severe storm last year, the road was cut in two places.

I am trying to make the point that the Kerry County Council cannot meet the contribution necessary to carry out the type of scheme that would protect the people there. I do not know what the actual cost would be but it would be somewhere in the region of £200,000 or more. The contribution demanded from Kerry County Council in that case would be beyond the capacity of the ratepayers to pay and certainly there would be great difficulty in getting the number of county councillors required to have the necessary rate struck by the county council.

I would suggest that in such cases the Parliamentary Secretary should consider making an arrangement to give a 100 per cent State grant or, at least, a 90 per cent State grant. Where large expenditure is required, the maximum State help should be given.

There are a number of other points in Kerry where coast protection is required but the Maharees and Castlegregory provide the worst examples of coast erosion in the country. In these cases, coast erosion affects the livelihood of the smallholders and other people in the area. There is every chance that the sea will eventually cut through the neck of the peninsula, which, at the narrowest point, is only about 100 yards wide. The storms last winter cut from the east side as well as from the west side, thus narrowing the neck.

The Bill before the House is certainly a good Bill inasmuch as it indicates that the State is accepting responsibility for doing something for the people affected by coast erosion. In my opinion, the State grant should be 100 per cent because unfortunately, it is the poorer counties that are affected by this problem, which is really a national problem. Certainly all of the western counties are affected and most of the counties on the east coast that are affected are not the wealthiest counties. Only a limited number of counties are affected. Since they are the poorest counties, the maximum effort should be made towards providing the maximum grant. It should not be below 90 per cent., and in cases where large expense has to be met, the grant should be 100 per cent.

This is a good Bill. Our task is to protect the small-holders along our coastline. Unfortunately, the position will be getting worse. Experts tell us the level of the sea has been raised by 11 inches. That is throwing a great weight of water on the breaches made over the years, tending to create greater havoc. If this Bill can help restrain the seas, it will certainly be one of the best Bills to go through this House. I know my constituents will welcome it, but I would urge the Parliamentary Secretary to endeavour to get the maximum State contribution for the poorer counties.

Mr. MacCarthy

This Bill will deal with problems which have caused a great deal of agitation over the years. The Parliamentary Secretary has set out the main points and principles, which, perhaps, can be discussed and improved on in Committee. At any rate, the Bill gives an idea of the great problem to be dealt with in winning back a lot of fertile land which has been submerged.

This problem is of long standing Where it arises from wide stretches of open bays, no doubt it will be costly; but in the case of narrow entrances— perhaps, what may be considered the primary stream—leading to the submersion of good land in the hinterland, that will be a comparatively easy problem to deal with. In my constituency, 200 or 400 acres of submerged land were brought into cultivation some years ago again when the late Seán Moylan—Beannacht Dé air—held the office the Parliamentary Secretary now holds. In that case, there was a contribution from the landowners, one from the county council and a large contribution from his Department. With the insertion of half a dozen sluice gates, up to 500 acres of land were saved from the tides.

The same may apply in other cases. There is no use specifying a number of them here, but at least some examples may be given. There is one, for example, at Ballinspittle, where the farmers have been looking for grants for some years past. Something was done 12 years ago and was successful at the time. But the years passed and no maintenance of any consequence was carried out. The position has deteriorated again so far that something must be done to remedy it.

At Garrettstown, the Old Head of Kinsale is liable to become an island before very long, if maintenance is not continued there. The tides come from both the east and the west. In times of great storm, the sea takes its toll of the land, making the gap narrower and narrower as the years go by. Earlier today Deputy P. Brennan talked about the railway saving portions of the east coast. In the case of Timoleague, the railway is no longer in existence. The same position held there. The Courtmacsherry branch of the West Cork railway went right along the shore. Now that railway is gone, but unless proper attention is given to the foreshore there, more land is liable to be submerged. In addition, the surrounds of Timoleague village itself will need attention.

These are problems, I presume, which must be brought to the Parliamentary Secretary individually for examination of their particular circumstances. I shall content myself, therefore, in welcoming this Bill, which, I am sure, along with the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary, will go a long way towards solving these problems.

Mr. O'Malley

At the outset, I should like to thank Deputies on both sides for the co-operative manner in which they have received this Bill. The main bone of contention, so to speak, has been the possible incidence of local taxation. As Deputy Lynch very wisely pointed out when replying for the Opposition to this measure, members of local authorities will have the decision as to whether or not a scheme will be considered. He also welcomed the fact that the Office of Public Works would give the council an accurate estimate of the cost and that the responsible members of the local authority could then decide whether it was not only in the national interest but in the interest of the county as a whole.

One of the most important things I would bring to the attention of Deputies is the interpretation under this Bill of coast erosion and actual storm damage. There is a vast difference between the two. Deputy Sweetman, when Minister for Finance, dealt with that difference in a very capable manner. As I have mentioned Deputy Sweetman, may I say that Deputy Sweetman, during the discussion today on the Order of Business —he did not speak on this measure at any point for reasons apparently best known to himself — referred to this Bill and described it as a rehash of his 1956 Bill. As has been pointed out— I do not want to labour the point— the fundamental difference between this measure and the 1956 Bill is the fact that the latter looked for a 50 per cent contribution from the local authority and this measure looks for only 20 per cent.

That is not really the point I want to make, but I want to correlate it with the criticism of this measure by Deputy P. O'Donnell. He referred to the inordinate amount of red tape and suggested that it would tangle round my legs; he suggested it has been put in by the Minister for Finance and his officials to ensure that the Bill will not work. Now, if this Bill is, as Deputy Sweetman has said, a rehash of the 1956 Bill, surely it is only logical that what is criticised now should equally have been criticised then. Deputy O'Donnell made a nice little speech. I am sure it will go down well in his constituency. He certainly covered the points which might be causing anxiety to the people in his area.

This being a reserved function, I am satisfied that, in the main, only schemes of a high economic merit will reach the Office of Public Works for further examination. It would be a waste of time to ask the Office of Public Works initally to make a report, and the main purpose in asking the local authority to make an initial report of a not too detailed nature is because local authorities, their engineers and officials, have the local knowledge and will not send a report, or a request, to the Office of Public Works if the proposal before them is feckless and not worthy of consideration.

I am surprised no Deputy has referred to one matter. Perhaps I should not be the devil's advocate, but one might as well face facts. What is worrying me is the exact meaning of the term "coast erosion". I am in process of discussing this with my advisers and it is essential that we should, on Committee Stage, make some attempt to put before the House a definition of coast erosion.

In a Scottish Act I have here in my hand, the coast is defined as "all the bays, the estuaries, the arms of the sea, and all tidal waters within three miles of the land." The definition in the British Coast Protection Act of 1949 lays it down that seashore means "the bed and the shore of the sea and of every channel, bay, or estuary, and of every river as far up that river as the tide flows, and any cliff, bank, barrier, dune, beach, flat or other land adjacent to the shore." The reason I mention this—I am being as straightforward as possible with the House—is to show that there is a difficulty. It is necessary that we should face that difficulty. It would not be fair to ask our Commissioners, or the Minister, to interpret or to define coast erosion. This is the place where that should be done, while the measure is being enacted. To the best of our ability, we should include a definition in the Bill. We should not evade the issue.

We shall have to find some realistic definition. The definition in the British Act says every river as far up that river as the tide flows. I can put my finger immediately on a particular case. Limerick is 60 miles from Loop Head at the mouth of the Shannon. Surely no one would suggest that, if the embankments are being progressively damaged 60 miles away from the mouth, this could be classified as coast erosion. Yet, the river is tidal up to two or three miles beyond Limerick city. I bring that to the attention of the House. I trust we shall be able to do something about this matter on Committee Stage. It is doubtful if a statutory definition is desirable, but we can consider the matter again.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Parliamentary Secretary could say so many miles from the open sea or so far into the estuary.

Mr. O'Malley

It would be most desirable to arrive at some kind of definition; otherwise, I can see trouble in the future. Deputy P. Brennan asked what the position would be if a scheme cost £100,000, the State paying 80 per cent of the cost and the promoting authority 20 per cent, and, through unforeseen circumstances, such as increases in wages and so on, the scheme finally cost £50,000 more: would the promoting authority have to bear that? That point is covered under Section 16. The operative words are the percentage which the Minister for Finance shall contribute out of the moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas, that is, the percentage of the cost of the scheme. If the scheme costs £50,000 more, it is obvious the Minister for Finance will have to pay his 80 per cent. of that. I think that point is adequately covered in that section.

It should be clear, too, that none of this will come from current revenue. It will be borrowed. We are not operating as they do in the American budgets, which are based on current revenue; that is why they have these fantastic deficits; borrowing or the service of public debt is not included. Deputy Corry raised this point. None of this is from current revenue. There will be access to the Local Loans Fund. The only authority that would require permission for borrowing under this Bill would be a harbour board.

Deputies Esmonde and P. O'Donnell asked what we have been doing since 1956 to prevent us from introducing this Bill. We were doing a lot, but the main point is that we were engaged in protection schemes in the interim. We carried out the £13,000 scheme in Wicklow in 1960-61 and we also tackled Rosslare. We estimate that the works there, when completed, will have cost a total of £120,000.

To give them their due, Wexford County Council have contributed over £30,000. They have been told that this contribution will be examined and levelled off in the proportion determined by this Bill and that matter will not be lost sight of. Since the 1956 Act lapsed, we tackled these problems at Wicklow and Rosslare, and we did some work at Bray as well. Another thing we must face up to is that someone may say to us that when this Bill becomes law, we may not have the staff necessary to put it into full operation. We may be asked in that case what is the point in this legislation, which further worsens the position, so to speak. That is a problem of which we are acutely aware. We think that with the increased output from the four universities, and the possibility of the return of some of our engineers from abroad, we should be able to deal adequately with most of the schemes that arise. There is also the possibility of our giving some of this work to the offices of consulting engineers, some of which have brilliant staffs too.

Some Deputies envisage the possibility of our being inundated with applications from all over the country. I do not think that is likely, because I feel sure that local authorities will scrutinise very carefully all schemes submitted to them since they will be forced to pay 50 per cent of the cost of any unfinished scheme. Deputy P. O'Donnell asked why the procedure should not be that the local authorities would send up estimates of schemes and that the Board of Works would simply check their costings. One can see immediately the difficulties such a system would give rise to.

On the question of maintenance, I should point out here that under the Arterial Drainage Act, all maintenance is carried out by the Board of Works. The same will apply under this Bill. I think that is a good thing—that the State, having expended a very large sum, by way of 80 per cent grant, towards the cost of a scheme, should recover the maintenance costs from the local authority concerned. We have been asked why the local authority themselves would not be permitted to do the maintenance. There are several reasons. One is that human nature being what it is—I was a member of a local authority myself —when members of a local authority would meet to strike a rate, they might be inclined to save 5d. or 6d. in the £ on such maintenance work. The result might very well be that maintenance would suffer and that a whole scheme would suffer because of insufficient or inadequate maintenance. From that point of view, the State has a duty to see that proper maintenance of such schemes is continued. They therefore bill the local authority, who have a statutory obligation to pay. What I have said in this respect should cover the point raised by Deputy Tully.

Deputy Coogan mentioned the damage done at Grattan Road in Galway. I do not think he should be too optimistic that the problem there will be solved under this Bill, because it will be obvious to anyone that it would be impossible to provide for the repair of all sorts of damage from storms, acts of God, all over the country. I do not think anybody could seriously suggest that damage done through a sudden storm should qualify for attention under this Bill.

Deputy Corry, who is Chairman of the Cork County Council, should realise that some of the schemes mentioned by him might well be considered as qualifying under Land Reclamation legislation, but I can assure him that if his suggestions come officially through the Cork County Council, they will be seriously considered, because, as the House will readily realise, as the area of that county council's jurisdiction extends to such places as Rathluirc, where the people would not have very much interest in tidal or coastal problems, it might not be easy for the Deputy to get the council to sponsor the proposals.

Another problem was raised here. There is provision in the Bill to meet the situation where two local authorities, one perhaps urban, would possibly be affected and where one would act as the promoting body for a scheme. Deputy Brennan mentioned the position of an urban council and I think Deputy Faulkner mentioned Dundalk and the refusal of one body to act as the promoting agent. That is a problem and we must consider the question of permitting urban areas to initiate coast protection schemes themselves in cases where county councils might not promote them on their behalf. Between now and Committee Stage, we shall consider what we can do in that respect.

Mr. T. Lynch

Could they strike a rate for themselves?

Mr. O'Malley

That is a possibility. I mentioned it to my people today, but if you had a substantial problem where damage was being caused to a lot of urban land running into hundreds of thousands of pounds, it would be impossible to ask these people to strike a rate for themselves.

Mr. T. Lynch

You could consider it between now and the Committee Stage.

Mr. O'Malley

Yes. The question of procedure was referred to time and again. These stages in the procedure are necessary and reasonable. I do not think Deputy P. O'Donnell was serious when he criticised what he had called the appalling amount of red tape and the number of stages. These are important matters and could prove very costly, if they were not examined thoroughly. The stages in the procedure are necessary to give the county councils a reasonable opportunity to decide whether they will commit themselves to what might be very heavy expenditure. The preliminary examinations by the county council engineers could not be relied upon to produce even an approximate estimate of the cost. The preliminary examination by the Office of Public Works will help to weed out unusually expensive schemes and some which might get in because of peculiar reasons.

Motions sometimes come from local authorities which might not come if there had been a full attendance of members at the meetings which recommended them. Members might not have turned up for one reason or another. Peculiar things happen and these peculiar proposals could come to us. The House knows what I have in mind. This proposal will prevent county councils from wasting money on schemes which are unlikely to come to fruition. When a county council have an opportunity to examine the preliminary report of the Office of Public Works, they can then decide whether to go on with the work and then they can prepare a scheme, subject to the consent of the Minister. That is the first approach to the Minister, and when the scheme is prepared, the Minister is consulted again and he then indicates the percentage of the State grant for the scheme.

Some Deputies made play on the wording of the Bill, "up to 80 per cent." That is the usual phraseology in these cases. It could happen that the local authority might not get the full 80 per cent. Suppose the Commissioners reported that it was doubtful if a certain scheme could be fully justified on economic grounds and, at the same time, there was great pressure from the local authority. The Minister could then say that if these people were so convinced that the scheme was fully justifiable, and he is not fully satisfied, then definitely only 60 per cent or 70 per cent of the cost would be given and if the local authority wanted to go on with it, they would have to borrow the remainder from the Local Loans Fund. That might make them think again. That is just an example of one of the occasions on which a smaller sum than the 80 per cent could be indicated by the Minister.

I am sure I have left out some of the points raised by speakers, such as Deputy O'Connor and Deputy MacCarthy. We have had representations from some of the areas mentioned by those Deputies, whether they anticipated this legislation or not. These areas are the Maharees in Kerry and the areas mentioned by Deputy MacCarthy.

In conclusion, I should like to say that if any Deputies have amendments which they think would be justified in the Bill, I can assure them that I will give them every consideration. If they are at all feasible or helpful in cutting out what Deputy O'Donnell alleged was red tape, we will examine them carefully and try to have them included.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 20th February, 1963.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.10 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 14th February, 1963.