asked the Minister for Lands why his Department are responsible for carrying out repairs and improvement works to the embankment protection at the holding next to that of a person (name supplied) and will not accept responsibility for repairing the breach in the protective wall in this holding; and whether he is aware that, if repairs are not carried out immediately, there is a danger that the holding, for which his Department accepted responsibility and on which they spent large sums of money in the past few years, will be flooded because of his Department's refusal to repair the adjoining wall.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Repair of Protection Wall.
118.
On the sale of the first-mentioned holding under the Land Act, 1903, it was established that the landlord was liable for the repair and maintenance of the seawall and sluices on the holding. Accordingly, a maintenance trust fund, contributed by the landlord out of the purchase money of his estate, was set up to assist the tenant purchaser in carrying out repairs and maintenance to these works.
No such fund was established in respect of the second-mentioned holding because liability for coast protection works was not admitted by the landlord and could not be proved against him. As intimated in my reply to the Deputy's previous Question on 4th July last, any remedial work on this holding is not a matter for the Land Commission; it seems more appropriate for consideration by the county council and the Commissioners of Public Works under the provisions of the Coast Protection Act, 1963. The Deputy is aware that a proposal for the repair of a seawall in this area has been received by the Commissioners of Public Works from the Kerry County Council.
Is the Minister aware that there was a loose stone fence dividing the farms, that his Department have spent a good share of money during the past few years to protect one of the farms from the sea and that if something is not done there is a danger that all the good work will be washed away? The Department have put down a concrete butt where the loose stone fence had been to keep the water from flowing from one farm to the other. I know this area very well because I go for walks there and so forth.
As the Deputy is aware, the problem is that there is a fund to look after the first-mentioned farm but not the second one. The most recent reports I have got do not disclose any danger to the second holding arising from the adjoining lands. In any case, as I have made it clear, this is not a matter for the Department of Lands but for the Office of Public Works.
The local authourity have submitted proposals under the 1963 Coast Erosion Act but there is no hope of a scheme being implemented earlier than two years. As I have said, I visit this place frequently. The concrete but was put down either by the landholder or by the Department of Lands to make sure that the water would not get through into the other holding. There is a great danger that one high tide will do severe damage to this holding which the Department have been protecting through the years. Something should be done immediately.
The Land Commission are not spending money on the other holding mentioned by the Deputy. The money which is being spent comes from a trust fund and it is operated by the Land Commission. We could not do this in any other way.
The work is carried out by employees of the Minister. In view of the fact that there is a danger that one high tide can offset completely the protection work that has been done, I urge on the Minister to have this matter attended to immediately. A few years ago it could have been done for £300 or £400. Now it will cost £4,000 or £5,000.