With regard to the Arterial Drainage Bill, which is down for Second Reading, the Minister in charge is Professor O'Sullivan, Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Finance.
PRIVATE BUSINESS. - ARTERIAL DRAINAGE BILL, 1925—SECOND STAGE.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I beg to move under 41 (a) of the Standing Orders that Professor O'Sullivan be invited to be present and take part in the Arterial Drainage Bill, 1925.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
And also the Phoenix Park Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The motion is that the Arterial Drainage Bill, 1925, be read a second time.
I think it would be desirable if we had an outline from the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary of the aims and objects of this Bill.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Yes, if only that we may have the pleasure of having the Parliamentary Secretary make his debut here.
I came rather under the impression that the practice here was that I would rather reply to criticisms than make a preliminary statement. The main provisions of the Bill are quite easy to explain, I think. Under the law as it stands it is practically impossible, I do not say legally impossible, but practically impossible to initiate any new arterial drainage scheme with any prospect of success. The existing code is the code of 1863, and that code, in itself, never a very perfect one, was framed to suit very different circumstances from those now existing. Since 1863, and especially since 1881, the whole economic and social life of the country has undergone a considerable change and a Bill that might be suitable enough when you had to deal with only a small number of proprietors, accustomed to look after their estates, is not so in these circumstances. That Act, it was obvious, became more and more unsuitable since the Land Act of 1881 and still more clearly so since the Land Acts that followed. For instance, the whole initiating expenses had to be borne by the promoters of the Bill. These were private individuals. Sometimes these expenses were considerable, amounting to anything from £50 to possibly £200.
Under the present system of landholding it would be practically impossible and unreasonable to expect that promoters—that is, the people who first move, at all events in a scheme of this kind—should be asked to put up these preliminary expenses. Even if it were not unreasonable it would certainly not be a proposition that had much chance of success. Then so far as the scheme itself is concerned, remember, under the Act of 1863, practically all the responsibility for the drainage and the details of the scheme, and the carrying out of the scheme ultimately was borne by the promoters. The engineer that carried out the scheme was an engineer appointed and paid by the promoters. The central authority, in this case the Board of Works, had actually very little power to interfere. The most they could do, was, so to speak, to vet the scheme. Then when that scheme was through, the cost generally was paid back by means of annuities.
Again, the social changes that have taken place in the meanwhile have brought it about that even the paying back of these original expenses in the way of annuities is exceedingly difficult. The annuities were exceedingly difficult to collect. It is easier to collect a charge if it is a pretty large sum when only a few individuals have to pay it, but when, for instance, about 1,000 individuals have to pay, and when the actual charge is sometimes very small, it becomes exceedingly difficult to collect. That is still more so in the case of the small maintenance drainage rates that have to be collected afterwards. Sometimes in connection with that rate it might amount to 1/-, possibly one penny, and the expense of collecting a special rate of one penny is, of course, altogether too great in proportion to the amount collected. As a result of the inherent defects of the Act itself and the accompanying Acts, and as a result of the general changes that have taken place, practicaly no scheme has been initiated in recent times. The first move made in connection with arterial drainage was made last May, when the Oireachtas passed an Act to bring up to date the procedure for maintaining existing districts, in which over £3,000,000 was spent, and which were allowed to go into neglect. This is a further advance to deal with the creation of new districts. You will notice in the Bill that initiation still is with the people whose lands are affected. That is in Section 2 of the Bill. Any six or more people whose lands are affected may send a petition to the county council. The county council will immediately—I hope immediately— refer that petition to the county surveyor or, if they think he has too much to do, they can refer it to an engineer to make a report—not a detailed report, not a report for the purpose of drawing up a scheme, but a report on the general merits whether in reality this suggestion is worth going further with —in other words, whether it is worth the trouble of the Board of Works to send down a special engineer who has experience of drainage matters to draw up the full scheme. If the county council takes that step it also undertakes certain responsibility, for instance, the repayment of the annuity and also the future maintenance of the drainage district if the scheme is carried through. That procedure is dealt with in Section 3.
Section 4 deals with the attitude taken up by the Commissioners; they will naturally get their expert advisers; then can decide that the scheme is not one which can be further proceeded with. Then the scheme lapses. After that, if the Commissioners decide that the scheme should be further proceeded with, then it is their duty to make the investigation, to draw up the scheme, and to set out the various matters mentioned in Clause 6. The rivers which have to be dealt with, the works proposed to be undertaken, the rights to be interfered with, the property to be interfered with, the various people to be affected—all that will be set out.
I will draw your attention to one particular matter here, which is, to a certain extent, a new factor in this particular Bill as compared with existing drainage legislation, that is that contribution may be made by the State. Up to the present that was not provided for in legislation. The promoters bore the whole expense, and the improved land had to pay the whole expense. It was recognised that at present prices that would mean practically very little drainage work could be done. Hence the Bill takes power to allow the Minister for Finance to decide whether or not he will make a contribution to the scheme. The next step is to notify everyone affected. That is dealt with in Clause 7, which arranges for publication in the official Gazette, and also notification to the different individuals or people whose rights are affected. I may remark in passing that this is a complicated Bill. In some respects that is so. The Bill itself is complicated. We have found it, however, impossible to drop any of the particular stages. You have to interfere with the private rights of individuals. At the same time you have to exercise compulsion, that is, if the majority in the district whose lands are affected are in a favour of a scheme of this kind being carried out, then compulsion—one man may hold up the scheme because he gets no benefit out of it—must be exercised on a number of individuals. It is quite possible to give them an opportunity of stating their case. It is impossible to get away from that difficulty and not to face it. Also, ultimately, remember it is a charge that will be made on the people whose lands are affected, and later on there is a provision that they should be allowed to decide whether or not they will have the scheme.
Section 8 provides for the objections that individuals have to the scheme, and section 9 deals with the hearing of the objections. As you will see from section 11, while people are asked to vote on the scheme it does not mean that each man's vote is quite as good as another man's vote in this Bill. It does not mean that a man who has, say, ten times as much property as his neighbour will have ten times as many votes. What it does mean is, that if one man's land is affected ten times as much as another man's land, and that, therefore he has responsibility for ten times as much of a charge, he will have proportionately a larger vote in the decision that is come to. It is really a vote, so to speak, on the amount of estimated benefited land that a man has. If there is a majority in favour of the scheme, then the scheme can go on. In section 12 the usual method is adopted of deciding what amount of compensation is necessary for public or private rights of various kinds that may be affected.
As regards the money. In the first instance it will be provided by the State. A portion of that money will be paid back to the State, but a certain portion may be given by means of a grant. What is not given by means of a grant will be paid back to the State, some of it in the way of annuities by the people whose lands are benefited, while other portions will be paid back by the county council if the county council undertakes to do so. It is optional with the county council to undertake such a responsibility. In the case of a county council that agrees to make contributions, the money will be given on loan to the county council which, just like the owners of land that is benefited, will pay that money back by means of annuities. As to the method of repayments an enquiry will be held. I am speaking now of the amounts for which individuals are liable. An enquiry will be held, and an estimate made as to the extent to which each person has benefited. His proportion of the total annuity will then be decided—at least a proposal will be put forward. There will be a final opportunity given to the people to protest against the award.
After that the award will be made final and the people will pay their proportions as laid down in the award. Section 19 is the next important one. It deals with the maintenance of drainage works. It is there simply following the procedure adopted last year by the Oireachtas in the Drainage Maintenance Act of 1924. It was found impossible in many cases to collect the maintenance rate in the existing districts by means of separate and distinct officials for that purpose. Consequently, to put it roughly if not legally, this equates the maintenance rate and puts it more or less on a level with the poor rate. It will be collected in the same way as the poor rate, and the county council will be responsible for the collection of it. In that way it does not matter whether the rate is a halfpenny or £20, it can be collected because the machinery is there to collect it, but in the existing drainage districts there is no such machinery available at present. I do not think there is any other point I need deal with.
Question: "That the Bill be read a second time"—put and agreed to.