Vol. 5 No. 12
I beg to move:
In Section 2, sub-section (1), after the word "situate" in line 31, to insert the words "or to the Commissioners as provided in sub-section (4) of this Section."
I would like to ask, before proceeding to discuss this amendment, whether the Minister in charge of this Bill has seen his way to meet any of the arguments which were put forward at our last meeting?
You must confine yourself to this one amendment. Is it on this amendment, with regard to sub-section (1) Section 2, that you wish to have the Minister's views?
Yes, because all the other amendments are dependent on it.
Since we debated these on the last occasion I have seen no reason to alter my views that this whole series of amendments would practically undermine the whole principle on which this Bill is based, namely, co-operation between the county councils and the central authority. I fear if we were to pass them, that they would have pretty much the same effect in choking this Bill as a number of the drainage boards had in connection with a number of drainage districts. Take the finance of this Bill: it really depends, and as a result of our experience it must depend, on the willing co-operation of the county councils and the central authority. One of the principal ideas in the Bill is the equation, so to speak, of the drainage rate for the repayment of the loan and for the payment of the maintenance charges through the county council rate and the collection of that rate by the county councils. I do not think that it would be justifiable to lend public money with the poor chance that the drainage board would be able to collect the annuities proposed in the amendment and pay them to the Government. I see no reason to alter the views on this series of amendments which I expressed on the last occasion. The whole idea of the Bill, the part which amends existing legislation is to try to secure co-operation. Not only the first amendment but, even to a greater extent, the other amendments, those which provide for the possibility of drainage boards, more or less conflict with that general idea, and I regret that I cannot see my way to accept these particular amendments.
After the statement of the Secretary I should like to make a few remarks. If the reasons which existed last week for amending the Bill in the directions I suggest were strong they are much stronger now.
You are rather getting a bit behind me. We are on Report and you are only entitled to speak once. Perhaps somewhat adroitly, you invited the Secretary to speak first, and you gave him a text to orate about, but I shall let you say now what you ought to have said when moving your amendment. You have lured the Secretary out to slay him by way of reply.
I do not intend to speak more than once. I am sorry, in fact, having to speak at all as it is not in my line, but I wish to say that if the reasons, which we adduced the last day in support of these amendments, were strong, they are far stronger to-day. Since we last discussed this Bill we have been down through the country, and, personally, I have taken part in the election of various county councillors. In almost every candidate's appeal to the voters for support, I find that the main proposal has been based on the grounds of economy. Some candidates have gone so far as to say that they will support no rate higher than five shillings in the pound. I may say that these candidates who have put economy in the forefront of their programme, have been very largely returned, so far as the returns are to hand. How in the face of these statements the Minister can possibly expect to get the co-operation of county councils in expending money, I fail to understand. As the Secretary has candidly said, the fundamental principle of this Bill is to substitute the county councils for any machinery which has existed in the past.
Now, what does he propose under that? He proposes that if any people want to get their lands drained, they shall, in the first place, send in a petition to the county council. The first thing the county council has to do is to get a report from their county surveyor. The last day on which this question was discussed I pointed out a report from the country that appeared in the Press, that some of the county surveyors had already refused to do so on the ground that it was extra work thrown on them for which they should receive extra remuneration. The Secretary pointed out that they are not bound to go to the county surveyor. They can get outside engineers, and they can get a report from someone else. That involves money. If we get on to paragraph (c) of the section we see that it involves infinitely more. The county council may pass a resolution:—
"(c) Undertaking that if the lands referred to in the petition or any part thereof, either together with or without other lands in the neighbourhood thereof, are constituted a separate drainage district the council would maintain the drainage works constructed in such drainage district so far as the same are situate in their county, and would collect and pay the terminable annuity, drainage rates, and other moneys collectable or payable by them in respect of the construction or maintenance of such works."
It has been the universal experience in the past, and I am sure the Minister would not contradict me, that large arrears are bound to arise in connection with these works, and that the county councils, as they are now constituted, would be very loth to incur such an obligation as this. What does that mean? It means that if the Bill passes in the form in which it is presented to us, no work would be done under it. We are all anxious to see the drainage work done, and to see employment given, but great responsibility would lie on the Seanad if they put through a Bill on the face of which there is very little likelihood of such work being done. It is an attempt on the part of the Board of Works—I do not want to speak disrespectfully of anyone, and least of all the Minister—to throw the responsibility which properly belongs to themselves on to the shoulders of popularly-elected bodies. I do not know whether the Seanad are aware that when the Board of Works were first appointed they were known as the Drainage Commissioners. They are the Drainage Commissioners since, and are the people responsible for drainage in the country. I think they were appointed about a hundred years ago, and how they fulfilled their obligations can best be judged by the outcry which exists to-day for drainage to be carried out and executed. They have tried various expedients—in the first instance, carrying out those works themselves; that did not give satisfaction, and a number of amending Bills were introduced. Drainage works were set up. That did not give satisfaction, and now they propose to put this on the county council. What reasonable grounds have they for expecting that the county councils will come in and make themselves liable for those things? To my mind there is very little hope of their doing so, and if the Bill is passed in this form, it will be a dead letter.
I am forcibly reminded by the action of the Minister in this case of the story, which, doubtless, is well known to the Seanad, of the gentleman who was pursuing the great Lord Palmerston, and who asked him to give him a sinecure office. Lord Palmerston explained to him, "There is no such thing under the British Constitution as a sinecure office." The man said: "Give me the office, and I will make it very soon a sinecure." This is an attempt on the part of the Board of Works to put themselves into the position of that gentleman, and I hope the Minister will pay attention to the words I am now uttering. I am desirous of seeing that as much drainage work as possible is done, but I think, if this Bill is passed in the form presented to us, it will be a failure like all the others.
On a previous occasion I was struck by the amendment of Senator Barrington, and having thought it over, I am more convinced than I was before that it is right. With regard to the five shilling rate, in my county the farmers have pledged themselves not to strike any rate in excess of five shillings. If any further rate is required they will resign in a body. That is what they propose. The drainage works will then stand still. This provides a new avenue of approach for persons who wish to have work done. It simply says that they must give evidence of their bona fides by the deposit of a substantial sum of money. There is a suggestion in the next amendment of fifty or a hundred pounds to allow this to be done. The Act says that a drainage scheme is to be referred to the Commissioners and so on. The only difficulty the Minister had was a difficulty as to drainage boards. He jibbed very much at the idea of a drainage board being formed. I do not think the drainage board is such a formidable thing. This amendment only asks the people who are desirous to have their lands drained to prove their bona fides by putting down a sum of money. I think they should have the privilege and power of having their schemes favourably considered. I do not censure the Board of Works because I think they would consider a scheme, but from the point of view of benefit to the community, I think the Seanad would be wise in accepting this amendment. With regard to the difficulty of the provision of a drainage board, I do not think that is insuperable.
There are sections of the country where poor people need drainage very badly. There are twenty or thirty in some sections. If the amendment is accepted, it will make the Bill useless.
I do not propose that should be the only means. They can also approach the county council.
I do not wonder that the Senators do not follow this amendment, because you did not tell them what it was about. You gave reasons for a certain thing, but you never applied them to the amendment, nor did you explain to the House what the effect of the amendment will be. Some Senators were under the impression that you want to abolish application to the county council, and want everyone to go direct to the Commissioners, whereas what you are proposing is that instead of going to the county council as they are entitled to do, they shall have an alternative right of going straight to the Commissioner.
That is what you are proposing. You have left the Seanad entirely in a fog about it. That is what the proposition is, be it good or bad. As the Bill stands at present application has to be made in every case to the county council. If they turn it down there is an end of it. Senator Barrington proposes as an alternative that they should have a right to go straight to the Commissioners. That may be a good or bad proposal but that is the effect of your amendment.
Thank you, sir, that is what it is. It is an addition to the other rights that they will have under the Bill.
In the way in which the amendment has been explained I think it is much plainer. Of course, in the manner in which it was at first explained, we were labouring under a false impression. We did not know how it was intended to work the new arrangement, but the condition as to a deposit of £50 would absolutely nullify any advantage because there are people whose lands most need drainage who could not be expected to make a deposit of £50, or anything like it. They can apply to the county council of course. That is easily done. They will be able to do that, but a deposit of £50 would be absolutely outside their financial resources.
The point is that this is an alternative proposal and Senator Bennett has explained that. What the Seanad has to consider now is whether it will leave this matter in the hands of the county council, as it is at present, or whether it will give the ratepayers, or people who need to have their land drained, an opportunity of appealing to the Commissioners in the event of the county council refusing their application. I think, on general principles, this is a good scheme because if these people want their land drained they might find it worth while to deposit £50 to meet the preliminary expenses. If they do not want their land drained and if they are not anxious to have their land drained, they will not put it up. The question is optional with them. Then we are asked to put the county councils on one side. I would not mind that so much but we are told by the Government that this is going to upset the Bill and the financial provisions of the Bill. If the Bill is drawn up on certain lines, and the financial details have been carefully worked out in certain directions for the purposes of the Bill, then we should be slow to interfere with that arrangement. I would be in favour of giving the people concerned an alternative plan, but on the other hand I am not in favour of upsetting the finances of the Bill. If the Government assures us that that would be the result, I would not take that responsibility.
It is right that I should mention that the Minister has made a concession in this matter which has not been referred to. It arose from a suggestion of my own, I think. If you look at clause 3 you will see that the county council, as the Bill stands at present, if they think fit may pass a resolution "(a) approving of the proposals contained in the petition and requesting the petitioners, etc." That is to say, once they approve of the proposal they can then request the Commissioners to examine it. The Minister has tabled an amendment which will enable the county council, even though they do not pass a resolution approving of it, to declare that the proposed drainage works require further investigation and asking the Commissioners to make it. That is a distinct advance. I thought it fair, as the Minister had been asked about this, that it should be made known.
So far as the economy ticket on which the Limerick County Councillors were elected is concerned, let us consider what are county councils letting themselves in for in the way of expense if they adopt this particular resolution. They undoubtedly will ask the county surveyor to give a general look at this scheme and to say whether the scheme is worth undertaking. There will be the travelling expenses of the county surveyor; whether they come under the heading of general travelling expenses or not, I cannot say. That is not an item of very great importance. The next is, if the scheme for some reason does not go through, undoubtedly there will be some small expense incurred. They will pay one-third of that, and the Government two-thirds. That, again, is a small item. I quite admit that the important item is the other item to which Senator Barrington referred. That is as to responsibility for the maintenance. If they are not made responsible for the maintenance, we cannot maintain the drainage areas. That is the experience of the Board up to the present.
If the rates are to be collected, the present method of collecting rates is out of the question. That has hopelessly broken down. It is a system that was introduced when you had a small number of proprietors with very large areas of land. It has broken down now, when for every twenty proprietors you had formerly, there is substituted 1,000, and when there is substituted for a rate of £3 or £4 a rate of 3d. or 4d. in the £. If the county councils will not undertake that particular work of maintenance, and also undertake to collect the rates from these people, then there is no chance of carrying through the drainage work. Certainly there is no chance of doing it by drainage boards. Our experience has been all against allowing that particular work to be done by the drainage boards. They have failed, and failed miserably, as far as that is concerned. With regard to the 5s. rate, the main expenses in connection with the drainage scheme are not levied as a general county rate. The amount of expense involved is levied in a special rate collected from the people whose lands are benefited. It is not a general county rate. It is the best method of collecting rates. It is a substitution for the old method that has broken down, and it can be added on to the county rate and collected, so to speak, as portion of the county rate.
Senator Barrington suggests an alternative, but if one-half or one-third of what he says about the county councils is true it is a scheme that will never work. He says they will not work any scheme on account of the campaign of economy which they have recently adopted. Therefore, in reality the Senator's proposal is to leave the law as it stands, the law that we have found to be unworkable. If what he says about the county councils is true, the only practical method would be to work schemes through drainage boards. We have found that altogether impracticable and unworkable.
This Bill has been before the country for a couple of months, and not one complaint have we received on this particular matter from any portion of the country, namely, that we were handing over this particular work to the county council. The Board of Works were condemned for shelving their responsibility. I am rather surprised that Senator Barrington does not know the difference between this Bill and the existing law. Our responsibility under the existing law is practically nil.
In this Bill that is now proposed our responsibility is greatly increased. Under the existing law, as I explained before, all we had got to do was "to vet." the scheme and to say whether it was a good scheme. We were not responsible for it. We did not draw it up, but we simply said whether it was a reasonable scheme. We did not carry it out. We did not maintain the scheme afterwards, and had not the power to maintain it. What we are now putting on the county councils is the collection of the annuities—the paying back of the money that is lent, and afterwards the maintenance. Under the existing law we are not responsible for the maintenance. We never were responsible for the maintenance, either under the Acts of 1863 or 1866.
Has not the Board of Works collected annuities themselves?
I have already, I think, made it quite clear that there are two annuities. There is the annuity for the repayment of the loan, which is collected by the Board of Works. I was asked if we were not responsible for the maintenance, and Senator Barrington ought to know the difference between the maintenance annuity and the annuity for the repayment of the loan.
You are putting the collection of the two on the county councils now.
Yes, because we find, as a result of our experience, that that is the best way of doing it. Remember that the money is to be loaned by the Government under this Bill, and they cannot seriously contemplate giving a loan of money if they are convinced that the machinery provided in the Bill—the drainage boards are now suggested—will not be capable of collecting the annuities. The whole scheme will break down from our point of view if these amendments moved by Senator Barrington are carried. It is quite true that there is a guarantee, in the putting up of £50 or £100, as the case may be, that these people are anxious to have their lands drained, but I suggest that is no guarantee, if we spend £10,000 in a district and give a loan to that extent, that these people will be able to collect the annuities in that particular district. That is the difficulty. A good many people quite honestly might be willing to spend £100 on the drainage of their lands as a proof of their good faith if, in return for that, they were to get a loan of £10,000. That would be all right from their point of view, but if I were the person giving the £10,000, I would require, I think, a little more than that as a proof of their good faith. The county councils may not be perfect. I am not suggesting that they are. They are human. Even the Oireachtas itself, perhaps, is not perfect. I admit, of course, that that is a more debatable point, but in any case it is the best machinery for the collection of the money that, at the moment, we could think of.
We will now take the Government amendments. The first is Amendment No. 3, which is as follows:—
Section 3, sub-section (3)—To delete paragraph (a) and to substitute therefor a new paragraph as follows:—
"(a) either approving of the proposals contained in the petition or declaring that such proposals require further investigation, and in either case."
Would I be in order in moving a slight amendment to this amendment? The amendment I suggest is the deletion of the words "and in either case."
What would the effect of that be?
That the Board of Works would collect the annuity in future as they did in the past, and that the county council would be freed from the liability of collecting it.
That is not correct, Senator. The only effect of this amendment is that the new paragraph (a) will read consecutively with paragraph (b) in Section 3. The words "in either case" do not alter the matter at all.
The next is also a Government amendment. It is No. 5, and reads:—
Section 3, sub-section (5). Before sub-section (5) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"(5) Where the council of a county, having considered any such petition and report, do not pass any such resolution as aforesaid the secretary of the council shall forthwith send a copy of the petition (with the map annexed thereto) and of the report to the Commissioners."
I ask the permission of the House to withdraw amendment 19, which stands in my name. Two amendments brought in by the Government carry out more effectively the object I had in view, than the amendment I had down, and therefore I ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment 23 is also a Government amendment. It reads:—
New section. Before Section 24 to insert a new section as follows:—
"24. Every council of a county and every joint committee on which the duty of maintaining a drainage district is imposed by this or any other Act shall furnish to the Commissioners in each year a report in respect of such district in the form and containing the particulars prescribed in that behalf by the Commissioners."
The last amendment, No. 24, is also a Government amendment, and it reads:—
New section. Before Section 25 to insert a new section as follows:—
"25. Without prejudice to the duties and powers of the Commissioners under the Drainage Maintenance Acts, 1866 and 1924, every drainage district constituted under this Act shall be inspected by the Commissioners at least once in every five years, and immediately after every such inspection of a drainage district the Commissioners shall send to the council of the county or to the councils of the several counties in which such district is situate a report as to the state of repair and general condition of the drainage works in such district."
That concludes the Report Stage of this Bill.
As there is a possibility of doing some work under this Bill this year—a lot, of course, will depend on the weather—I would ask, if Senators have no objection, that the Final Stage of the Bill be now taken.
I beg to move the suspension of Standing Orders for the purpose of taking the Final Stage of this Bill.
I second.
