BARROW DRAINAGE BILL, 1927—THIRD STAGE.
The Seanad went into Committee.
I move
"Section 2, sub-section (2) to add at the end of the sub-section a new sub-paragraph (g), as follows:—
(g) an improvement schedule showing the lands which it is proposed to drain and improve, the reputed owners and occupiers of the same, their present value and the estimated improvement of the same and the decimal proportion in which it is proposed that they shall contribute to the costs of the works."
I regret to say, owing to my absence in the West, I was unable to give notice of this amendment. If Senators permit me, I think this would be the best place to raise the question. It is a point I raised when the Bill was, under discussion in the first instance. It relates to an improvement schedule When the Bill was before the House for its Second Reading I called attention to the fact that the whole of the work would have to be carried out and the whole of the charges incurred before anybody would know what proportion of the cost he would be liable for. The section further provides that this information, which I suggest should be given in the first instance, shall be given after the whole of the work is completed. Hitherto, whenever a drainage district was in contemplation by local boards, the Board had to submit schedules showing the amount of the land improved, its estimated improved value, and the proportion the owner would have to contribute towards the cost of the work. In the first place, that would be prepared by valuers, and they may make mistakes. If this information were given a man would be in a position to see whether his land was supposed to receive a greater benefit than someone else. He could raise that question, and it could be investigated. Under this schedule it is quite possible that he might find himself assessed for a greater improvement than he thought he received, or, in fact, received.
The reason the practice has been departed from in this case is that, under the provisions of this Bill, the owner of the land could not have the right to vote as under the ordinary arterial drainage scheme. The scheme will be entered on irrespective of their wishes. The reason is that this is an attempt to deal with what is regarded as a national problem, and the evidence of that is the State is paying half the cost and the local councils are contributing further substantial portions. The owners are only paying an infinitesimal proportion. The scheme would be delayed very considerably if the particulars asked for in this amendment were to be contained in the draft scheme instead of, as provided in the Bill, in the draft award.
I think the Parliamentary Secretary has omitted the point at issue. It is true that in the past owners had a right to object, but certainly a person whose lands were improved should know whether he is being charged more than his neighbour. I have been engaged in these matters for a great part of my life. I know that the work must have been already done to a large extent, and the statement that it would cost a great deal does not hold water. I think everyone should have the right to know whether he was fairly assessed compared with his neighbour, and I think the only way to get that information is by the lodgment of what is known as the improvement schedule. It has been of great value, and I do not know why it has been departed from here.
If the Senator refers to Sections 10 and 12 he will see it will be all contained in the draft award, and the owners have a right to go in and appear at the inquiry.
After the work is done, there will be no appeal, and in the other case he will have a right to have the whole thing revised and gone into before the final award.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Is there any provision here made, as in the case of ordinary private drainage Bills, giving these people the right to object until the award is made?
No; not to object to the suggestion but to the amount they are charged.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Can they not do this when the award is made?
They get notice of the draft scheme.
I found the same difficulty. The Minister says the amount to be assessed on the occupier is very small and that justifies departure from usual practice. What evidence has he got? There is the general fact that the State are paying half the costs and the occupiers and the county councils are paying the other half. That is not relating to the amount of land benefited. We are entirely in the dark about that. It is possible that the extra rate on the land might be equal to £2 an acre. This Bill enables that rate to be imposed on an occupier or alternatively to be borne by the local authority. This departure from what Senator Barrington states is the usual practice causes us to inquire critically into this Bill.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 10; Níl, 12.
Tá
- T.W. Bennett.
- W. Barrington.
- Sir Nugent Everard.
- Sir John Purser Griffith.
- Major-General Sir William Hickie.
- Sir John Keane.
- William J. Molloy.
- T. Toal.
- The Earl of Wicklow.
- W.B. Yeats.
Níl
- Sir Edward Coey Bigger.
- P.J. Brady.
- Samuel L. Brown, K.C.
- Mrs. Costello.
- William Cummins.
- The Dowager Countess of Desart.
- James Dillon.
- James G. Douglas.
- Michael Duffy.
- Thomas Linehan.
- John T. O'Farrell.
- Bernard O'Rourke.
Amendment declared lost.
SECTION 2.
I beg to move amendment No. 1 on the Order Paper:—
Section 2. Before sub-section (3) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) In preparing the draft scheme the Commissioners shall have regard to the user of the River Barrow and the Canals connecting therewith for the purpose of navigation and to the necessity of avoiding any permanent interference with or hindrance to such navigation.
It is proposed to add a new sub-section to Section 2 for the protection of the Grand Canal Company in this way. The section provides that a scheme is to be prepared. This scheme may injure the Canal Company, and the amendment that I have put down provides that there is to be protection in this way, that the Commissioners in framing their scheme are to do nothing that will injure or endanger in any way the Grand Canal Company. That, I think, is a reasonable thing, and I am sure the Minister will accept it.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, was agreed to.
Sections 3, 4 and 5 were agreed to.
SECTION 6.
(2) The Commissioners shall publish such notices, receive such objections, and hold such inquiries (if any) in respect of a draft substituted scheme or a draft additional scheme prepared by them under this section as they shall think proper, and shall present such draft substituted scheme or draft additional scheme, when finally settled by them, to the Minister for Finance for confirmation.
I beg to move amendment No. 2:—
Sub-section (2). To delete in line 9 the words "they shall think proper" and to substitute therefor the words "shall be directed by the Minister."
The section provides for a substituted, or an additional, scheme. That may affect the property of persons differently from the original scheme. The amendment provides that the notice necessary to be given should be directed by the Minister and not merely left to the Commissioners, and that, I think, is a reasonable amendment.
I should be prepared to accept the amendment subject to a slight alteration that instead of the words "by the Minister" it should read "by the Minister for Finance."
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:—
Section 8. Before sub-section (5) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(5) (a). The foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply to the compensation (if any) to be paid to the Grand Canal Company in respect of permanent injury to the navigation of the River Barrow and the canals connected therewith by the execution of the said works.
(b) On the expiration of five years after the works to be executed under the scheme shall have been completed, the Grand Canal Company may require that the questions whether any permanent injury has been occasioned to the said navigation by the execution of the said works and whether any permanent benefit has been occasioned to the said navigation by the execution of the said works shall be referred to the arbitration of a competent engineer appointed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and such engineer shall also determine whether any and, if any, how much compensation is payable to the Grand Canal Company in respect of such permanent injury (if any) after taking into consideration such permanent benefit (if any). The costs of both parties of such arbitration shall be in the discretion of the said arbitrator.
The section provides for two kinds of compensation—first, for land compulsorily taken, and second, it provides for easements and rights, like rights of water, should they be interfered with. So far as interference with water rights is concerned, the most serious, probably the only serious one, will be interference with the navigation of the Grand Canal Company. Portion of the Barrow, I think nearly 40 miles of it, is the actual property of the Grand Canal Company. That is to say, they actually own the bed and soil of the river. They have canalised the river, and for something like 40 miles they are the owners of it. They are a great carrying company acting for the public as well as for themselves. Whatever scheme is proposed by the Commissioners will affect, to some extent, the River Barrow and the Canal Company. It may, and it is hoped it will, only affect them slightly. In fact, I think the Minister is optimistic enough to think that it may improve the navigation of the Grand Canal Company. But water is one of those things which nobody can count upon when it comes to be operated. What happens at present is this. At a very heavy downfall of rain, or after a prolonged rainfall, the water is held up by the undrained land round the Barrow. It is like a sponge; it keeps the water there and lets it off very gradually, so that in fact there is never a very great rush of water down the Barrow Canal navigation, and by means of its being let off slowly the water is kept the longer for their navigation than it otherwise would be. They are afraid when this drainage scheme comes to be operated the flood will be carried off quickly and may very seriously injure the navigation. It may reduce the level of the water for considerable periods owing to the fact that the water will rush down instead of coming down gradually as before.
Nobody can tell what is going to be the effect of this drainage scheme. What I propose by this amendment is that the case of the Grand Canal Company should be taken out of the general provision for compensation provided by this section, and that there should be a separate arbitration as to the estimate of damage, if any, or benefit, if any, that the Grand Canal Company will receive when this scheme has been put into operation. Nobody can tell what it is going to do. The arbitration provided for here, in this scheme, is arbitration on a draft award, that is, practically before anybody can tell what will happen under the scheme. What I propose is that that arbitration should not be held for five years. During these five years there will be probably one wet year and one dry year. I myself would rather have ten years than five years in the amendment. But if you are going to confine it to an arbitration on the draft award the Grand Canal Company may get very much too little or too much. I press very strongly upon the Minister the desirability of accepting this amendment. The only possible objection that can be urged to it is some financial one, that it might be necessary to hold up the money for five or ten years, which is not a usual thing to do in Bills of this kind. But this is a very peculiar case and I do not see why the money could not be held up. It will not have to be paid over until the award is made. It will not increase or alter the capital liability of the Commissioners at all.
The difficulty with regard to this amendment is the one pointed out by the Senator himself just now. The financial scheme of the Bill is that each liability must be settled by the final award. I do not see how we would get over the difficulty of having an unascertained liability pending for five years. The cost of the scheme has to be fixed, and the various parties liable have to be assessed. I do not see how we could get over that liability. I have no objection to the special arbitration asked for, and if the Senator was prepared to accept that part of his amendment we might bring in something in a modified form dealing with it on Report. But as to the rest of the amendment, the question is how to get over the financial responsibility of having this liability for five years.
Is there not money provided for capital expenditure on this scheme? Surely money will be available in five years, and the fact that it may not be wanted for five years will not affect it.
CATHAOIRLEACH
But supposing all the money is then gone?
But supposing the compensation which would be given under the section in the Bill is properly expended and that the cost of the works, plus the compensation, exceeded what they had got, then they would have to go to Parliament for an additional amount.
We are limited to the maximum sum, and if we have to spend anything in excess of that we would have to pass another Bill through the Oireachtas.
I know that, but in the meantime a great injustice could be done. I can imagine the evidence that would be given by experts, purely guess work, as to what would happen in a wet year or happen in a dry year, nobody knowing what would really happen.
Suppose it could be arranged to have a sum earmarked, would that get over the possibility of all the money being gone?
At this stage I could not agree to the amendment in its present form.
I am quite willing that it should remain over until the Report Stage.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Very well; the matter stands over till Report Stage.
Sections 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I beg to move:—
That a new section be inserted before Section 13, as follows:—
"No draft award shall be approved by the Commissioners if it is objected to at the inquiry by two-thirds of the occupiers whose lands are to be benefited or by three or more of the county councils mentioned in the Schedule to this Act."
This is the same point that we had a division on just now. The Minister is not very helpful over this Bill. He made certain general statements that this scheme is going to cost so little to the occupiers that the usual procedure is not going to be followed. He said there is a considerable free grant. But what is the cost? Does he know what it is going to cost to the occupier? Has he any indication how much the land is to benefit? The area is small but the cost is high. We are asked, with no knowledge of the facts, to legislate so as to impose these costs upon the occupiers. It is not reasonable to do so. The Minister himself knows that hitherto occupiers had a right to object. I have put it that if two-thirds of the occupiers object to the draft award or three or more of the county councils, that it does not go on. I should say that if the Minister is so optimistic about the small costs, he should not object to this amendment which is needed to effectively safeguard those affected.
I am not quite clear whether the Senator appreciates what the effect of his amendment, if accepted, would be. It would be that after the work had been completed two-thirds of the occupiers, and a certain number of the county councils, who are the persons who would be supposed to contribute the share of the cost, would simply, by coming in and objecting, put themselves in the position that they would not pay anything, the work having already been done. The State would have to bear the whole cost of the scheme. It is possible that when the Senator says that no draft award shall be approved by the Commissioners he means that the scheme itself be not approved.
I was rather reconnoitering in this amendment and trying to ascertain whether the Government would accept this.
I think if anyone should have a right to object it is the people of the State as a whole who are contributing nearly a quarter of a million of money which will be spent on these counties for improving the lands. The people who will benefit will only have to pay a very small proportion for the cost of the scheme.
What is a very small proportion? That is not an illuminating statement.
Since the Second Reading Stage I have made inquiries and I find that the original estimate does not give the precise figures of the acreage of the lands that are to be improved. The acreage of these lands is about 46,000. It is a very considerable amount, and I do not think the amendment is a reasonable one and I could not accept it.
Would the Minister tell us if the acreage is 46,000 what the annual cost of the improvements will be, and then we can get the average price per acre?
The annual cost is about £14,000.
From the county councils?
No; that is the total cost. That would be the sum to be paid by the public bodies (the councils) and by the owners of the land, about £14,000 a year. These, of course, are estimates.
Having heard that figure I am prepared to withdraw my amendment. This is the first time we had any information like that.
CATHAOIRLEACH
The Minister has warned you that these are highly speculative figures. They are of a highly speculative character.
Question—"That Section 13 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Sections 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 put and agreed to.
SECTION 19.
(4) The Barrow Drainage Board shall during the said thirty-five local financial years defray the cost of the maintenance of the drainage works out of the moneys paid to them under this section and may in any of those years expend on such cost all or such part as the Board thinks proper of such moneys for the time being in their hands whether received in such year or in any previous year.
(5) The Barrow Drainage Board may with the consent of the Minister for Finance and shall if so required by the said Minister at any time invest in such securities as may be approved of by the said Minister any surplus of the moneys paid to them under this section for the time being in their hands and shall accumulate the income of such investments by reinvesting the same, but may at any time (whether before or after the expiration of the said thirty-five local financial years) with the consent of the said Minister realise and apply such investments or any part thereof or the income thereof towards defraying the cost of the maintenance of the drainage works.
I beg to move:—
To add at the end of the sub-section (4) the words "and may at any time after the expiration of those years apply towards defraying the cost of the maintenance of the drainage works all or any part of those moneys then remaining uninvested in their hands."
This section provides for the maintenance of the works for thirty-five years. During that period half the maintenance is to be met by the Drainage Board and the other half is to be provided out of the moneys which will be provided by the Oireachtas. These two sums of money will have to be expended by the Commissioners. They may expend the whole money that comes to them each year in that year, or they may not expend the whole of it, and perhaps some surplus may remain over. The section, as it stands, gives them a right during the thirty-five years to use the surplus moneys along with what is coming to them every year for maintenance, but the amendment asks that at the end of thirty-five years, if they still have that surplus money, they ought to have the power of spending that on maintenance. I hope the Minister will agree to this amendment.
Amendment put and agreed
I beg to move:—
"In Section 19, sub-section (5), before the word "realise" in line 12, to insert the words "and shall if so required by the said Minister."
Amendment agreed to.
Section 19, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 20 to 26 put, and agreed to.
SECTION 27.
(1) If and in so far as the scheme provides for the diversion, removal, or other interference with any railway or railway bridge the following provisions shall (subject to the provisions of this section) have effect, that is to say:—
(a) where the execution of the works specified in the scheme involves the closing of the railway or railway bridge to traffic, the Commissioners shall construct and shall maintain while such railway or railway bridge is so closed to traffic a temporary railway or railway bridge sufficient to carry traffic of such quantity and character as normally uses such railway or railway bridge;
(b) the Commissioners shall at or before the completion of the works specified in the scheme either restore the railway or railway bridge to its former condition or construct a new permanent railway or railway bridge sufficient to carry the like amount (in quantity and character) of traffic as the original railway or railway bridge was able to carry and not substantially less convenient in gradient and curve than such original railway or railway bridge;
(c) if any doubt, dispute, or question shall arise as to whether the Commissioners, in the construction, maintenance, or restoration of any temporary or permanent railway or railway bridge pursuant to this section, have complied with the provisions of this section, such doubt, dispute, or question shall be decided by the Minister for Industry and Commerce whose decision shall be final and conclusive.
(2) The Great Southern Railways Company may at the request of the Commissioners undertake the work of constructing and maintaining any temporary railway or railway bridge and of restoring any railway or railway bridge or of constructing any new permanent railway or railway bridge the construction and maintenance and the restoration or construction of which respectively are or is required by this section to be done by the Commissioners.
(3) The cost of any work undertaken and completed by the Great Southern Railways Company at the request of the Commissioners under this section shall be paid by the Commissioners as part of the expenses of carrying out the scheme, and if any dispute or question arises between the Great Southern Railways Company and the Commissioners as to the amount of such cost such dispute or question shall be decided by the Minister for Industry and Commerce whose decision shall be final and conclusive.
I beg to move:—
7. Section 27, sub-section (1). After the word "bridge" in line 54 to insert the words "or any canal bridge or canal works."
8. Section 27, sub-section (1). Before the word "bridge" in line 57 to insert the words "or canal."
9. Section 27, sub-section (1). Before the word "bridge" in line 59 to insert the words "or canal."
10. Section 27, sub-section (1). Before the word "bridge" in line 60 to insert the words "or canal."
11. Section 27, sub-section (1). Before the word "bridge" in line 62 to insert the words "or canal."
12. Section 27, sub-section (1). Before the word "bridge" in line 65 to insert the words "or canal."
13. Section 27, sub-section (1). Before the word "bridge" in line 66 to insert the words "or canal."
14. Section 27, sub-section (1). Before the word "bridge" in line 3 to insert the words "or canal."
15. Section 27, sub-section (1). Before the word "bridge" in line 5 to insert the words "or canal."
16. New section. Before Section 28 to insert a new section as follows:—
28.—(1) The Grand Canal Company may at the request of the Commissioners undertake any work in connection with the Barrow navigation which is provided for by the scheme.
(2) The cost of any work undertaken and completed by the Grand Canal Company at the request of the Commissioners under this section shall be paid by the Commissioners as part of the expenses of carrying out the scheme, and if any dispute or question arises between the Grand Canal Company and the Commissioners as to the amount of such cost such dispute or question shall be decided by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, whose decision shall be final and conclusive.
We can deal with all these amendments together. Section 27, as it stands, is a section for the protection of the Railway Company, and what it protects is the railway and the railway bridges. If they are interfered with by the carrying out of this scheme it is only right and proper that a section should be inserted for their protection. The same thing may happen in the case of the Canal Company. The canal, either in the canalised portion of the Barrow River or the canal itself, may be interfered with by the working of this scheme. If that is so the same protection should be given to the Canal Company as is given to the Railway Company. I think the only quarrel that the Minister will have with my amendments is the word "works." I do not think the Minister will object to include the bridges in the section, but I understand that he does object to the use of the word "works." He thinks it is too vague. Now, the work that is most likely to be affected is——
We have in mind an aqueduct.
I am thinking of the canal locks and weirs.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Works would include an aqueduct.
Yes, I would be willing to alter this amendment so as to confine it to the locks and weirs.
Better leave it over to the Report Stage. The difficulty is that it would cover an aqueduct. It would be very serious if the work of the scheme were held up. It depends on what a canal bridge may mean. It is better to deal with it together.
Consideration of the amendments postponed for Report Stage.
Sections 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 put and agreed to.
SCHEDULE.
1. The Barrow Drainage Board shall consist of fifteen members appointed as follows, that is to say:—
Four members appointed by the council of the county Kildare;
Four members appointed by the council of the county of Leix;
Four members appointed by the council of the county of Offaly;
One member appointed by the council of the county of Carlow;
One member appointed by the council of the county of Kilkenny;
One member appointed by the council of the county of Wicklow.
2. Of the four members appointed by each of the county councils of Kildare, Leix, and Offaly, two shall be members of the appointing council and two shall not be members of any of the county councils, and one at least of the last-mentioned two members shall be a drainage ratepayer in the county of that council.
3. The member appointed by each of the county councils of Carlow, Kilkenny, and Wicklow may, at the option of the appointing council, be or not be a member of such appointing council.
I move:—
17. Schedule. In paragraph 1, page 17, lines 37-38, to delete the words "fifteen members appointed as follows" and to substitute therefor the words "the following members."
18. Schedule. In paragraph 1, page 17, to delete lines 42, 43 and 44, and to substitute therefor the following:—
"If the aggregate amount payable in respect of the maintenance of the drainage works and in respect of the repayments of the advance by the Commissioners and the interest thereon by the Council of the County of Carlow in each of the thirty-five local financial years next after the 31st day of March following the date of the final award equals or exceeds the sum of £300, one member appointed by the said Council of the County of Carlow;
if the like aggregate amount payable by the Council of the County of Kilkenny in each of the said local financial years equals or exceeds the sum of £300, one member appointed by the said Council of the County of Kilkenny;
if the like aggregate amount payable by the Council of the County of Wicklow in each of the said local financial years equals or exceeds the sum of £300, one member appointed by the said Council of the County of Wicklow.
one member appointed by the Grand Canal Company."
19. Schedule. In paragraph 3, page 17, line 51, after the word "member" to insert in brackets the words "if any."
The section provides for the constitution of the Drainage Board. As it stands there are four members each to be appointed by Kildare, Leix and Offaly and one member by each of the other three counties, that is, Carlow, Kilkenny and Wicklow—in all fifteen. The amendment proposes to strike out the words "fifteen members appointed as follows" and substitute the words "the following members." Then we strike out Carlow, Kilkenny and Wicklow and insert instead of that the following: "If the aggregate amount payable in respect of the drainage maintenance work ... exceeds the sum of £300, one member appointed by the said Council of the County of Carlow." Similarly if Kilkenny contributes more than £300 it is to have one member, and Wicklow is to have one member if it contributes more than £300. Then one member is to be appointed by the Grand Canal Company, who are greatly interested in the work.
On behalf of the Kilkenny County Council I object to striking off a representative from that Council.
CATHAOIRLEACH
It is not proposed to do so. He does not go on automatically, but he goes on if the aggregate amount payable by the county council in a local financial year equals or exceeds the sum of £300.
The Kilkenny County Council have particular reason for asking that the lower reaches of the river be included in the drainage scheme. I gave the Minister some papers I had received from the county council which contained a report from the county surveyor on this matter.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I quite appreciate what you have in your mind, but it has nothing to do with the schedule. Your better plan, I think, is to put down amendments for the Report Stage on the subject.
Amendments put and agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Question—"That the Title stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Ordered that the Bill be reported.
The Seanad went out of Committee.
The Bill reported with amendments.
