Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 12 May 1927

Vol. 8 No. 27

PRIVATE BUSINESS. - BARROW DRAINAGE BILL, 1927—FOURTH STAGE.

I move:—

Section 2, sub-section (2). After the word "and" in line 6, to insert the words "the schedules (b), (c) and (d) the publication of which is required by sub-section (1) of Section 10 of this Act."

I think the Senators understand the object of this amendment. Section 2 of the Barrow Drainage Bill provides for the lodgment of the usual documents. In the past these had invariably to be lodged in connection with drainage schemes. The Bill excludes one important, if not the most important, of the documents—the schedule showing the names of occupiers whose land will be affected and the area of the land and the improvement that it is expected will be effected. It will be obvious to Senators that a great many debatable questions will arise on this matter. If a man does not find out how much of his land is going to be affected, and if normal intimation is not given him, or if the rate for improvement differs from the rate put on his neighbours, many questions will arise. It would be only fair that the owner of the land should be given an opportunity of having the matter fully thrashed out. The Bill excludes such information. Section 3 provides that the owners of the lands that are to be acquired may send in objections. Section 4 provides for a public inquiry into such objections, and appearance by counsel. After amendments by the inspector the final plans are submitted to the Minister for Finance for approval. Section 6 provides for any further alterations that may be desired and Section 7 for the execution of the work. After the works are completed Section 10 provides for the publication for the first time of documents under which the owners of land will be called upon to pay for the work. That depends on a great many considerations —the area of the land, over which differences of opinion may arise, and the valuation, which, in the opinion of the owner, may be wholly excessive compared with what his neighbours are charged. Section 12 provides for the holding of an inquiry and the inspector who holds it may report to the Commissioners, who may make alterations. There is no power given to the owner to approach the Commissioners direct, and there is no appeal from the decision of the inspector such as the owners would have, if the important schedules referred to in Section 2 were lodged. These schedules must be prepared and lodged sooner or later, as is required by Section 10.

What I am asking is that these schedules, which in any circumstances will have to be prepared, should be lodged in time. This question of the Barrow drainage has been for many years under consideration, and scheme after scheme has been prepared. I am inclined to think the schedules are probably already in existence, or if not, any schedules that are in existence will require very little amendment. Therefore, I cannot see any great delay or inconvenience arising under the scheme. That is the last thing I desire. I want that schedules (b), (c) and (d), which are required to be lodged by Section 10, shall be lodged at the same time as the other information and before the execution of the works. That will give an opportunity for amending the scheme and for appeal and for general consideration, which I think is most desirable. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance stated the last day that these schedules were omitted in this case because there was no vote of the owners to be taken. That is quite true, but the schedules served a great many purposes besides that. I have very considerable experience of these matters, and I have known people in a district, when it was known that certain other people's lands were going to be affected, asking "Why is not our land included?" They asked for inclusion in the drainage scheme. On the other hand, other people may say that their land does not require draining and may wish to be excluded. There will be no opportunity for that unless the schedules are lodged as in the past. I cannot see why all this secrecy is resorted to, and why a well-established principle has been departed from in this case.

This is precisely the same amendment which the Senator moved on the Committee Stage, and which this House rejected. I have again to ask the House to reject the amendment for the same reasons that I put forward then. The Senator is apparently under some misapprehension. Apparently he thinks that the owners of the improved land will have some opportunity of appealing if the particulars which he asks for are included under Section 2 over and above what they would have as a result of their being included under Section 10. That is not so. If the Senator will refer to Section 12 he will see that the draft award is prepared and then published. Notice is given of the inquiry at the time and place specified.

"A public inquiry in relation to the draft award shall be held by a person appointed for the purpose by the Minister for Lands and Agriculture, and all persons who in the opinion of the person holding the inquiry would be interested in or affected by the final award if made in the form of the draft award shall be entitled to appear and be heard (in person or by solicitor or counsel) and adduce evidence at the inquiry."

Sub-section (3) provides that:—

The person holding such inquiry as aforesaid shall at the conclusion thereof report thereon to the Commissioners, and the Commissioners having considered such report may make such alterations (whether by way of variation, addition, or omission) in the draft award as they think proper.

These are precisely the provisions that apply. The owners of the improved land have precisely the same right to go in and attend the inquiry and have the award altered as if the particulars for which he asks were included in the draft scheme. For that reason I suggest that the House should reject the amendment. The owners of the improved land will not gain any advantage by having these particulars included in the draft scheme. On the other hand, if the Commissioners in preparing the draft scheme have imposed upon them the duty of furnishing detailed particulars, it will mean that they will have to anticipate events for three years; it will delay the preparation of the draft scheme and be of no advantage to anybody.

I cannot help thinking that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance has missed entirely the gist of the argument which I made at some length. I do not see how he can stand up here and say that people are exactly in the same position after the completion of the work by getting this information that they would have been in if the information had been given before the completion of the work. Why, the thing is a contradiction in terms. It is perfectly obvious that if they are able to know when the works are first proposed that certain lands which they think should be improved are not included, they will have an appeal at the first inquiry to be held, and, further, they can bring pressure to bear on the people in charge one way or another. If they do not hear a word about what lands are going to be improved until after the work is finished, surely you are putting the car before the horse. You may have certain lands omitted which it would be most desirable to include.

On the other hand, you may have land included which there is no necessity to include in the opinion of the owners. To say they are exactly in the same position because they are allowed to go to that one inquiry after everything is done, as they would have been if they were allowed to go to the preliminary inquiry, is a contradiction in terms. I ask the Seanad to pass this amendment.

From my experience of these matters —and I have been engaged in them for the greater part of my life—I am perfectly certain that amendments will be suggested, and probably most desirable amendments. To say that the scheme is going to be delayed by the preparation of these documents is an exaggeration. Documents have to be prepared now, and if the Commissioners have not this information already I think the scheme is incomplete. If they have the information, why not give it to the public?

CATHAOIRLEACH

I would like to clear up this matter, because there is some confusion somewhere. Is not the inquiry that is provided for under Section 2 the inquiry which follows upon the preparation of the draft scheme?

CATHAOIRLEACH

But you, Senator, seem to think that under Section 12 the inquiry is after the work is done.

That is Section 10, sir.

That is after the work is done, too.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Section 12 deals with the draft award, and that provides for an inquiry.

Section 12 deals with the draft award, what is called the final award. That is the award after the work is completed.

It would not be the final award until after the inquiry is held.

This inquiry held under Section 12 is an inquiry which deals with the final assessment after the work is done. My point is that there may be more desirable things to be done which the Commissioners have overlooked. If a man has land that he desires to have included, why should he not be told that it is not included, and why should he not get an opportunity of having it included? The argument that it is going to take a tremendous length of time to prepare these schedules is, to my mind, very exaggerated.

I submit that Section 10, which the Senator wishes to embody in the present section, deals altogether with accomplished facts after the scheme is completed. Surely you cannot put into the draft award, preliminary to the proceedings, such particulars as you would put in when the scheme is finished? The cost can only be determined after the work is finally completed. Section 10 deals with the work after the final stages are completed.

I do not propose to interfere with Section 10 at all.

CATHAOIRLEACH

The Senator does not propose to interfere with Section 10. What he proposes is that before you come to Section 10 you should include in the draft scheme published under Section 2 the particulars mentioned.

Sub-section (b) of Section 10 says "particular lands actually drained or improved." How could you put in a draft scheme for particular lands actually drained or improved before the work is done?

CATHAOIRLEACH

Section 10 deals with a different stage altogether. It deals with the stage after the works have been completed. The Senator's point is that there may be work left out.

But the Senator wishes to set out in the draft award sub-sections (b), (c) and (d). Sub-section (b) says "the particular lands actually drained or improved." I submit that you cannot put into a draft scheme the particular lands actually drained or improved.

There is a very obvious reply to the point Senator Barrington made a moment ago. I did not know what his point was then, but I think now it refers to Section 4, which relates to the inquiry. He will find that amongst the interests which are entitled to appear, to be heard and to give evidence, are the persons who made the objections in respect of which the inquiry is held, or any other person interested in the draft scheme whom the person holding the inquiry thinks fit to hear. Surely any person whose lands are affected would be a person interested in the draft scheme, or a person whose lands have been omitted and who thought his lands should be affected would be a person interested. He could come in at the inquiry and make his case there.

I think the point raised by the Parliamentary Secretary proves my case. How is anybody to know if his lands are omitted or not if he does not know what is proposed in the schedule? It is in order to enable him to act under Section 4 that I proposed the amendment.

CATHAOIRLEACH

In other words, a person might be included and not know it. He gets no notice and therefore he would not have any remedy under Section 4, because he could not tell whether he was interested in the matter or not.

Precisely. Furthermore, I should say this information which Senator Bennett seems to think it would be impossible to give has always been given and has been always required in the case of drainage districts from the time of the initiation of drainage districts up to the present. Why it should be dropped in this case I do not know.

CATHAOIRLEACH

It was rather a point of form that the Senator was calling attention to. Section 10 speaks of the preparation of draft schedules of work actually done. How can they put into a draft scheme a description of the lands on which work has been actually carried out?

You can insert the words "to be."

Section 3 states that "when the draft scheme has been prepared the Commissioners shall publish, by advertisement in ‘Iris Oifigiúil' and one or more newspapers circulating in the counties concerned, a notice stating that the draft scheme has been made, and the townlands to which it relates, and naming convenient places where the draft scheme (with all maps and other documents annexed thereto) or a copy thereof can be inspected."

CATHAOIRLEACH

That only sets out the townlands. It does not show the particular lands in the townlands that are to be affected.

These documents will show the particular lands. I have been associated with these drainage schemes, and the whole area that is going to be benefited is shown on these maps specifically. They are marked in coloured ink—every acre of the land to be benefited.

Sub-section (2) of Section 2 says that the draft scheme shall show, by means of appropriate maps, drawings, plans, sections and schedules, the works proposed to be executed. These lands will be shown on the maps, and the maps will be open to inspection.

I am only asking that the particulars should be given. They are not given.

They are in the Bill.

Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 20.

  • William Barrington.
  • Sir Edward Coey Bigger.
  • Sir Thomas Grattan Esmonde.
  • Sir Nugent Everard.
  • Sir John Purser Griffith.
  • Henry S. Guinness.
  • Right Hon. Andrew Jameson.
  • Sir John Keane.
  • Thomas Linehan.
  • Joseph O'Connor.
  • The Earl of Wicklow.
  • W.B. Yeats.

Níl

  • T. Westropp Bennett.
  • P.J. Brady.
  • S.L. Brown.
  • Mrs. Costello.
  • John C. Counihan.
  • The Dowager Countess of Desart.
  • James G. Douglas.
  • J.C. Dowdall.
  • Michael Fanning.
  • Dr. O. St. J. Gogarty.
  • Benjamin Haughton.
  • Patrick W. Kenny.
  • John MacLoughlin.
  • General Sir Bryan Mahon.
  • Colonel Moore.
  • John T. O'Farrell.
  • Michael F. O'Hanlon.
  • Bernard O'Rourke.
  • James J. Parkinson.
  • Thomas Toal.
Amendment declared lost.
Report Stage concluded. Bill ordered for Fifth Stage.
Top
Share