Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Jun 1928

Vol. 10 No. 18

PUBLIC BUSINESS. - ARTERIAL DRAINAGE (MINOR SCHEMES) BILL, 1928—REPORT STAGE.

The following Government amendments stood on the Order Paper:—
Section 8. To delete in line 15 the word "rated."
Section 8. To delete in line 26 the word "rated."
Section 9, sub-section (1). To delete in line 52 the word "rated."
Section 12, sub-section (3). To delete in line 42 the word "rated."
Section 16, sub-section (1). To delete in line 48 the word "rated."

We intend the principle of the amendments to deal with turf bogs and with occupiers who might not be rated occupiers. There are clauses in several places through the Bill referring to rated occupiers, and simply because we are dealing with land it is proposed to take out the word "rated" and leave the unqualified "occupiers" there. These are really drafting amendments to deal with the occupiers of bogs.

Amendments put and agreed to.

I move:—

Section 12, sub-section (3). After the word "lands" in line 46 to insent the words "or of turbary owned or".

I do not think the Minister has any objection to this amendment, but this perhaps would be the most convenient time to deal with the whole question of turbary. When the Bill was first before us the Minister said that he recognised that some amendment was necessary, and that he was prepared to put down certain amendments. He has put down very lengthy amendments. He was good enough to ask me to see his legal advisers on the subject of the amendments, and I did so. I must say that I do not think they meet the case. They are very involved, and I think the amendment I have put down would much better meet the necessities of the case.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Are you referring to the amendment to Section 16?

To the amendments to Sections 12 and 16.

The other amendments are:—

Section 12, sub-section (6). After the word "lands" in line 5, to insert the words "or turbaries."

Section 16. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—

3. Where in the execution of any drainage scheme it is found—

(a) that a new turbary is made available;

(b) that an existing turbary is improved or extended, or that the facilities for working it are increased by reason of the lowering of the water level: the county council or joint committee shall fix and collect such a rate, either per turf bank or per load of peat removed, as will in their judgment secure from the turbary owners or occupiers such a proportionate contribution towards the cost of carrying out the scheme and maintaining the works as, having regard to the relative value or the benefit received by them from the drainage, shall seem to such county council or joint committee to be fair and equitable.

CATHAOIRLEACH

The word "or" in the amendment is a misprint for "of." It should be: "having regard to the relative value of the benefit."

Yes. I prefer my amendment, and I will tell the Seanad shortly my reasons. Nearly all the dissatisfaction which is taking place—and it has been very considerable—with the effect of arterial drainage has arisen from this cause, that people other than those receiving the advantáge have been called upon to pay for it. My sympathies go to the Minister in this matter, as it is a very involved and a very difficult question to understand, especially for those who have not been actively engaged in the working of these schemes. The Minister has to take his advice from people who never had to administer a drainage district, and who have no experience as to where the shoe pinches in actual practice. No doubt to his legal advisers and to the people who generally carry out the preliminaries it seems very much simpler to tax the turbary, and that is what his amendment aims at doing.

CATHAOIRLEACH

What do you mean exactly by taxing the turbary?

The bank before it is cut.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Before it is turned into merchantable turf?

Yes. Turbary in that form has no value. I mean that it will receive no benefit from the execution of the drainage works. A cut-away bog receives no value when the turf is cut away. The thing that is of value is the turf but, instead of taxing turf, they propose to tax turbary. Unless the turf is cut and saved there is no benefit derived from drainage. That there will be benefit in almost every district in which drainage can be carried on in the West of Ireland is unquestionable. The turf in most of these bogs has been cut down to the level that the water allows. If you lower the level of the water unquestionably you bring a lot more valuable turbary in, and give facilities for cutting the turf, but you do not benefit the turbary until the turf is cut. My contention is that the turf should be taxed and not the turbary. Perhaps I might explain the matter a little further. I know many cases in which the landlords when fair rents were being fixed on the lands and who also owned the bogs, which were perhaps some little distance from the lands, were compelled to give rights to the tenants to cut turf. Many of the fair rent orders contained such provisions. I can mention one case of this kind. A man owned a bog which was rendered valuable by reason of the execution of drainage work, but which was situate some miles from the rest of his property. He derived his income from the rest of his property. He derived nothing from the turbary but his tenants had the right to go there and cut turf. When the Drainage Board applied to him for the rate fixed on the valuation of the turbary—exactly what the Minister's amendment proposes to do—he consulted his lawyers, who were very astute people, and they told him the best thing he could do was to transfer the turbary to a pauper. He did so subject to the rights of the tenants to go in and cut turf. No doubt, he had to give the pauper perhaps a few shillings to allow his name to be used, but the result was that, when the Drainage Board went for the rates assessed on the turbary, they could not get them. That did not prevent people from going to the bog and cutting the turf. They cut large quantities of the turf which was rendered valuable by the execution of the drainage work, but the Drainage Board found it impossible to levy any rate on the turf. My amendment would meet that case. My proposal is that where the turf is cut and where it is being removed it should be taxed. The Minister's advisers and the legal people seem to see some difficulty about that. They fear it will create some new officials, perhaps people who will be paid extravagant sums for collecting the rates on the turf. But in practice that is a very simple matter, and has been in operation throughout the country for many years. There is an official, well-known in the country, called a bog ranger, and there are many people quite willing to accept the position. It gives him a certain amount of rural importance and it makes him a personage in that part of the country. He collected the rate for every load of turf removed from the bog—and the bog ranger knows everyone—and retained a percentage, perhaps 1/- or 2/- in the £. on the amount collected. There is no difficulty about doing that.

If that is not done there is another re-action. You will always find people seeking to evade—and very naturally— the obligation of contributing money for the benefit of somebody else. In a district that I know what happened in one case was that the cost of the work originally was £1,400. It was very small but, in addition to improving a certain quantity of land, it enabled a large quantity of turf to be cut away. The landlord was an absentee and the agent was also an absentee. The tenant had rights to cut turf but a great many people who had absolutely no rights at all availed of the opportunity to cut turf. If there had been a bog ranger there to collect from them so much per load it would have been all right. There was no machinery to enable such a person to be appointed and the rates recovered, and the people cut away until they cut the bog down to the level of the water again. They then petitioned the Board of Works, saying that the drainage had been neglected, that the works had been allowed to fall into disrepair, and that it affected the lands which for all practical purposes were on a level with the water. That was a fact. The Board of Works sent down inspectors to report and they reported that the land was on a level with the water and they concluded that the original work was never carried out. They expended a sum of money which, if my memory serves me right, ran into half as much as the sum that was spent originally on the works in deepening the drainage again. The same process was gone through after a few years when the people again petitioned the Board of Works to come and inspect the drainage on the ground that the previous work had not been properly carried out. The Board of Works sent down a very competent engineer and he took levels. He referred them to the usual bench marks and he found that not only had the original works, and the second works, been carried out but what had happened was that the surface of the land had been lowered by the cutting away of the bog. They spent a couple of hundred pounds again and still there was no means of collecting money from the people who removed turf. Eventually things got so bad that the Board of Works had to get a receiver appointed over the place. What did they themselves do? They then refused to allow the receiver to pay the drainage maintenance rate.

I have letters here that I could read if necessary, but there is no use delaying the Seanad. Further arrears had accumulated and the other people stated they were not going to continue spending money improving this land for the Board of Works when the Board of Works would not pay their share of it. Unless my amendment, or something to the same purpose, is included in the Bill, the Bill will not have the effect that I am anxious about. The Minister's amendments do not meet that case. I am very anxious this should be done, because arterial drainage, which is capable of doing an immense amount of good, has had a stigma placed on it that it is unsatisfactory, and it has been largely for the reasons I have mentioned. If this amendment is inserted in the Bill I hope that it will lead to a similar clause being inserted in the larger Acts. If the Minister will take it from me there need be no difficulty in the carrying out of this arrangement, as it is only people in Dublin who have no experience of how things work in the country, who think a system of putting a tax on turbary would not be satisfactory. Supposing a man is assessed with a certain repayment, and if, as might easily happen, no one goes to cut turf there, and if he receives absolutely no benefit, why should he be taxed? If the turf is cut away the same valuation will probably remain on it. I am not quite clear from the Minister's amendment if that is so. I do not see how that could be avoided. If so, it will hamper reclamation of the land. There is a great deal of cut-away bog that might be reclaimed, I think it would be a very desirable thing that it should be reclaimed, but the man who reaps the benefit from it is the man who goes to the expense and trouble of reclaiming the land. It would be an encouragement for him to do it.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Is there any objection to the amendment to Section 12, sub-section (3)?

Yes. The three amendments hang together.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I thought that the wording of amendments 5 and 6 might be consistent with the Minister's amendment.

They are not consistent.

They are completely inconsistent with mine.

CATHAOIRLEACH

We will deal with the amendment to Section 16, and if that is accepted by the House the other two will be consequential.

I wish to oppose the amendment, because I think the Government amendment to Section 16 meets the case better than that of Senator Barrington. The Senator took us into his confidence as to the interview with the Ministry and I share it to the full. I do not think it is a wise thing to revert to the old system of the bog rangers in this particular matter. I do not think it is a wise thing to have the council, every other day—which would probably happen under this amendment—considering whether the owners or occupiers were to pay a certain proportion of the drainage rates. The point is whether the existing turbary is improved or extended, or whether facilities for working it are increased. If a drainage scheme has added to the value of the turbary land, that particular amount should be assessed separately and distinctly and levied with a drainage rate. That seems to me to be a better plan than to have a council, as they would be empowered under this scheme, continually exercising thought as to whether a particular load of turf—and a load of turf is emphasised—had actually gained by drainage.

What is a load of turf?

I do not know. A load of turf in the country is what is put on the cart when it is brought out on to the road. The turf is drawn out, in many cases, on sleighs, on donkeys, and on women's backs, and on arriving on the road it is put into a cart. Then, in my opinion, it becomes a load of turf. Under this you should have on the road a man observing all the minor operations, and each load counted and separately assessed. Is it desirable that that should be allowed? Is it desirable to do what is outlined in the amendment, "that the county council or joint committee shall fix and collect such rate, either per turf bank or per load removed, as will, in their judgment, secure for the turbary owners or occupiers such a proportionate contribution"? While this Bill lasts they will continually have to exercise their judgment as to whether a particular load of turf is enjoying an advantage under the main drainage scheme. I do not think that could be done. I think the proposal of the Government meets the position whereby every advantage gained from the drying of the land will be levied in connection with the existing rate. I claim that that will equitably meet the case, and that it is an amendment which the Seanad ought to accept.

I have a great deal of sympathy with Senator Barrington's amendment, as a rough-and-ready way out of not paying the rate until you have the money in your pocket, but that runs counter entirely to the mode in which drainage rates are always levied. They have always been levied on what has been improved—on the agricultural land which has been drained, and on the rights to the turbary which have been improved. It is not the turf that is rated; it is the right of turbary that is benefited by a scheme. Therefore the amendment of Senator Barrington runs counter to the legal mode in which these rates have always been levied and have always been quite easily collected. The Senator need not be afraid that the rates under the Minister's amendment will be levied after the bog is cut away. Under the Minister's amendment provision is made for the valuation of the rights of turbary so as to provide that the assessment will depend on the life of the bank. If it is a long-lived bank the assessment will probably go over several years and be paid in instalments, but if it has a short life, or one the real value of which can be easily estimated, it will probably be levied in one lump sum.

It appears to me that the amendment suggested by the Minister is the most sensible one. It appears to me to be absurd that we should have people on the bogs to count the loads of turf that come out and levy so much on each load. That would come to more for supervision and detective work on the bog than the rates. I think the most sensible thing would be to accept the Minister's amendment.

Might we have an explanation from the Minister, so that we might be able to judge between the two amendments?

I do not think the Senator is really fair to the people responsible in this matter when he describes them as people who have no experience of how these things work in the country. I realise that it probably will be necessary for legislation to be introduced amending the 1925 Act, so that turf bogs under any drainage scheme under that Act will be dealt with in the up-to-date and systematic method proposed in my amendment. I would like to set the Senator's mind and the mind of the Seanad generally at rest. Senator Barrington has stated that in 80 per cent. of the cases in which drainage is carried out turf bogs, to some extent, will be improved, so that the problem is fairly wide. If much drainage is carried on, you are going to have a lot of areas in the country affected by the drainage of bogs, which makes the matter all the more necessary to be dealt with in a systematic and thorough-going way. What is proposed is that when the scheme is being set out first, as well as showing the land that will be improved, and also the extent of the improvement, there will be a clear statement as to the turbary that will be improved, and to the extent that it is understood it will be improved. When the report, after the work is carried out, is made it will include bog land. In the same way lands pure and simple will be kept separate. The turbary will be set aside separately. Just as in the case of land, a drainage assessment will be made and a drainage rate struck. In the same way for turbary improvements a turbary assessment will be made. But it will be recognised that no permanent improvement is made to turbary rights by drainage. Turbary rights are improved, but the improvement is not permanent. Once the turf is cut away the improvement of the turbary rights is gone. The report will show, as I say, the turbary position separately, and the certificate that will be given based on the report, will state the people and the turbary rights that are involved. It will state definitely the total amount that is to be charged to the scheme for turbary right improvements and the individual amounts that have to be charged to the owners of the turbary rights. In each particular case, according to the circumstances, it can be fixed, whether there is to be a certain number of monthly, half-yearly or yearly payments. If it is the case that there is a particular bog area where turf-cutting is not in full swing, the certifying may be delayed for a year or two. There is no reason why there should not be a setting-back of the main payment or the rate of payment to make the time for payment of the turbary assessment coincide, as far as possible, with the period during which the actual value would be received for the turf by the owners. The amendment here says:—

(g) the county council or joint committee charged under this Act with the carrying out of a drainage scheme shall, when fixing the drainage assessments in respect of such scheme, also fix the turbary assessments to be assessed on and paid by the respective owners of turbary rights benefited in respect of such rights by the carrying out of the scheme and shall fix such assessments in all respects as appears to them to be just and equitable having regard to the manner in and extent to which such owners are so benefited by the carrying out of the scheme and in particular may fix any such assessment as a lump sum payable in one instalment or in two or more instalments over a period of months or years or as an annual or a half-yearly sum of fixed or variable amount payable over a number of years.

The next one, I think, would give the time to vary.

Even in that clause, where you can fix the amount for a year or for a month, or as a variable amount, beginning with the smaller and going on to a larger amount in two, three, or four years, I am advised there is complete power in the local body to fix the amount and the time of the collection of the turbary assessment in the most just way in any cases the councils may be called on to deal with.

Sub-clause (h) gives you that right:

Shall also certify the amounts of the several turbary assessments and the time and manner of payment thereof.

Yes. That is following on (g) in the proposed new section. I think the Senator must admit that we have in that particular clause full powers for the county councils. It was suggested that a man, perhaps, will not cut his turf at all. It may be that a man will not till his land at all. If he is the kind of person who will not cut his turf at all, I suggest that it would be unfair, because of the improvement made available to him, that the amount of money that should be paid by him should be borne by the county council or by the other benefitees under the scheme, and that it must be made up in some way or other.

That is the difficulty. As a rule the manner in which these things are done is that an auction is held, or there is a sale of a turf bank before the season commences. The man sells it to the people who want to cut it, and they remove it, no doubt. Why should you make him responsible?

CATHAOIRLEACH

Does he let them take it for nothing?

No, sir; he lets the bank, but will not cut his own turf.

CATHAOIRLEACH

In the auction price will he not get the benefit of the reclamation?

No, sir. I am dealing with a case in which the turf cannot be cut until the drainage is carried out.

CATHAOIRLEACH

We outsiders, of course, do not understand these cases, but it seems to me that if the turf is improved by drainage, and the owner of the turbary, instead of winnowing it for his own purposes, chooses to have a preliminary auction, will he not ultimately get more for his bank in its improved condition than he would have got if the drainage works had never taken place?

CATHAOIRLEACH

Then why should he not pay?

If he has sold it he will, but if he does not sell it who is to pay the tax on a bog of perhaps 100 acres of which no use is made?

CATHAOIRLEACH

I do not suppose this intends to penalise a man merely because there is turf there which is improved, if it evidently was not merchantable or marketable.

It would not be marketable but for the drainage, and if the drainage is carried out it is marketable, but he may not be able to sell it, or he may be able to sell only a small percentage.

If there is a case of a bog of 100 acres, clearly, under paragraphs (g) and (h), the circumstances of that particular owner and the likelihood of that turf being cut within four years, or within ten years, can be taken into consideration in the fixing of his rate. But if a bog of 100 acres has got a very definite improvement as the result of a drainage scheme, we cannot face that problem by saying: "Well, if this man does not realise his turf then the county council has to pay for the work that has been carried out, in so far as it refers to him, or the other benefitees under the scheme have to have added on to their turbary assessments the amount that he would otherwise have paid."

That is what must happen.

It is really like the case of a person not tilling his land, and if difficulties of that kind are going to arise I would much sooner face them, even though subsequent legislation might be required to deal with them, with this as the basis to start off with than the arrangement that the Senator suggests. I feel that it would prejudice the carrying out of these drainage schemes generally if a big turbary right element were to enter into them, and if there were not a more systematic way of dealing with them than that suggested by the Senator. The effect generally of this amendment would be that the turbary-right owners would be put in the same position as landowners from the point of view of applying a scheme to them, that they can protest against a scheme being carried out and they can use as much weight as they will be entitled to under the Bill to prevent it being carried out, to prevent expenses being put on them that they do not want to bear; that they will know beforehand, when the scheme is set out, and subsequently, when the report is set out, before the certificate is issued of people who are going to be chargeable for the benefit under these schemes, and they can make their protests and put up any arguments they like, so that full justice is being done to them and they are put in the same position as owners of land. The only thing is that the total improvement of turbary rights is set out clearly when the report is made and the certificate issued, and the turbary assessment is collected over a shorter period, if necessary, or at any rate, over a period, and under general arrangements that are more in accordance with the turbary position.

I know from my experience of these matters that this is really a question of very great importance. I have put up a case which, to my certain knowledge, has occurred, of a man who had no interest in a bog except that he was the owner, who could not make any use of it himself, but whose tenants had the right of turbary, and he transferred the bog to a pauper. How would this prevent that, supposing it happened again?

The particular case which the Senator mentioned was one where people were cutting turf without any right at all to cut it.

No; they were tenants, but had the right to cut the turf.

If there are tenants who have a right to cut turf, they are owners of turbary rights, their names go down in the scheme and they become liable to pay the collector under the turbary assessment rate. He will collect this money in the same way as he collects poor rate.

How can it be divided between them? No definite quantities are mentioned. They have a right to go in and cut turf.

If there is a definite area——

But there is not.

They have a right to cut for their holdings, not to cut for sale.

They do cut for sale.

Surely all this arises out of a mistake. It cannot be suggested that if a man has property it is no good. It is not said what a cartload of turf is. It cannot be suggested that because a man's property is in his hands that he is not getting benefit out of it, simply because he has to pay rates on it. I think it would be simpler to put the question and get rid of these individual cases that are really not pertinent to the Bill at all. It is suggested that turbary rights are more important than the cart-loads of turf. There are other rights in bogs. The right of grazing must be considered also.

A great deal has been made about the cart-loads of turf, but it is only one of the items. My amendment says "per turf bank."

What is to happen in the case of a large stretch of bog in a poorly populated area that may be drained? A bog is valuable only in proportion to the population that is in the immediate vicinity. If there is not a considerable population in the immediate vicinity of a bog, the bog is no use at all, whether it is drained or whether it is not. Suppose one of these drainage schemes goes through, among other places, a bog that has no population around it may be vastly improved, but it is no good to anybody because there is no one there to cut it. I wonder what will happen in such a case as that?

That is a question that must be settled by the land valuer and the land surveyor, who will examine the whole situation and say: "Such an amount of money has been spent on this drainage scheme. These are the lands that have been improved, and these are the turbary rights that have been improved. The total cost of the scheme should be allocated in proportion between the lands and the turbary rights, because there has been that improvement." Naturally, it will fall to the land valuer to say the extent to which the turbary rights have been improved. If the turbary rights have not, in fact, been improved because they are in a place where they cannot ever be used, it would be the duty of the land valuer to say that they had been increased to the value of a farthing an acre, or whatever it might be. But we could not solve in a piece of legislation problems which can only be dealt with by the land valuer.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I think we are all anxious to have this thing as safe as possible. The position, as suggested by Senator Moore, is a very possible one, and it is not easy to see how you propose to meet it. His supposition is this: You have a drainage scheme in a particular area which renders available for cutting a large tract of bog, but there is no market for it, no competition to provide a market for it. Will a charge be made for that, and who will pay it? Is that not the position?

That is the point.

If there is no realisable improvement it cannot be charged against anyone.

CATHAOIRLEACH

If it is not marketable?

How would a valuer know that in advance?

The valuer would not know it in advance. The county surveyor prepares his report first, and that goes up to the county council. As far as he can, he gives the details in that. The county council decides to go on with the scheme. The county surveyor then comes back with his scheme, indicates the lands, indicates the turbary rights, and makes an estimate of the extent to which these are likely to be improved. When that estimate is there, all concerned in the scheme are advised that it is to go ahead, that they are likely to be involved in it to make up the amount of the cost that will be chargeable against them. If a man owns a large bog which he cannot possibly realise any benefit from, he will know, before the scheme goes ahead at all, that the county surveyor estimates that he will be liable for such an amount. He can protest; he can make his case, and before the work is ever put in hand.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I think that is the answer.

So that by the time the work is put in hand everyone knows approximately how he stands, and the land valuer puts the final judgment on the actual results before the county council before they are certified.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CATHAOIRLEACH

That also disposes of amendments 5 and 6.

Section 16. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—

"(3) Where a person assessed to a drainage rate under this Act in respect of land occupied by him is the occupier of other land forming part of or comprised in the same holding, farm, or tenement as the land in respect of which he is so assessed to such drainage rate, any sum so assessed on him in respect of such drainage rate may be collected and recovered from him in like manner as if such sum were assessed on and payable by him in respect of his occupation of the whole of such holding, farm, or tenement."—(Government amendment.)

The purpose of this amendment is to secure that if a person has a holding of ten acres, of which five have been improved by a drainage scheme, the drainage assessment will not fall on the five acres that have been improved alone, but on the whole holding, so that if he was a bad pay and it became necessary to distrain against him in respect of the drainage rate he could not escape his payment by driving his cattle from the five acres that had been improved to the five acres that had not been improved. This bring the minor schemes into harmony with the 1925 Act on this point.

Amendment put and agreed to.
New section. Before Section 18 to insert a new section as follows:—
"18. Whenever the lands proposed in a drainage scheme to be drained or improved include any bog land from which turf is at the preparation of such scheme being or capable of being obtained or from which turf will as a result of the execution of such scheme be capable of being obtained the following provisions shall apply, that is to say:
(a) for the purposes of any statement contained in the scheme of the value of such bog land or of any increase of such value, the value of such bog land shall be taken exclusive of and subject to any rights (in this section referred to as turbary rights) of cutting and removing turf from such bog land whether generally or for a particular purpose and whether in virtue of ownership of such bog land or of ownership of other lands or otherwise.
(b) the value of the several turbary rights over or in respect of such bog land shall be stated in the scheme and the increase in such value expected to arise from the carrying out of the scheme shall also be so stated;
(c) the like notices shall be served on all persons having turbary rights over or in respect of such bog land as are by this Act required to be served on occupiers of lands proposed in the scheme to be drained or improved and every person having such turbary rights shall have the like rights of making objections to and of expressing assent to or dissent from the scheme as are conferred on such occupiers by virtue of this Act;
(d) for the purpose of determining whether the number of dissents from the scheme is or is not sufficient to prevent the confirmation of the scheme, but for no other purpose, turbary rights shall be deemed to be lands proposed in the scheme to be drained or improved and to be in the occupation of the persons entitled thereto;
(e) the report to be made under this Act to the county council or joint committee charged with the carrying out of the scheme as to the amounts by which the respective annual values of lands have been increased by the carrying out of the scheme shall not include in such amounts any benefit to the owners of turbary rights in respect of such rights but shall contain particulars of the manner in and extent to which such owners have been benefited in respect of such turbary rights by the carrying out of the scheme and shall also contain recommendations as to the contributions (in this section referred to as the turbary assessments) towards the cost of the carrying out of the scheme and the maintenance of the drainage works constructed pursuant thereto to be assessed on such owners in respect of such benefit;
(f) no person shall be assessed to a drainage rate in respect of a turbary right;
(g) the county council or joint committee charged under this Act with the carrying out of a drainage scheme shall, when fixing the drainage assessments in respect of such scheme, also fix the turbary assessments to be assessed on and paid, by the respective owners of turbary rights benefited in respect of such rights by the carrying out of the scheme and shall fix such assessments in all respects as appears to them to be just and equitable having regard to the manner in and extent to which such owners are so benefited by the carrying out of the scheme and in particular may fix any such assessment as a lump sum payable in one instalment or in two or more instalments over a period of months or years or as an annual or a half-yearly sum of fixed or variable amount payable over a number of years;
(h) the certificate of such county council or joint committee certifying the respective amounts by which the respective annual values of lands have been increased by the carrying out of the scheme shall also certify the amounts of the several turbary assessments and the time and manner of payment thereof by the respective owners of turbary rights, and such assessments shall be payable by such owners to such county council or joint committee accordingly and shall be collected and recovered in the like manner and by the like persons and means in all respects as the drainage rate is collectable and recoverable and, for the purpose of such recovery, every turbary assessment shall be deemed to be assessed and leviable on all land which is in the occupation of the owner of the turbary rights to which the assessment relates, and is either the land on which such rights are exercisable or the land to which such rights are appendant or appurtenant;
(i) where a scheme has been carried out by a joint committee, every turbary assessment in respect thereof shall be collected by the county council in whose county is situate the land over which the turbary rights to which the turbary assessment relates are exercisable and every such turbary assessment when collected by such county council shall be paid to such joint committee;
(j) all moneys received on foot of turbary assessments in respect of a drainage scheme by the county council or joint committee charged under this Act with the carrying out of such scheme shall be applied by such county council or joint committee in reduction of the moneys to be raised by such council or for such committee by means of the drainage rate and shall be so applied either towards repayment of the expenses incurred in carrying out the scheme or towards the maintenance of the drainage works executed in pursuance of the scheme or partly in the one way and partly in the other way as such council or committee shall think fit and shall be so applied at the discretion of such council either as and when received or by accumulating and resorting to the accumulations or partly in the one way and partly in the other way."—(Government amendment).

CATHAOIRLEACH

This is the amendment that was the alternative to Senator Barrington's. We may assume that it has been discussed.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

"Section 18, sub-section (2). After the word ‘with' in line 2 to insert the words ‘responsibility for.'"

This is merely a drafting or consequential amendment, arising out of the amendment that was carried on my motion on the Committee Stage.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

"Section 18, sub-section (2). After the word `‘ommittee' in line 4 to insert the words ‘or any person or persons carrying out maintenance work in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 (2) of this Act.'"

This is also a consequential amendment arising out of the amendment on the Committee Stage.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

Section 19, sub-section (1). To delete in line 26 the word "maintaining" and to substitute therefor the words "responsible for the maintenance of."

This is also consequential.

Amendment put and agreed to.
The following amendments stood in the name of Senator Barrington:—
Section 22, sub-section (1). To delete the sub-section and to substitute therefor a new sub-section as follows:—
"(1) When a county council or a joint committee appointed under this Act has approved of and is engaged in carrying out five schemes under this Act, they may appoint such and so many temporary extra officers as they shall from time to time think proper for the purposes of this Act, subject to the approval of the Minister."
Section 22, sub-section (2). Before the word "officers" in line 61 to insert the word "temporary."
Section 22, sub-section (2). To add at the end of the sub-section the words "subject to the approval of the Minister, but such remuneration shall in no case exceed five per cent. on the cost of the works."
Section 22, sub-section (3). Before the word "officer" in line 63 to insert the word "temporary."
Section 22, sub-section (3). To add at the end of the sub-section the words "and shall not be entitled to pension or retiring allowance."

All these amendments deal with the question of officers and their payment.

The Minister has met me on that, so that that is settled.

Amendments not moved.
Question: "That the Bill be reported to the House," put and agreed to.
Top
Share