Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Jul 1949

Vol. 36 No. 16

Local Authorities (Works) Bill, 1949—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government (Mr. Corish)

The object of the Bill is to confer on certain local authorities, namely county borough councils, county councils and urban district councils powers to carry out works affording relief or protection from flooding, landslide, subsidence or other similar occurrences.

These powers are conferred on them by Section 2 of the Bill — the other sections are either ancillary or consequential. The powers which are conferred can be divided into two classes. The first power is one enabling local authorities to execute such works as they consider reasonable for the protection or relief from flooding, landslide or subsidence of land owned by them, or any permanent construction which they are required by law to maintain, that is any road, bridge, house, building, wall or embankment. In short, it gives them the power to protect what might be loosely described as their own property.

At first sight it may seem unnecessary to confer such powers on local authorities. Unfortunately, they cannot do these works as the law stands at present. In many counties the periodic flooding of roads is the cause of serious inconvenience. Rivers or streams which run alongside or under roads get swollen when there is a heavy or continuous rainfall. The floods in some cases remain for a considerable time. The remedy for this flooding is often very simple, consisting, perhaps, in the removal of obstruction such as tree trunks, silt or rocks, to the flow of the water, the widening or deepening of the bed of the stream for some distance on either side of a bridge, or the building of a retaining wall or embankment.

Sometimes bridges are endangered by an accumulation of silt under the eyes of the bridge. Notwithstanding the damage that may be caused to roads or bridges, local authorities have been advised by their own legal advisers that they cannot carry out these works. They cannot carry out works outside the structure of the road itself. They can spend public money on the fabric of the bridge, but they cannot clean the bed of the river flowing under the arches. They are compelled to look on helplessly while roads and bridges built at great expense to the ratepayers are damaged and traffic on roads held up — all because of legal difficulties.

Local authorities can, under powers conferred on them in 1851, force landowners to open drains from the road into their lands but in many cases this is not sufficient. The land immediately surrounding the road might be higher than the level of the road, or the stream or drain in which the water flows in the surrounding land might be choked or blocked. The local authority cannot enter the lands bordering a road to clear a stream which causes flooding on the road and, in most cases, on the land through which it flows. In so far, therefore, as roads and other local authority property are concerned, it will be conceded that the powers conferred by this Bill are long overdue.

The second power which is given to local authorities in the Bill is that which enables them to execute works for the protection or relief from flooding, landslide, subsidence or other similar occurrence of lands not owned by them or a permanent construction which they are not required by law to maintain if they consider that it is in the public interest to do so. Permanent construction is defined in Section I as including roads, bridges, houses, buildings, walls or embankments. The word "road" is also defined as meaning any road, whether public or private.

This will give power to local authorities to relieve flooding of houses and lands in urban and rural areas. Very often one sees groups of houses or a large expanse of land subjected to periodic flooding. There is no need for me to elaborate on the hardships which such periodic flooding causes. It is heart-breaking to see people having to evacuate their houses year after year because of flooding. When they do get back to their houses they have to try to dry them out and replace or repair their belongings. The remedy for this type of flooding is, perhaps, beyond the resources of the persons concerned, but under the powers conferred by the Bill a local authority may undertake works for the alleviation of such flooding if they decide that it is in the public interest that they should do so. Local authorities will have the advice of their engineers as to whether or not the flooding can be remedied.

The works which a local authority may do under the powers conferred on them are described in sub-section (4) of Section 2 as including such things as the making of drains, the removal of obstructions in watercourses, the widening or deepening of watercourses, and the diversion of water into watercourses.

Section 3 of the Bill gives power to one local authority to carry out works on behalf of another local authority in certain circumstances. There are two parts to it. The first part deals with the case where a local authority is unable or unwilling to execute works which are essential for the efficiency of other works which another local authority are able and willing to execute.

In that case the Minister, after consultation with the local authority which is unable or unwilling to carry out the works, may by Order authorise the other local authority to carry out the works. The second part enables one local authority to enter into agreement with another local authority for the execution by that local authority of works under the Bill. This would cover the case of a county council carrying out works in an urban area, or a county council carrying out works on the borders of its own territory and going some distance into another county.

Powers of entry for the purposes of the works are conferred on local authorities by Section 4 of the Bill. Except in the case of urgent works a local authority must either obtain the consent of the occupier or give 14 days' notice of intention to enter. Where consent is not obtained and notice is given the occupier can if he still objects to entry go to the District Court within 14 days and apply for an order prohibiting the local authority from entering on his land. The district justice may decide either to prohibit wholly the entry of the local authority on the land concerned or specify conditions to be observed by the agent, officer or servant of the local authority making the entry.

I think it proper here to mention that this Bill is in no sense an arterial drainage Bill. The only effective arterial drainage scheme is one which treats the catchment area as a unit. This involves a thorough survey which takes time. The execution of arterial drainage involves the use of complicated and heavy machinery and the cost of the work is very expensive. Neither is this Bill a land reclamation Bill. Land which is relieved from flooding may require suitable treatment in order to bring it back into productivity. This is not the function of a local authority.

Notwithstanding the fact that this Bill is not an arterial drainage Bill, and that its main purpose is to relieve flooding of what I have called local authority property and minor flooding of other land, there may be cases where damage is inevitably caused to a landowner by works undertaken for the relief of flooding in some other area. It is not expected that any serious damage will be caused. Local authority engineers have for some considerable time been carrying out drainage maintenance works. They have also in many counties carried out minor drainage works as agents for the Office of Public Works under the minor employment schemes.

Section 5 of the Bill provides for compensation for persons who suffer damage by reason of any interference caused by the execution of works under the Bill to any land owned by them or any easements or rights belonging to them. The compensation can be settled by agreement. If agreement is not reached the person claiming compensation can, if his claim does not exceed £20, go to the district justice. If the claim is for more than £20 the compensation can be fixed by an arbitrator appointed under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919. A claim for compensation must be made either within two years from the commencement of the work which caused the damage or one year after the completion of the works, whichever period is the later, Provision is made in sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 5 for dealing with costs and expenses. Under sub-section (5) a district justice may award costs not exceeding three guineas together with such witnesses' expenses as he considers reasonable. Sub-section (6) deals with the case of a claimant who is made an offer by a local authority which he does not accept. If he takes the case to the district justice and the district justice awards less than the local authority were prepared to give him, the district justice may then order that such costs and witnesses' expenses as he considers reasonable shall be deducted from the compensation awarded by him. Similar clauses to this are contained in the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919.

As I mentioned when referring to Section 3 of the Bill, one local authority is empowered under certain circumstances to carry out works on behalf of another local authority. This raises the question as to which local authority is to pay compensation. There are three different cases: (1) a local authority executing works on its own behalf and without reference to any other local authority; (2) a local authority which has got from the Minister an Order authorising it to execute works on behalf of another local authority which is unable or unwilling to carry out the works, the execution of which is essential for the efficiency of other works which the executing local authority is able and willing to execute; (3) one local authority agreeing as a matter of convenience to carry out works on behalf of another local authority.

In the first two cases it is the local authority which actually carries out the works which will pay any compensation that may become payable. In the third case it is the local authority on whose behalf the works are executed that will pay the compensation. This is reasonable because if, say, a county council agrees to carry out works for an urban district council as a matter of convenience, then, surely, the urban district council should pay compensation for any damage that arises.

Local authorities executing works under the Bill are exempted from the provision of the Fisheries Acts, 1842-1944, but notwithstanding this exemption, they must take such precautions for the protection of fisheries as the Minister for Agriculture, either generally or in particular cases, may advise.

In anticipation of the passing of the Bill local authorities have been requested to prepare schedules of works to be carried out. In all counties preliminary schedules have been prepared and these schedules have, by direction of the Minister, been placed before the elected body so that a selection therefrom could be made and submitted to the Department.

I think what I have said gives a fair summary of the contents of this Bill. It is a Bill which I know will be welcomed, particularly by members of local authorities. It will enable them to carry out works which for many years past they have been clamouring to carry out. It will also enable them, when it is operated, to provide employment on useful and productive work in the rural areas.

Mr. Hawkins

This Bill, as the Title tells us, is a Bill which proposes to give to local authorities power to undertake works that at present they have not the authority to undertake. The Bill was first mooted some few months ago when it was decided to withdraw the road grants from the local authorities. It was then put forward as a means of giving alternative employment to those people who may, as a result of the withdrawal of the grant, have found that there was not on the roads the employment that would have been available had the grants been continued. The Bill, since it was first introduced in the Dáil, has been amended. It meets with more general approval now, as far as safeguards, which were omitted in the Bill, as originally submitted, are concerned. It is the first time, I think, that local authorities are charged with the carrying out of public works of this kind. Hitherto, works of this nature were, if at all, carried out by the Board of Works. As such, the charge was borne entirely by the Central Fund. The Parliamentary Secretary has not assured the House that the full cost of implementing this Bill will be borne by central funds but I understand that that is so, except in so far as the local authority will be required to provide the necessary staffs—engineers and so forth—to carry out the work, and that it will also be held responsible for the payment of compensation, which may be a considerable amount, where damage has been done to a person's property in the carrying out of these works. While it is essential that certain and very definite powers must be given to a local authority or to any board charged with the carrying out of such works it is also essential that there should be very definite safeguards. Take, for instance, damage which was done and which could be attributed in a certain space of time to the carrying out of such works. Provision is made for a decision in regard to compensation in such a case. As I see it, the final result will mean a burden on the local authorities in so far as they will have to meet the compensation, if it is awarded.

In his closing remarks, the Parliamentary Secretary informed us that the local authorities have already been asked to prepare schemes—which I understand all local authorities have— and a number of them have been forwarded to the Department. However, from experience in the past, we know that a considerable length of time elapses between the date when the schemes are sent in to the various Departments for sanction and the date when sanction is given and when the work can be begun. Therefore, if work under this Bill, when it is enacted, is going to be delayed over some years I think the real benefits that might accrue from this measure will be lost. It is not proposed to do very much under this measure. As the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out, it is not an arterial drainage Bill. It does not empower the local authorities to go ahead in any drainage or reclamation or land improvement projects. As far as I see it, it is just a simple matter of making drains, of removing substances such as overgrown trees and so forth that cause obstruction, and of widening and deepening such watercourses. As far as employment is concerned, I must say that I fail to see where this measure can make any considerable impression in regard to the relief of that problem because the drains to be dealt with will all be of a very minor character and the amount of work which will be involved in the removal of substances causing obstruction—or even in the building or the remaking of bridges—will make a very insignificant impression on our present unemployment problem. With regard to the question of notifying the person on whose property you have to enter, while provision is made for giving notification of a kind, I am not satisfied that it is all we would like it to be. An engineer draws up a plan that is approved in the Department, but, after all, there are times when it would be more convenient and more prudent if the lands were not entered upon and consideration should be given to matters of that kind. If a man has a field under oats, potatoes or wheat, entry into the portion of the land under the crop should at least be deferred until the crops have been removed. That is going to hold up the scheme if the engineer has proposed to go ahead with the scheme at that particular time. While this may seem a very easily worked scheme I can see quite a number of difficulties arising from time to time. These are matters, however, with which we can deal better on the Committee Stage.

As far as the general provisions of the Bill are concerned, we all agree that it is good to have causes of flooding removed as far as possible and to do the things the Bill proposes to do, but my theory is that there are more difficulties in it than were presented to us by the Parliamentary Secretary here or in the Dáil.

Professor Stanford

I realise that the Minister and the Department have taken a great deal of trouble with the Bill. Going through the Dáil debates I find that they have been shown that certain clauses might be undemocratic or unjust and they have taken the trouble of amending them in accordance with the views expressed. I have been asked by the Irish Association of Civil Liberties to get an assurance on one point and I would be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would give it in relation to Section 5 of the Bill relating to compensation. This, I see, has been amended twice, in each case with the intention to make it fairer and less liable to abuse in an undemocratic way. Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell me whether the word "damage" includes injury and loss? Originally it read "any land which suffered damage". Now it reads "any person who suffered damage". That might be construed almost as meaning only personal damage and it might be well to put in the words "injury or loss" to make it quite clear that general damage is included. Does "by reason of any interference" mean that that is a limiting clause and, if a man is damaged by some other result of the entry on land, that he would not get damages? Does the compensation include chattels as well as buildings and personal damage? The Irish Association of Civil Liberties gives a particular case and, as the matter is rather technical, I will read it slowly:—

"A more likely example would be an interference with a right of way by the depositing on lands of sludge taken out of a watercourse for the purpose of clearing it. The owner of the right of way, not being a person having an estate or interest in the land over which the right of way was exercised, would have no right of compensation under Section 5 as drafted."

May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he would have compensation under Section 5 as amended? Those are the only two points I wish to raise.

Mr. S. O'Farrell

I think everybody will agree that this Bill was absolutely necessary and in the form it has reached us here it can meet with our general approval, but I want to draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to one or two things that occur by way of omission rather than by way of inclusion. It is clear in the Bill that where one local authority refuses to carry out some work the local authority of the adjoining area can, with the consent of the Minister, carry out that work. But what is going to happen if one, two or ten local authorities just decide to ignore the Bill? I can see nothing in the Bill that will enable the work to be carried on. Such a thing as a general boycott could happen, or the local authorities could say that it was not worth their while to do it. I do not say that it would happen but it could in some places like Carlow. I know the amount of flooding that occurs around the town of Carlow. No matter what drainage, clearing of banks, or removing of clay from the eyes of bridges is done, the water will not run off, as the Barrow will not take it and there is nothing that any local authority can do. It has been said this is not an arterial drainage scheme or a land reclamation scheme and it will be limited by the fact that, unless there is a runaway for the water, the work will be a waste of time. In a case such as I have mentioned, if it is not possible to drain an area where flooding occurs periodically and has occurred for a number of years, are the people to continue to pay rates on land when it is under water? I know parts of the country where men pay rates on land of which they can make very little use. They cannot even get grazing on it. There is nothing in this Bill to help unless bigger drainage is carried out. Those are the two points to which I should like to draw attention.

Professor O'Brien

I rather wish to follow Senator Stanford with regard to Section 4. I think it is one of the peculiar functions of the Seanad at the present time to try to safeguard the rights of the individual against the constant and rising pressure of public interference. I am not criticising the Department on the introduction of this Bill. We had this evening an appeal from the Minister for Agriculture to err, if we erred at all, on the side of individualism rather than on the side of State-planned socialism and, perhaps, stirred by that appeal, I am drawing attention to one or two aspects of Section 4 which seem to me to contain possible infringements of individual rights without legal protection. Under this section local authorities must give notice before entering land for any purpose other than the execution of urgent works. Of course, it is obvious that if the works are really urgent the necessity for giving notice might make the entering and the carrying out of the work quite useless. This exception, however, that notice need not be given in the case of urgent works gives a loophole whereby no notice might be given at all. Who is the judge of whether the works are urgent or not? Sub-section (6) of Section 4 says:—

"In this section the expression ‘urgent works' means work the immediate execution of which is, in the opinion of the local authority executing the works, necessary to prevent serious injury to any person, land or permanent construction."

It seems to me, looking at that section, that if a local authority expresses the opinion that works are urgent, whether they are urgent or not the provision of giving notice before entering on land can be evaded. It seems to me that there should be some appeal from the local authority itself before the judgment is enforced.

Another question I would like to ask the Minister is in connection with Section 4, which gives the right of appeal to the District Court. Is there a right of appeal from the decision of the District Court or is it final? As the section is phrased it does not appear as though there is any right of appeal and I suggest that in a matter of this kind where the rights of an individual are involved there should be some right of appeal.

Mr. O'Reilly

When the Arterial Drainage Act was going through the House as a Bill, I, and, I think, Senator O'Dea, voted against it because I wanted to have put into that measure some sort of provision which would give the local authorities power to execute such works as would be, in their opinion, of public importance. Remembering that, I wonder how far this Bill does give local authorities the powers which I then sought, probably quite wrongly, to have put into the Arterial Drainage Act. At the time, I believed the then Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Smith, should have accepted the amendment but afterwards he convinced me that my point of view was wrong and that his was the right angle. While I welcome the giving of the powers which are now being given, I hope the local authorities are not going to be bound up in red tape in regard to the works which they will execute. Generally, the execution of such works entails regulations which in many cases tie the hands of the local authorities and do not aim at getting efficiency, particularly in the matter of time.

While welcoming that power, I have also fears that the powers contained in the measure will put on to the local authorities still more responsibilities in addition to those they are already carrying. There is an indication that the cost of carrying out the works will be borne by the Central Fund, but other attendant responsibilities would appear to be left on the shoulders of the local authorities. Extra staff may, in many cases, be required to prosecute properly the works under this Bill. Then there is the further question of compensation. I think it is unfortunate that when so much of the cost is to be borne by the Central Fund the local authority should not also be indemnified against the cost in compensation claims that may arise through injury to the people who are actually carrying on the work and who will be in the service of the local authorities. I would like if the Parliamentary Secretary would give us some information on that aspect of the matter.

I do not want this House to take it that I am severely criticising the measure but I am merely pointing out the added responsibility which might fall on the local authorities. Many of these local authorities are uneconomic from the rating point of view and they have to be very critical even to the point where they may appear mean when they see that they are forced to undertake further responsibilities. From the rating point of view County Leitrim is a very uneconomic unit and as a local authority we have always tried to shoulder our responsibilities, but still we would be very critical of the addition of any further responsibilities which would add to our costs.

I hope that useful works of public importance will be done under this measure. Prior to the coming in of this measure, works that were too big to be undertaken by rural improvement schemes or rural employment schemes in drainage districts were left as an eyesore. I would like to be assured that when this measure passes it will be possible for local authorities to execute such works as fairly extensive rivers having an outfall into a drainage district but which were at the same time works which would have been done under the drainage schemes but had not been properly carried out in the first instance. It is impossible to get these works done by rural improvement schemes because they are too big and one can understand how hard it is to organise people in these matters when it is a question of finance having to be sought.

I am very anxious to know if works of that nature will come under the Bill. I hope they will, but, even if they do, I have no illusions as to the effect of that. In many cases, I suggest—and this point was very ably put by Senator O'Farrell—it might constitute an awkward problem by reason of lack of co-operation on the part of local authorities. Naturally I take the view that that will not be the case, and I take it that local authorities will be co-operative, unless there is some grave reason for not co-operating. But we must face up to this fact, that many of these works have an outfall into existing drainage districts which, in many cases—in any case, I know— need reconstruction and, under the Arterial Drainage Act, local authorities are now charged with the responsibility of maintenance of these drainage districts, and maintenance is entirely different from reconstruction. The responsibility of the local authority is to maintain a work in as good a condition as that in which they found it, and, if reconstruction is to be carried out on a minor or semi-major river, it will have the effect of concentrating the water more quickly after a heavy rainfall into the drainage district.

That is a fact that will readily be admitted by anybody here. Even with the better maintenance that has been carried out by the joint committee set up under the Arterial Drainage Act, compared with that carried out by the drainage boards—I readily admit that —I still fear that it is possible to have more extensive flooding and damage than heretofore. I am merely putting that forward for the attention of the House and the Parliamentary Secretary. I am not putting it forward as a criticism and suggesting that works of that nature should not be carried out. They should, but if that eventuality should arise, and if local authorities as a result are to be faced with heavy claims for compensation, having regard to that possibility, the question of the payment of compensation should be reviewed.

If I were to offer any criticism of the measure, I would point to the lack of knowledge up to the moment on the part of local authorities as to what it is proposed to do. Local authorities, the Parliamentary Secretary told us and correctly told us, were asked to formulate schemes. I inquire now if any indication was given to the local authorities as to the type of schemes it was intended to carry out. I know that some local authorities had entirely different views with regard to what it was proposed to do from other local authorities. I felt in the beginning that the only work that could be done was a work where the property of the local authority was actually involved—say, the flooding of a road. Naturally a road is the property of a local authority. The Parliamentary Secretary, however, indicated, and I am glad to know it, that works of public utility can be carried out, even though the property of a local authority is not involved at all. I do not think that local authorities so far had a proper appreciation of what it was proposed to do when the original list of schemes was sought, and I am not so sure that it would be a wise thing to give priority to these schemes in a particular county without a further survey, because I suggest that works should be carried out in the light of their importance in the district and in relation to other works in the same county. I hope that is the view of the Department.

I should like to ask if the Parliamentary Secretary can give the House any indication of how much he proposes to spend in this year and in the ensuing years, because it would satisfy me and answer the point raised by Senator Hawkins—a point which I intended to raise, were it not that he raised it—with regard to time. Local authorities would be anxious to carry out many works, and, I am sure, will co-operate with the Department in carrying out these schemes, but I should like to be sure that, where there is co-operation by a local authority, there will not be technical delays by way of sanction for spending, by way of regulations and other things which might delay a local authority in doing useful work and in giving employment.

While I welcome this measure, I would not like to think that it would be the answer of this or any other Government to this question of drainage. We have heard a lot of promises about this matter of drainage at general elections and we heard them before the last election. It is one of the first things I remember since I first took a small interest in public life. While our drainage code may have improved from a legislative point of view, the actual position has not improved, except in so far as local authorities were allowed to do something which the old drainage boards were supposed to do, and if these authorities did not do it, it was the fault of the people who did not see to it that these boards were properly constituted. That is scarcely relevant to the measure, but I will not digress any further.

I hope, as I say, that this is not the Government's answer to the drainage problem. The real answer would be the implementation of the Arterial Drainage Act, because, while many good things may be done under this measure, it is only tricking with the problem by concentrating the water more quickly in the catchment areas and in those arteries not in a position to take the water.

I would be worried if I thought this was the answer of the present Government to the drainage question. I may be told that the lack of plant and machinery prevents the carrying out of an arterial drainage scheme on the Upper Shannon, together with the existing drainage works, and on the other reasonably-sized rivers that do not, and should, form part of the drainage works. I do not know when surveys will be carried out, but if it is to be put on the long finger and this measure operated to do catch-work drainage, that is a tragedy. Useful work can and will be done under this Bill, but it is only tricking with the problem, as the whole question of drainage must be tackled. It could be tackled with greater speed and more work could be carried out if proper machinery could be assembled and the right drive were in it. I hope I am wrong, but I fear this Bill might be used to defer the carrying out of main drainage schemes that are badly needed.

Mr. Ruane

I rise to give my wholehearted support to this measure. We could do with more of this type of legislation. It diverts the attention of those of our rural population dependent on casual labour on road work at certain times of the year, work of an expensive and extravagant nature intended mainly to facilitate motor speeding and that is gradually putting the ordinary pedestrian off the main roads. I welcome it because it gives local authorities powers they had not hitherto. At certain times, in certain parts of the country, after very heavy rainfall the next meeting of the county council has to deal with applications by county surveyors for money for repairs of flood damage. The orders are referred to as "Sudden Damage Orders." Whereas the council can periodically provide money for emergency repairs like that, they never seem to have the power to get at the root of the evil. It may be the deepening of a waterway or the removal of an obstruction, but the cause of that periodic flooding may happen to be on private property and the power to enter on same was questionable, so the councils go on from year to year, carrying out the sudden damage repairs. If they had the powers provided in this Bill they could get at the cause of the damage and rectify it once and for all.

I also welcome the Bill because it provides for the case where obstruction to a necessary measure might be advanced by a public body. There are unreasonable individuals who would hold up progress on the plea that their property would be interfered with, and there are also unreasonable public bodies. I recollect an instance where a public body, by a majority vote, rejected a very beneficial and attractive scheme, formulated in 1927 by the Office of Public Works, because the people responsible for this obstruction were anxious to coerce the Government of the time to carry out a far bigger scheme. I am glad to tell the Seanad this opposition was not political, as councillors of all Parties were united in their opposition to sidetrack the project and they succeeded. It was an attractive scheme, as the Department of Finance was prepared to advance 50 per cent. of the cost—the estimated cost then was £12,000, but it could not be carried out now for four times the amount—and the balance was to be provided by people who would benefit as a result of the drainage work. A moiety equivalent to the one-fifteenth part of a penny in the £ would have to be provided by the local authority. That was the snag. Because the local body would not accept that insignificant responsibility, the scheme was torpedoed. I am glad to feel that that cannot happen in future. For the past 22 years, valuable crops, turf and riverside hay have been lost annually in many areas because of the obstruction of that particular body.

Certain criticism has been levelled as to the powers in the Bill. One would imagine that, since the advent of local administration, no power was ever given to a public body to enter on private property. We know that that is not so, and that in 1925, because of certain difficulties in providing road material, it was necessary to enable a local authority, by going before a District Court, to get authority to enter on the private property of any individual to secure road-making material, stones or sand, always, of course, paying reasonable compensation. With the advent of the Shannon hydro-electric scheme, it was necessary to get power to erect poles and transformers on private property. There have been objections and some people have grievances, but no unreasonable damage was done to the private property of any person in carrying out that excellent amenity. This measure is a very popular one in the country and I believe, once it becomes law, the popularity it enjoys will manifest itself in the manner by which the people will avail of the power it gives them to put up certain schemes. The results achieved will be the best justification for it.

Mr. Douglas

The only point I wanted to refer to was raised by Senator O'Brien. It seems to me that if you do not make some provision for the execution of urgent work it means that no work could be done within a fortnight, at least. Therefore, some kind of provision would seem to be necessary. I am not satisfied that the section as it stands does all that might be desired from the point of view of protecting the individual. I am not quite able to visualise exactly how this may work. The principal reason I am raising it now, rather than on Committee, is that I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to clear up the point. I have been asked about it by several people outside. Under Section 4, sub-section (1), we read:—

"A local authority executing works pursuant to this Act or any Order or agreement made thereunder, or any officer, servant or agent of such authority...".

Presumably it would always be an officer or agent, but there is a distinction made between the officer or agent and the local authority. When you come to sub-section (2) of Section 4 we find references to "urgent works" and under sub-section (6) we find a definition of "urgent works" which, we read:—

"means works the immediate execution of which is, in the opinion of the local authority executing the works, necessary to prevent serious injury to any person, land or permanent construction."

Does the expression "local authority" there mean an officer of the local authority or is there a distinction between the local authority and its officer? If so, what standing would the officer have and how would he express that opinion? Would it be possible for a servant to appear on certain land and say: "I am told to do this" and proceed with the work, or would he have to produce some written authority from the local authority? If that was not made clear, what would be the position of the owner of the land? It seems to me that it would be desirable to make some provision in that respect under sub-section (4). Sub-section (4) provides that,

"Any person to whom a notice of intention to enter on land has been given under this section may, not later than 14 days after the giving of such notice, apply to the justice of the District Court having jurisdiction in the district in which such land is situate...".

It seems to me that a person whose land has been entered should have the right, within 14 days, to go— naturally he would do it as soon as possible—to the District Court and claim that the work was not urgent and have it stopped until the matter would be examined. I do not think we should go so far as to prevent it from being started. You cannot wait for an urgent matter until you have gone to a District Court. If, on the other hand, you had a proviso whereby the owner, if he really believed the work was not urgent, could go to the District Court and have it stopped, and then the ordinary procedure applied, that would give a safeguard to the owner and would be a check on any possible abuse of the description "urgent works." In a nutshell, my attitude is that you must make some provision for urgent works. The section goes a bit too far. It provides that if the local authority says they are urgent there is no remedy. The occupier can apply, to the court where there is notice, but he cannot apply if there is no notice given and if the land is entered on the grounds that the work is urgent. There should be something more and sub-section (4) should be amended to meet that point.

Mr. D. Burke

I, like other Senators, welcome this Bill. I should like to make a few observations on Section 5, sub-section (2). We read under this sub-section that:—

"Every claim for compensation made under this section shall be made in writing to the local authority concerned before the expiration of the period beginning on the commencement of the works which caused the interference to which the claim relates and ending either two years thereafter or one year after the completion of such works (whichever is the later)."

I think one year is inadequate in that case. After the work is finished a very dry period may follow. You may have a winter like the past one and it could work out very unfair and unjust to some person that the claim would be restricted to one year only after the completion of the work. I would, therefore, ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider this matter. If he increases the period to two years from the completion of the work rather than two years from the commencement of the work I imagine it should meet most of the cases that could possibly arise.

I think, too, that the introduction of this Bill will help the county councils in a great measure. The removal of obstructions from the eyes of bridges and the removal of the causes of road flooding will help the county councils a great deal in so far as they will be relieved of a lot of expenditure which they have had to meet in other years after the occurrence of flooding. I think that point has not been adequately stressed by Senators. Any of us who are members of a county council know that if a tree or sand or gravel was blocking the eye of a bridge we had no authority to remove it. We had no power to do anything like that. This is a "middle of the road" Bill, which will apply to cases where arterial work does not take place at the moment. Therefore, I think it will be welcomed by all people in the country whose property has been subject to flooding, as well as by the county councils. A further point in its favour is that it should increase the productivity of land adjoining those places which have been subject to flooding in the past. The Bill, as amended, and the suggestions made in the Seanad for favourable consideration by the Parliamentary Secretary, should make a very good Bill— the type of Bill we should like to have oftener in this House for discussion.

Mr. Finan

In my opinion there has not been introduced in the Parliament of this country any piece of legislation which has brought more joy and pleasure to the rural community than this measure. The people have been asking for something like this for years but their appeals always fell on deaf ears. They are heartened now by the fact that their county councils can do something to relieve them of the flooding which has impoverished many of them over a number of years. I can sympathise with those Senators who worry about the endangering of civil or individual rights. I appreciate that point very much myself. But really, I think that what gave rise to the giving of extended powers to local authorities is that this question of the infringement of civil liberties can cut both ways. City Senators may not be aware that it was impossible to have carried through a minor employment scheme in the past, even though it might confer a benefit on 21 people, if the 22nd person objected. There you had an infringement on the liberty of 21 individuals by one person. That system held up quite a number of very useful schemes. When I say that the individual liberty of the citizen is a thing that must be cherished and preserved and protected it must not be carried out to the extent of allowing that individual to impose hardships on his neighbours. Hitherto, local authorities had not power to enter on land unless with the consent of the individual owner. That is a very important right and only in exceptional circumstances should it be interfered with, but when the exercise of that right imposed a hardship on other people who suffered losses thereby, something had to be done and this Bill comes into the picture then.

I do not believe that some Senators understand the proper approach to this matter when they talk of compensation. The system as it operates in my county is that it is not a case of the local authority deciding to carry out a drainage scheme, but of the people in the area asking the local authority to carry it out, and I would not anticipate anything in the way of very serious compensation applications at all. The local authority will be guided in the matter by the applications of various people in the area under its control, and as the people themselves will ask for a scheme to be carried out I do not think the local authority will be burdened with applications for compensation.

With regard to the labour content of the Bill, the one snag, to my mind, will be the difficulty of obtaining the necessary labour. I do not know if other counties are as ambitious as County Roscommon, but I know that up to last Monday the county council had schemes amounting to £60,000.

Mr. Hearne

That is for cottages.

Mr. Finan

I beg your pardon, that is not for cottages but drainage schemes. They have other schemes for cottages. If we are able to get men to carry out the work I have no doubt that we shall derive benefit, and long-needed benefit, from this Bill. One point, however, is the matter of staff. Undoubtedly, the present engineering staff will not be capable of dealing with all the schemes, and were local authorities to engage extra staff it would impose certain financial responsibility on them which, perhaps, is not intended. It might be possible for the Minister or the Department to arrange that the local authority would be remunerated to the extent of any additional staff necessary for the full operation of the scheme. I do not think there is anything further I have to say on this point except to say that we welcome this Bill with all our hearts.

Mr. McGee

Listening to the debate I am prompted to take a slightly different line from other Senators who have spoken. There is a general tendency to have a rap at the county councils whenever possible. It is a general thing throughout the country to say "who are county councillors?" In nine cases out of ten they are the common-sense men of the district and I do not think they would be anxious to do an injustice on any individual in the area. I am sorry that the debate in this House gave support to these cranks and critics who belittle the good administration of county councils and impede them whenever they can. The Minister should keep a very careful eye on the fate that awaits county councils in the courts of the country to-day. It is most difficult, practically impossible, to serve the ends of justice. It is very easy to take proceedings against a county council and it is very difficult for a county council to defend itself. Evidence is not always forthcoming and it is almost as difficult to get evidence as for the prosecution in other cases. I know that compensation may be obtained at the expense of the county council and I would like the Minister to keep a very careful and shrewd eye on the limits to which a county council may find itself driven. Where is it going to stop? No men that I know in the country try to do a better job than the county councillors and they take a very great interest in it. In nine cases out of ten they are the best people in the district who seek no greater advantage than to devote their spare time to the free discharge of a difficult and thankless task and they should be the first citizens in the land. It is depressing to find that these attacks are made on them and it is more depressing still to find that over the past ten years the Administration has made attacks upon them; they have made appointments, imported managers and limited their power and to-day if you stand up to defend a county council your activities are frowned upon in the courts of the land. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary and the present Minister will grasp the facts in the way the late Minister had and held them. I hope they will act as fearlessly, bring out all that is best in the counties and make it worth while to be a public man in one's own county.

Mr. Meighan

I think that my colleague, Senator Finan, has touched every point on which I would like to speak with the exception of one, that is, the question of rural employment schemes. I know a few rural employment schemes and I would like to be made clear on the following point. Some of them have been inspected and are, I understand, considered to be of a very serious nature, but still there does not seem to be very much anxiety to go on with them. When schemes are done by the county council there is a tendency on the part of some of the people concerned which makes it pretty hard to collect the cash. I would like to have an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that the schemes that are rejected as rural employment schemes will at least get priority under this Bill. The schemes I have in mind are very important and deal principally with the widening and deepening of drains where there is annual flooding causing serious damage to crops and potatoes. In most cases those crops are on farms of from five to ten acres in townlands where 20 or 30 people live. They find it difficult for many reasons to get everybody to co-operate on the employment schemes and I think I should have an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that those cases would be considered on their merits and put high on the priority list.

Mr. Sweetman

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.

Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 7th July, 1949.