Before we take up consideration of the Report Stage of this Bill, I should like to indicate that I have ruled that amendments Nos. 3, 10 and 11, standing in the names of Senators Dooge and Fitzpatrick, are out of order, on the ground that they involve a potential charge on State funds. The Senators have been notified accordingly.
Coast Protection Bill, 1962— Report and Final Stages.
Government amendment No. 1:
In page 2, line 41, and page 3, line 1, to delete "nature and probable causes" and substitute "location and extent".
Would the House agree to take amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together? I have accepted the principle of the amendment proposed by Senators Dooge and Fitzpatrick, amendment No. 2, and the parliamentary draftsman has given effect to it in amendment No. 1.
I might mention that at Committee Stage of the Bill on Section 16 there may have been some misunderstanding between Senator Dooge and myself as to whether or not costs incurred by a promoting authority on the initial investigation would be reckoned as part of the final cost of the scheme. I should have made it clear that they will not.
Amendment No. 1 is less restrictive and less onerous than amendment No. 2. It is less onerous on the local authority and, accordingly, I am very happy to see amendment No. 1 substituted for the form which I proposed.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.
Government amendment No. 4:
In page 6, line 54, to insert "registered" before "post".
Would it be possible to take amendments Nos. 4 and 9 together?
Yes. It is agreed to take amendments Nos. 4 and 9 together.
I agree with Senator Stanford that notice should be served by registered post and I recommend these two amendments. On the Committee Stage Senator Stanford also suggested that specific provision should be made for the publication of notices in the national daily newspapers. The Bill already provides for publication "in one or more newspapers circulating in the county of the promoting authority and any other county the council of which named the promoting authority", and I think this is adequate. As administrative practice, notices are published in the national daily newspapers as well as in local newspapers. I trust the amendment now meets the Senator's wishes.
I am pleased that the Parliamentary Secretary has seen his way to incorporate this amendment in the Bill. It may, I think, prevent a possible miscarriage of justice and that is what we all try to do in these Bills. I am grateful to him for inserting it.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 5:
In page 7, between lines 37 and 38 to insert the following:
(6) (a) Where an order under this section confirms a coast protection scheme with alterations (by way of variation, addition or omission), the order shall have no effect if, within one month after the receipt of a copy of the order, the promoting authority declare that the scheme is not to be proceeded with.
(b) The making of a declaration under this subsection shall be a reserved function.
It is proposed to take amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 13 together. Again, I agree in principle with amendment No. 6 proposed by Senators Dooge and Fitzpatrick, and the Parliamentary Draftsman has prepared amendment No. 5 to give effect to it. Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 13 are simply consequential amendments.
I am satisfied that amendment No. 5 meets completely the points raised on Committee Stage and I thank the Parliamentary Secretary.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
Government amendment No. 7:
In page 7, line 38, to delete "one month" and substitute "two months".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 8:
In page 7, line 40, before "shall" to insert, "unless they have made a declaration under subsection (6) of this section,".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 9:
In page 8, line 2, to insert "registered" before "post".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.
Government amendment No. 12:
In page 12, between lines 52 and 53, to add to section 18 the following subsections:
(4) The following provisions shall have effect in relation to the issue under this section of a certificate of completion:
(a) the Minister for Finance shall cause to be published inIris Oifigiúil, and in one or more newspapers circulating in the county of the promoting authority and any other county the council of which named the promoting authority pursuant to this Act, a notice stating that the Minister for Finance proposes to issue the certificate and that any person may, within two months after the date of the publication of the notice in Iris Oifigiúil, send to the Minister for Finance an objection to the issue of the certificate;
(b) simultaneously with or as soon as may be after the publication of the notice inIris Oifigiúil, the Minister for Finance shall send to the promoting authority and any other council which named the promoting authority a copy of the notice;
(c) the council to whom a copy of the notice has been so sent or any other person may, within two months after the date of the publication of the notice inIris Oifigiúil, send to the Minister for Finance an objection in writing stating that such council or person objects to the issue of the certificate and the grounds of the objection;
(d) the Minister for Finance shall consider any objection sent as aforesaid and shall take such steps in regard thereto as he thinks proper;
(e) the certificate shall not be issued less than two months after the date of the publication of the notice inIris Oifigiúil.
(5) The power conferred byparagraph (c) of subsection (4) of this section shall, in the case of a local authority, be a reserved function.
Even though amendments Nos. 10 and 11 have been ruled by the Cathaoirleach to be out of order I have tried to meet so far as possible in amendment No. 12 to Section 18 the points which have been raised. I am proposing this amendment in order to give to a promoting authority an opportunity of putting their views before the Minister for Finance if, when the Commissioners of Public Works consider that a coast protection scheme has been completed, the promoting authority do not agree. The amendment provides that before issuing a certificate of completion the Minister shall publish notice of his intention to issue the certificate. Within two months of the publication of the notice the promoting authority or any other person may send to the Minister an objection to the issue of the certificate. The Minister will consider the objection and take such steps in regard thereto as he thinks proper. Under the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, the issue of certificates of completion for drainage schemes is subject to a procedure which is on similar lines and which has been found satisfactory in operation. I recommend the amendment to the House.
Amendment No. 12 modifies substantially the unilateral nature of the certificate of completion as it existed in the original Bill.
Naturally, I should have preferred if the Parliamentary Secretary could have seen his way to adopt in full the principle of arbitration. The Office of Public Works have already accepted this principle in so far as that when they make a contract with a public works contractor there is provision for arbitration in the interpretation of certain parts of the contract. Nevertheless, there is no doubt whatsoever that the amendment proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary is an improvement over what is in the Bill and a distinct improvement over what has been the practice in some Bills in the past. For example, in the case of harbour works the position regarding certificates of completion was that the Acts laid down that the Board of Works and the county surveyor had to certify that the works were complete and that in a case where the county surveyor did not certify that it was complete he was deemed to have certified it. I am very glad that we are getting away from the stage where anybody who disagrees with the Board of Works is deemed to have agreed with them. I do thank the Parliamentary Secretary for coming at least as far as this. It certainly gives an opportunity to a promoting authority to make a solid objection to a certificate of completion and I think we can rely on the good sense of the Minister for Finance to see that an-objection will be treated on its merits when it arrives.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 13:
In page 17, line 8, to insert "or subsection (6)" before "of section 10".
Amendment agreed to.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass".
Before the Bill passes from us, there are a few remarks I should like to make on it. This Bill is of necessity an experimental measure. It corresponds in many ways to the 1925 Arterial Drainage Act not only in the form of some of the sections but also in the fact that it is an experimental step forward into new areas of operation by the Office of Public Works. Even as the 1925 Arterial Drainage Act had in time to be replaced by a more comprehensive measure, namely, the 1945 Arterial Drainage Act, so this measure will in time almost certainly have to be amended on the basis of experience of actual operation.
As it leaves the Seanad now, we can describe the Bill as a reasonable first shot attacking a very difficult problem. There are some very good features in the Bill but some weaknesses and if I might for a few moments touch upon some of its weaknesses it is not in criticism of the Bill or of the Parliamentary Secretary who has shown a very welcome open mind on the subject, but, as it were, in order to emphasise that this is a tentative and experimental measure.
There is elaborate provision in the Bill for securing the agreement both of the Board of Works and the local council at each stage up to the commencement of the works. This is extremely desirable in order both to avoid disagreement and to ensure a proper balance between giving too much consideration to a project which is not worthwhile and on the other hand too little consideration to a project that deeper study might show to be well worthwhile. This joint agreement, however, is not provided for at later stages of operation. It is not provided for during the work and originally it was not provided for at all on completion although today the Parliamentary Secretary has modified that substantially. There is no provision for joint agreement concerning works being done during maintenance.
Another disadvantage that this Bill has is that it prescribes a rigid procedure, a very rigid procedure, for a problem that needs flexible design. The Rosslare scheme which the Parliamentary Secretary rightly describes as engineering work of very high calibre was carried out in a flexible way and I doubt if the Rosslare scheme could have been carried out in that way under the provisions of the Bill now before us. If we come across problems of the same nature as those at Rosslare there may be great difficulty in carrying out schemes involving long stretches of coast under the rather rigid procedure laid down in the Bill.
A further disadvantage is the position of urban authorities which is still uncertain under the Bill. Sections 2 and 5 are not consistent with one another. A scheme rejected by the county council under subsection (1) (a) of Section 5 is a scheme that has passed two hurdles at which it has been examined for merit, whereas a scheme rejected by the county council under Section 2 has not passed those hurdles. Under the Bill as it leaves us now an urban authority can take up and carry out a scheme rejected under Section 2 while it cannot take up and carry out a scheme rejected under Section 5 even though that scheme has by passing two stiff hurdles shown itself, as it were, to be of greater merit than a scheme rejected at stage two.
These points which I have brought forward have not been brought forward in any spirit of criticism of the Parliamentary Secretary, of his Office or of the Bill, but I think these are areas of difficulty, areas which will have to be watched in the operation of the Bill if it is to be operated to the satisfaction of both the Commissioners of Public Works and the promoting authorities concerned.
I should like, finally, to express my gratitude to the Parliamentary Secretary for the manner in which he has listened to the discussion here in the Seanad. I should like to thank him for the very great consideration he has shown to the Seanad on the various stages of this Bill. I think it is very encouraging that while we may differ considerably on many matters, when it comes to a non-controversial Bill like this the Parliamentary Secretary has proved ready to examine on their merits the various points brought forward. I think that all of us in this House are grateful to him for the attitude he has shown us and further I would say that the attitude he has shown in this House is a very good augury for successful co-operation between his Office and the promoting authorities in the actual operation of this Bill.
Question put and agreed to.