I should like to say on this section that Deputy Goulding raised a point on that part of the section which says that the word "county" does not include county borough, and spoke of a joint drainage scheme that existed between the Waterford County Borough and the Waterford County Council. I suggested that the Arterial Drainage Act of 1925 would probably be found to meet his case. But, in fact, I am advised that that Act refers only to county councils and does not include county boroughs. There is no proposal to change that, as far as the minor schemes are concerned. The Bill is drafted entirely from an extra-borough point of view. In any case the particular drainage problem the Deputy refers to would not by any chance fall under the description of minor schemes. If there is a drainage problem in connection with any borough, the matter must be taken up separately by that borough. It is not proposed to bring boroughs under this Bill, for the reason that a borough scheme would be a very big scheme that would certainly not come in under £1,000, and the additional reason, that this Bill is the trimmings of the Act of 1925, which does not refer to county boroughs.
IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - ARTERIAL DRAINAGE (MINOR SCHEMES) BILL, 1928—COMMITTEE.
I pointed out on Second Reading that some alteration could be made in this section, and I should like to know if the Minister has anything to suggest.
The Deputy will probably see the section is quite fair and all right as it stands. There may be a person who has, let us say, a holding of £200 valuation. He may be involved in a scheme with two people, one of £30 and another of £25 valuation. It is not the extent of the complete holding that is involved, but the extent of the valuation of the land to be benefited. If a person with land expecting to be benefited under a drainage scheme, the valuation of which is, say £50, is involved with persons whose land to be benefited is, say, of a valuation of £10, and another of £20, there is running through the whole Bill the intention that the person or persons who have more than 50 per cent. of the valuation of the land proposed to be benefited are being given a deciding say as to whether their land should be interfered with for the purposes of improvement or not.
As to the position of farms likely to be interfered with as the result of drainage, should not these farmers have a right to have a say as to whether the drainage scheme is to be carried through or not?
Yes, they have. Whenever a scheme is reported on and it is proposed to be considered by the county council, there is deposited the plans, which are open to inspection by everyone concerned. There are public notices of the scheme, and persons feeling that they are aggrieved or likely to be aggrieved in any way can make representations to the county council, and can be heard personally or through their agents before the county council when it assembles to ratify the scheme.
Would it not appear that a more equitable basis for arranging the matter would be if the value of their land was taken into consideration and put alongside that of other farmers likely to be opposed to the drainage scheme? They are not really benefited by the scheme and they are not taken into consideration. The Bill has only reference to the position of the farmers to be benefited.
I do not know what kind of process the Deputy would suggest to deal with this matter, but if he would consider what kind of amendment would meet his point the matter could be considered on the Report Stage, but I suggest that the provisions for the hearing of objections by county councils are ample and give protection to anyone at all likely to be affected.
I move amendment No. 1:—
1. In sub-section (3), page 8, line 61, to delete all from and including the word "as" to the end of the sub-section and substitute the words "out of the following funds so far as they will respectively extend, that is to say, the sum fixed in the drainage scheme as the sum to be raised by such council by means of the drainage rate for the purpose of such repayment, the sum received by such council in respect of the State grant hereinafter in this Act provided for, and the county contribution (if any) of such council, and the residue of such moneys shall be repaid to such council out of the county fund of such council."
Amendments 1, 4 and 5 are drafting amendments to get rid of a particular thing here described as excess liability and to make the drafting of the sections more clear.
AN CEANN COMHAIRLE resumed the Chair.
I have an amendment down:
"In sub-section (1), line 13, to delete all words after the word ‘sanction' to the end of the sub-section."
In view of the subsequent amendments and the Financial resolution, I ask leave to withdraw this amendment, because I do not think there is any need for it.
I move amendment 4. To delete sub-section (3). This is really a drafting amendment. We have removed the idea of excess liability and the matter is made clear in Section 13 (3).
I move amendment 5:—
In sub-section (1), page 9, to delete lines 53 to 57 and substitute the following:—
"(1) The moneys required by a drainage scheme to be raised by a county council by means of the drainage rate for or towards the repayment to such council of the moneys provided by such council to meet the expenses incurred in carrying out such scheme and also all".
This is another drafting amendment.
I move amendment 5:—
In sub-section (2), lines 18-19, to delete all words from and including the words "the District Court" to the end of the sub-section and substitute therefor the words "the Minister on the application of either party."—(Máirtin O Conalláin.)
The reason I had in putting this down is that I thought considerable cost would be involved by having to go into the District Court. I submit the Minister should have an inspection made of the place or the area where the county council enters the land and where the parties concerned are not satisfied with the amount of the compensation. The next section says: "The Minister may hold or cause to be held such inquiries as he considers necessary or expedient for the purposes of this Act." That being so, I think it would be better if the matter was left to the decision of the Minister in the case of small disputes so as to avoid the extra cost to the parties concerned.
Section 32 of the Local Government Act of 1925 gives the right to local authorities responsible for road-making of entering upon lands to take away road material, and in any dispute as to compensation the District Court has the jurisdiction in the matter and of assessing the compensation. This seems to be on all fours with that. The cost and inconvenience, and perhaps want of satisfaction, would be much greater, I think, if the matters had to come before the Minister for determination as to what would be just compensation. The District Court is certainly the most suitable body to do it. Section 24 simply gives the Minister power not so much to hold an inquiry, as if circumstances drive him to hold an inquiry of any particular kind he can recover the costs. We do not desire or expect it will be necessary to hold an inquiry arising out of the Bill. We cannot really foresee that normally there would be any necessity to institute an inquiry, but in case it should be necessary it is desirable to have the power to recover costs. I do not think that the fact that we have Section 24 should induce us to depart from the District Court as the body with jurisdiction as to compensation.
I think it will be realised that this is on all fours with the work that has already gone to the District Court in connection with disputes arising out of the taking of road material. There ought, moreover, to be very few cases arising out of this matter in which there would not be agreement. I do not accept the Deputy's suggestion that the District Court is an expensive way of arriving at a decision if there is no agreement. It might be more expensive if the Minister were brought in.
We will take the next amendment along with this.
I move:—
In sub-section (2), line 18, to delete all words from and including the words "the District" to the end of the sub-section and substitute the words:—"arbitration, the arbitration court to be constituted of representatives of the Local Government Department, of the county council and of the owner and owners of land."
In moving this amendment I am guided by the fact that people would probably be dissatisfied with the District Justice's decision. There is a certain amount of dissatisfaction in cases where District Courts have decided in regard to road work. There may be appeals from the District to the Circuit Court and then to the High Court, and people may be involved in heavy law costs, owing to the feeling which prevails in the country of people believing that they are right, and not giving way, so that the costs would grow to a large amount. It is to prevent this unpleasantness that I suggest we should have recourse to arbitration. Some of us have had experience of Arbitration Courts and we know the respect which was always entertained towards them. If you resort to arbitration and have representatives of the Local Government Department, the County Council, and the owner of the land there would be very little costs, if any. A pledge might be submitted to all parties to abide by the decision of the Arbitration Court so that the disputes would be finally settled.
I have seen some District Courts working, and I must say that they are full of the spirit of arbitration. A District Justice would be as useful an arbitrator in these matters as anyone representing the Minister. The amount involved in a District Court must, of necessity, be small. Even the costs of the District Court, small as they are, would be sufficient to force people to arbitrate amongst themselves. The best suggestion I can make is that the District Court be left in the section. I would not be prepared to accept the amendment putting the Minister in the position of having to arbitrate in such cases because the District Court has the machinery for doing that.
I agree with the Minister. I do not think that the amount involved would be likely to lead to many disputes, and as the Minister is unwilling to take on the extra work of arbitration, I will withdraw my amendment with the leave of the Dáil.
Deputy Conlon says that he does not want the Minister to arbitrate. That is not my amendment.
The Deputy's amendment would mean getting a whole body of representatives together for the purpose of doing this.
After consultation with wiser heads than mine, I have decided to withdraw the amendment.
I would again make a suggestion as a matter of common sense, that if there is no objection on the part of the House, we should take the Final Stages of this Bill on Friday next. As in the case of the previous Bill, I do not feel any particular urgency in the matter, but a month has elapsed since its Second Reading, and there are no outstanding points of difference so far as I can see.
Fourth Stage ordered for Friday, 30th March.