Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 28 Nov 1929

Vol. 32 No. 11

Question on the Adjournment. - Co. Roscommon Drainage Scheme.

Mr. Boland

I gave notice that I would raise, on the motion on the adjournment, a question relating to a drainage scheme in Co. Roscommon. I put the following question to the Minister for Finance:—

Whether he is aware that the Roscommon County Council, in September, 1925, petitioned the Board of Works for a drainage scheme for the Hind River and its tributaries under the Arterial Drainage Act, 1925; if he will state the reason why this petition was not acceded to, the work having been done under the Drainage Maintenance Act, 1924; further, if the Minister is aware that if the steps provided for in the 1925 Act to consult the rated occupiers affected had been taken the project would have been turned down; whether in view of this and the hardship inflicted on the people, the Minister will reconsider the decision to contribute only 25 per cent. of the cost from State funds and allow the 75 per cent.; also, if he will take the necessary steps to have the period of repayment extended from 10 to 35 years.

The Minister gave me the following reply:—The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As to the second part, the Commissioners of Public Works decided against the petition for the reason that the area affected was practically the same as that included in the existing Hind River drainage district and the works of restoration being carried out under the Drainage Maintenance Act, 1924, eliminated the necessity for the formation of a new drainage district. The third part of the question is hypothetical, but no hardship has been inflicted on the occupiers of land; as to the remainder of the question nothing can now be done as the Charging Order has been enrolled in the Central Office of the High Court of Justice, and cannot be altered.

I consider that answer is most unsatisfactory. The people in Roscommon County petitioned to have this carried out under the Drainage Act of 1925. The petition was forwarded to the Commissioners of Public Works, and the result was that an engineer was sent down. Notwithstanding public opinion in the matter in County Roscommon, instead of the scheme being done under the Act of 1925, under which there are greater benefits, the engineer reported that the work should be done under the Act of 1924. The consequences of the wishes of the people in County Roscommon not being acceded to, meant that hardship was inflicted on them. The drainage schemes were undertaken at the cost of £4,462. That included a Government grant of £1,115 10s., leaving to be assessed on the area in which the money was to be expended, £3,346 10s. This was an old drainage scheme undoubtedly. It was under the control, as such schemes are, of the Drainage Board. They were able to keep the river in a good state at a cost of about £60 a year. My information is that the Commissioners of Public Works actually had men engaged at one part of the river on this scheme without informing the Drainage Board of the fact. This work was undertaken in 1926, and we all know what the political situation was then. I make no insinuation, but the belief in the district was—I do not know whether Deputy Brennan will bear me out in this—that the major portion of the cost was to be borne by the State, and advantage was naturally taken of this scheme because of the unemployment that was in the district. Most of the people, I am credibly informed, believed that there was to be a free grant, but they found out to their cost that that was not to be so.

I am also informed, and I believe accurately, that in the area in which the cost has been levied, the holdings or farms were exempt from the old drainage rates. The landlord, in the first instance, paid the drainage rate, and the Land Commission after him. These people are now being roped in and assessed for the cost of this work about which they were not consulted.

I got a letter from the Commissioners of Public Works stating that the cost per acre amounted to 1/7d. One of the people affected informed me that there is included in the area of charge a considerable area of red bog and very bad land, which will bear a small proportion of this rate, and which I am informed could bear only about one-twentieth of the rate. I ask the Government to give the maximum allowed under the Act of 1924, seeing that they refused to have the work done under the Act of 1925. I am asking for 75 per cent. under the Act of 1924. That cannot be done unless the Act is amended, but at least the maximum under the Act of 1924, which is 50 per cent., should be allowed. An Act was passed enabling these people to say whether they would have the scheme or not. I submit it is most unfair to put power of the sort I have referred to into the hands of a public official so that he can override the wishes of the people. I have also been told that this order has been enrolled in the High Court of Justice, and that the charges set out here are final, binding, and cannot be altered. As the law stands I suppose that is so. There is another scheme in the same district, called Ballybay, which cost £100.

I believe that as the law stands at present nothing can be done. I submit that the question of amending the Act should be considered so that this enrolling order may not be final and binding. There should be some method of getting away from that. I am informed, and I believe rightly, that an impossible burden is being placed on the people as a result of this drainage scheme. I have had statements from people who have been charged with the drainage rate whose lands are adjoining the Shannon and could not be improved by the scheme. For about six months of the year these lands are flooded, and yet the owners of them are asked to pay not alone the ordinary drainage rate but an added one put on to them by a Government Department, which acted without consulting the wishes of the people who have knowledge extending over generations, and who know the habits of the rivers much better than an engineer who merely pays a casual visit could. Until the new system of pumping is put into execution as regards the Shannon it would be impossible to give any relief from flooding. It is an outrageous state of affairs that people who are prepared to prove that they have gained nothing by this drainage scheme are going to be so heavily assessed. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider the whole question and ask the Minister for Finance to do what he is entitled to do under the Act, and to do something, if necessary by amendment of the Act, to vary the order so as to grant relief to people who have been victimised in this way. They certainly should get the rights under the Act of 1925.

Certainly a very serious hardship is being inflicted on the people affected by this scheme, and other people in the County Roscommon as well. Similar work was carried out in Elphin district, and in the Suck, Ballybay, and Croghan districts; but a greater hardship is being inflicted in connection with the Hind River scheme than in the other schemes for the reason that the period of repayment of the loan in that case is only ten years while in the case of the Suck district it is 20 years, and in the case of Elphin it is 15 years. In addition, in the case of the River Suck there is a free grant of 30 per cent. of the cost, the repayment of the remainder of the cost being spread over a period of twenty years. In the case of Elphin there was a free grant of 33? per cent., and the period of repayment was 15 years. In the case of the Hind River there was a free grant of 25 per cent. and the repayment was spread over a period of only 10 years. Taken from that angle, I think these people for whom Deputy Boland has spoken have been badly treated. I do not know exactly to whom the blame attaches.

Some of the people affected consider that when the County Council was informed about this work, it should have protested against its execution. The County Council was notified about the work on the 14th August 1926, but no ordinary meeting of the Council was held until the following October. The matter came before the County Council on the 23rd October for the first time, and at that time probably three-quarters of the work had been done, so that there was no opportunity given anybody, as far as I know, to protest against the expenditure of money on the work, or to suggest that an additional period of ten years should be given for a repayment, or that a larger percentage of the money should be given as a grant. I do not know if the Board of Works published any notice, even in the local Press, prior to the 23rd October, which would have given those affected by the work on the Hind River an idea of the repayment they would have to make, but I know that it was evident on the 23rd October, when the matter came before the County Council, that the benefit of the work being done on the Hind River and its tributaries would not in any way correspond to the expenditure. I will read from a report in a Roscommon paper what happened at the meeting of the Country Council:—

The Department wrote that a sum of £4,000 is to be expended on the Hind River district, of which the Government will pay £1,000. It was proposed to carry out a general restoration scheme which would entail a charge of 2/8 an acre on lands affected or £3,000 in all.

The Chairman of the meeting said here was work now proceeding, and all the Council had to do was to collect the cost. He must say from observation that if there was £4,000 spent on the river there would not be £2,000 value given.

That was the first time the matter came before the County Council, and I have no knowledge that prior to that any notice was published in the local Press or anywhere else. I do not know if the Drainage Board was informed, or if those who were to benefit by the work were informed that it would entail a charge of 2/8 an acre on land affected. Deputy Boland pointed out that originally an application was sent to the County Council by these people to have the work done under the 1925 Act. That was sent forward by the County Council, but the Board of Works, seemingly because it was not a new drainage district and the work was not intended to bring in any new land, decided that it could not be done under the 1925 Act, but could only be done under the 1924 Act. That cut out the County Council absolutely as it had no jurisdiction good, bad or indifferent. If those people have to pay 2/8 an acre for land which has not by any means benefited by the work, and if they were not informed prior to the work being started, I certainly think they are entitled to some relief. I do not think it is fair for any Government Department to adopt this attitude, to carry out certain work and then to charge people they consider benefited with the cost, although the people themselves consider that they have not benefited. It was stated that the charging order could not be altered. If that is so and apparently it is, I wonder could anything be done even at this late stage towards increasing the grant. As I pointed out only 25 per cent. of the cost was given in this case, whereas 30 per cent. and 33? per cent. was given in other cases. I might also mention with regard to Elphin district that notification was served on the County Council when this work was being done that the period of repayment was ten years. Later apparently the Board of Works came to the conclusion that additional money would have to be spent there, and the County Council was again notified that £2,000 extra would be spent and that the period for repayment would be extended from ten to fifteen years. If the time could be extended in that case perhaps it could be extended in this case. I do not know if the order was in force. There is no doubt that what Deputy Boland stated was quite correct with regard to people who have not alone not received any benefit from the work but whose land has been drowned and who still have to pay. People on the banks of the Shannon were originally included in the award. They were paying the old drainage rate. The Board of Works certainly relieved a small percentage of the people and got away a great amount of water. However, that affected the people further down the river and the position now is that people whose lands have benefited and others who have not benefited by the work have got to pay equally. I know that another grave hardship has been inflicted. When the charging order came down, and when the County Council saw what was being done, a fuss was made and the Board of Works was asked to extend the period for repayment to 35 years. A considerable amount of correspondence passed between the County Council and the Board of Works. I am afraid I cannot pay a tribute to the Board of Works for the manner in which they reply to correspondence. The result has been that two years' arrears have accrued on the people, and at the moment they are being asked to pay, not a half year's drainage rate, but four half years' rate plus two maintenance rates. Certain provision has been made by the County Council to try to lighten the burden in certain respects but, on the whole, the people have been badly hit and I would be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary could suggest any means of remedying their position.

Both the Deputies who have spoken seem to realise that it is impossible to do anything in this matter now as the charging order is already enrolled. With regard to Deputy Boland's point about an amending Act, I do not think that that would be a feasible course to adopt. After all, there must be some finality in this matter. This Act passed the Dáil and was, I think, very well received by all parties in the Dáil at the time, and very good work has been carried out under it. The Act has practically served its purpose now, and nearly all those old drainage districts which had been allowed to get into a bad state have been restored, so that there would be no point in amending the Act at this stage. In any case I do not see the necessity for it.

It is quite true that in this case the original application to the Office of Public Works was for a drainage works under the Act of 1925, but this being purely a question of restoration it did not fit in with the 1925 Act, and we had to restore it under the Act of 1924. There also seems to be some misunderstanding as to the basis on which grants are paid when this Act was put into operation. It is not a question of a twenty-five per cent., a thirty-five per cent, or a fifty per cent. grant. The idea was to make those schemes economic, and if twenty-five per cent. would make a scheme economic we pay only twenty-five per cent.; if fifty per cent. is required to make it economic we are prepared to pay fifty per cent.

In this particular case twenty-five per cent. is sufficient, and that twenty-five per cent. amounted to fifty per cent. of an increase in value as a result of the original drainage scheme. That is the idea that we aim at in all these restoration schemes. The two Deputies who have spoken have commented very strongly on this matter, but it is a remarkable fact that we have had no complaints from the parties who are supposed to be benefited. We had one complaint very early, while the work was being carried out, but we found on investigation that the charge that was made was unfounded, and, in fact, four of the people whose names had been signed to the complaint, when questioned about it, had no knowledge that their names had been signed to it at all. If there is a grievance I am surprised that it was not brought to our notice before. If a complaint can be made against any authority I should say that the County Council is the one to blame. They had an opportunity of making a contribution, if they wished, but the only information we got from them was that they were not going to make a contribution. They did not complain about the fact that the Act was being put into operation, but as soon as it was put into operation we heard complaints. That happened in other cases, and we are not surprised at it.

With regard to the increase in the value of the land benefited by the scheme, is not that only an estimate? Should it not be a rule that there should be some examination after a scheme had been in operation for a couple of years? I submit that nobody would be able to estimate accurately at the time the amount of benefit that will be provided, and there should be some procedure by which the estimate of the valuer would be checked. I submit that there is a case for that.

Mr. Bourke

Of course the question of valuation in these cases is always a difficult one. All we can do is to get the most highly-skilled men we possibly can for this purpose. But you cannot carry out a drainage scheme without having a valuation.

I submit that what the probable increase in value is, is only an estimate. Is it not proper to suggest that there should be some check on that afterwards to see if the estimate is justified? because, after all, if people are going to be charged on the basis of a fifty per cent. increase in value of their land there should be some approximation about that before that charge is made. When the scheme had been in operation for a couple of years the original estimate should be checked.

Mr. Bourke

I do not see how that could be done. After all, the people who make these valuations know exactly what the effect of the work on the land drained is going to be.

They could not know that.

Mr. Bourke

You could not hold up the charge indefinitely for two or three years like that, and then put all the extra cost, which would have been piling up during these years, on the people whose lands are benefited. Unfortunately, that happened in this case, because of the fact that the County Council was not active at the time. On the whole, I cannot see that any case has been made out for reconsidering this matter, and even if there was a case, there is no possibility of doing it.

In view of what I have stated with regard to the date of the County Council meeting, how does the Parliamentary Secretary make out that the County Council, if anybody, is responsible for this condition of affairs? In the first place, the County Council was not asked its opinion at all. It was simply notified that the work was going to be undertaken by the Board of Works, and before the County Council meeting was held three-fourths of the work had been done.

Why not have held a special meeting if it was very important?

It was not very important from the County Council point of view. There was the Elphin scheme, the Ballybay scheme, the Hind river and the Suck river, and in addition to them, there were applications for about forty-five new schemes. If the County Council had agreed to make a contribution to any one of them, they would have had to make it to all of them, and they came to the very proper conclusion that they would not make a contribution to any of them.

I do not like to interfere in this matter because I want to give time to the Parliamentary Secretary to reply, but as it has been stated that the people did not want this drainage scheme, I would like to say that early in 1926, as soon as the Drainage Act had been passed, I was pressed by a number of people in that area to try to get this work done. The fact that a petition was sent up shows that the people desired that the work should be done. I also had correspondence with people in the area with regard to the matter, and I would like to quote one letter that was sent to me. It is from a person who cannot have any idea of having political capital made out of it—the County Surveyor of Roscommon. In the course of his letter he says: "I am quite convinced that this work is very urgently needed. I know the damage that is done by the flooding, and for a comparatively small amount of money, by sinking portion of this river all the flooding could be obviated and work of a permanently useful nature would be done. There are large numbers of men around Roscommon unemployed at the present time, as is shown by the numbers daily applying to me for work, and they could all be absorbed in doing this work."

There was pressure of that sort brought to bear on the Board of Works to endeavour to get this work done. I do not think it is altogether fair to say that the County Council can be absolved if there was any objection to be made. Notification was sent to the County Council in August, and no meeting was held until October. It is well known that special meetings are held frequently, and a special meeting can easily be called on the signatures of the chairman and the secretary. I do not think there is any great point in that. I do not believe that any change would have been made, because the County Council would not have given any assistance in the matter, but, at the same time, they would not have prevented the work from being carried out. With regard to the benefit that has been done, there are altogether 297 people affected, and while a small number will be dissatisfied, undoubtedly the greater number have been benefited. As a matter of fact, I saw a report in the local Press of a meeting that was held in connection with it, and they were all inclined to complain about it. One man complained that so effectively was the drainage carried out that he had to carry water to his cattle for the greater part of the summer. That shows that it was effective, and I do not believe that all that has been said about the matter is altogether true. I believe that benefits have accrued to the area from the drainage.

One point that the Deputy has raised was that the County Council might have called a special meeting to protest. The County Council had not the smallest idea of it, because the people in this district did not approach them.

The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, November, 29th.

Barr
Roinn