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.