It was started, however, in 1926 or in 1927. When the Board of Works, as they understood, finished their job, they quit. Neither the Board of Works nor the River Suck Drainage Board took any responsibility for the future maintenance of the river. That position continued from 1929 to 1933. Then the Board of Works woke up. The first thing they did, before issuing the charging order and making out the schedule, was to decide that of this sum of £18,000 which they had spent on the river £13,179 15s. 9d. was to be payable by the ratepayers. They charged interest, calculated over a number of years, on this sum of £13,000 odd, against the ratepaying community on the River Suck. The interest charge amounted to £4,508 9s. 2d., and this was added to the £13,179 odd. So that instead of charging the people living on the banks of the River Suck with the payment of the sum of £13,000 odd, they have been charged with the payment of practically £18,000. According to the charging order, the exact figure is £17,688 4s. 1d., an increase of over 34 per cent. upon this ratepaying community, for which I hold they have no responsibility whatever, and for which no work has been done.
As regards the County Councils of Roscommon and Galway, they endeavoured to get this matter settled up. They had no responsibility whatever for the payment of this sum of money but they were informed that a charging order was made out and that the care of the works would be turned over to them by the Board of Works. On two occasions deputations were appointed to attend at the Board of Works in Dublin to endeavour to settle up outstanding matters with relation to the River Suck, the outstanding matters being that, originally, there was a drainage board which had responsibility, which had assets and liabilities, the liabilities exceeding the assets. The question for consideration was: If the Board of Works hand this river and its maintenance over to the county councils, who is going to be made responsible for the liabilities of the old drainage board? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance has taken up the attitude all along that that was the county councils' job —that, to use his own words, "it was our funeral." It was never our funeral until he made it our funeral, nor was it ever our job.
I maintain that it is the business of the Government to straighten this thing out before they hand it over to the county councils. Why should we be made the scapegoats in this, considering that we had no responsibility in the matter? As I have said, we endeavoured as far as we possibly could to get the matter settled up. We came up on two occasions to the Board of Works. Certain proposals were put up but agreement could not be reached. The first proposal was that a contribution should be made by the county councils concerned. The Parliamentary Secretary promised that if they made a certain contribution he was prepared to approach the Government to have its contribution increased from 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. We failed to get that through at either county council. Another proposal was put up by the Parliamentary Secretary to the effect that his Department would take over and discharge all the liabilities of the old drainage board, provided the two county councils put into operation the schedule and charging order which the Board of Works was about to make out. We were not informed at that time that the schedule and charging order would include this sum of £4,500 odd, which was never spent there but which represented interest that had accrued during the period when nothing was being done on the river by anybody, and when the Board of Works had neglected to prepare its schedule and charging order. In response to that proposal, which, as I have said, was put up by the Parliamentary Secretary, the case made by the county councils was this: That over a period of years preceding 1926—from 1919 to 1926—the River Suck and its tributaries had got into a condition in which the Board of Works had felt compelled to spend £18,000 on restoration works, while from 1927 to 1933—a period of six years—the river and its tributaries were again neglected. Nobody bothered their heads about it. It was not the county council's business to do anything in connection with it during that period. It was nobody's business.
Therefore, the county councils naturally and, I hold, justly demanded that the Board of Works should put the river and its tributaries in order before it asked them to take them over. It took £18,000 to restore the works in 1927 or 1928, and it would take practically a like amount to again restore the works in 1933 due to the six years neglect that I have just referred to. The attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary was that the county councils must take the works over and be responsible for their future maintenance. The position that we found ourselves in was that the river had been neglected, flooding was occurring and various complaints were being made. In view of all that the County Council of Roscommon has a very big responsibility in the matter because two-thirds of the charge is falling on our county. We have quite a lot of ratepayers living there. We find it very difficult to collect the ordinary rates and now we are being asked by the Department of Finance to put on a new rate—not alone a rate to bring in 70 per cent. of what they spent on the work but to increase that by 34 per cent. for interest. In addition to that, we are to put on a maintenance rate and restore the river to what it ought to be. How the county council could meet that demand, I do not know. We did not find agreement on either of the occasions on which we came to the Board of Works to discuss the matter. We were quite prepared to put the charging order into operation, provided the river was put into condition for us. But why we should be asked to take over responsibility for everybody's neglect is more than we can understand. On the 28th of April of last year, after both proposals had been turned down —one was that we should make a contribution and the other was that the Department of Finance, or the Board of Works, should accept responsibility for discharging all the liabilities of the old Drainage Board—and when we thought that negotiations were still proceeding, we were informed that we would now have to take over the river. The terms of the letter were:
"The proposal made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the representatives of the County Councils of Galway and Roscommon at the Conference held on the 14th October, 1933, is set out in our letter of 16th October, 1933, to the Council."
That was the proposal that they take over the responsibilities of the old Drainage Board.
"This proposal has not been accepted by the councils and must, therefore, be regarded as having lapsed and is withdrawn."
There was no solution arrived at but we got the charging order and the schedule setting out the charges on the people, which involved a sum of 34 per cent. in excess of that originally proposed. Roscommon County Council refused to comply and it is for the Minister for Local Government or somebody else to abolish the county council if he likes. The county council refused to take over the River Suck or accept the charging order, which is an order under seal. We are still in that position and will be until this question is settled. The council passed a resolution drawing the attention of the Board of Works to the matter and asking to have a further conference. On the 9th October, 1934, a letter was received, by way of reply to that resolution, from the Board of Works, as follows:—
"We beg to state that, as pointed out in our letter dated 25th July last, it is desirable, before suggesting a time and place for the proposed conference, that we should have an opportunity of considering the joint proposals of the Galway County Council and your council in connection with the outstanding matters requiring adjustment. We must request, therefore, that your council will co-operate with the Galway County Council in that matter and furnish a statement of the specific proposals which the joint deputation will submit for consideration. On receipt of this statement we will suggest alternative dates for the reception of the joint conference.
That was sent on the 9th October last. The Roscommon County Council got into communication with Galway County Council. Deputations were appointed by both councils. These deputations met and considered the question on the 26th October, 1934. The representatives of Roscommon County Council were: Donal O'Rourke (chairman), J.F. Ansbro, and Matt Davis—all tried and true Fianna Fáil people. Galway Council was represented by Deputy Mark Killilea, John Cunningham, and Peter Colleran. A report of that meeting, held at Ballygar on 26th October, was sent to the Department of Finance or Board of Works on 29th October. Only three days after I put down my question last week was there a reply to that communication. The River Suck is still flooding and the whole business has left a very bad taste in our mouths. The way in which the Board of Works has dealt with our suggestions and correspondence and treated our deputations is symbolic of the truculence with which the Parliamentary Secretary endeavoured to answer me to-day.
When I put those questions to-day I was genuinely interested in getting information for my county council. The question was before the county council yesterday but we could not decide with regard to the striking of a rate. We do not know where we are and the rates are accumulating against these poor people—rates that have been increased by the Board of Works by 34½ per cent. When I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance if penal interest to the amount of £4,000 was being charged against these people, his reply was that no penal interest was being charged. I asked him if interest to that amount was being charged and he refused to answer. I hope he will give us the information now and that he will go further and explain what he proposes to do. Both county councils have met at various times and endeavoured to find a solution of the matter. It is not good enough for any Government Department to say that a 1924 or 1925 Act gives them the right to do this and that the local people have got to bear the burden. Not alone do they say that but they say that interest must be borne by these people to the amount of £4,500 in respect of the money advanced. There is absolutely no justification whatever for that charge because that interest accrued not through the negligence of anybody on our side but through the negligence of the Department of Finance or the Board of Works.
