asked the Minister for Finance whether he is aware that in the case of the Akeragh drainage district, County Kerry, whilst the annual improvement of the lands was estimated at £332 5s. 4d. in the year 1935, the total for repayment of loan and maintenance charges was £510 19s. 6d., and in the year 1936, £418 6s. 8d.; and if he will consider the advisability of introducing proposals for legislation to enable the Government to deal with this and similar cases, bearing in mind that these heavy charges have been incurred almost immediately on the handing over of the district to the county council.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Kerry Drainage District.
The value of the annual improvement in the lands comprised in the Akeragh Lough Drainage District is estimated at £332 5s. 4d. The annual sum payable to the Commissioners of Public Works in repayment of advances made by them pursuant to Section 13 (c) of the Arterial Drainage Act, 1925, is £232 4s. 8d. In addition to this sum the drainage rates assessed upon the occupiers would include provision for the maintenance of the district. The striking of the maintenance rate is a matter for the county council, and I regret I have not the information which would enable me to say how the figures of £510 19s. 6d. and £418 6s. 8d. referred to by the Deputy are made up; this information could, no doubt, be obtained at the offices of the county council. They may include some arrears, but we do not know.
The cost of maintenance on a drainage district varies from year to year, dependent on weather and other conditions, and experience over a period of years would be necessary before the average annual figure for the purpose could be definitely known.
It is intended to set up in the near future a commission to examine into the various aspects of the drainage problem throughout the country and the question of any desirable revision of the drainage code will be included in their terms of reference. Pending consideration of their report, it is not proposed to introduce legislation to amend the Act of 1925.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the figures I have given are made up by getting the total of the annual charge for the repayment of the loan, which amounts, I think, to £232 odd, the rest being maintenance?
Neither officially nor unofficially am I aware of the fact, and I should be very happy if the Deputy would give me the story of how they were made up.
But——
Will the Deputy allow me? I am trying to help the Deputy though he may not know it. If the Deputy will give me the information on which he founded his statement and will enable me to determine whether or not the particular charges do refer to the particular year, I shall look into it with very great care.
I cannot, of course, give the information by way of supplementary question, but I did get the information from the county council offices. In this particular connection, seeing that the Parliamentary Secretary merely intends to set up a commission which will take a long time, I presume, to report, and seeing that then legislation may or may not be necessary, or thought advisable, will he not consider the extraordinary position of these people in this drainage district, who, in respect of a district just handed over and in which, therefore, the maintenance charges should be very slight, are already in the position of having to pay by way of maintenance rate and annuity considerably more than the estimated value of the improvement to their holdings? Will he consider whether that is a proposition that can reasonably be put before any set of farmers in such a position, and, in those circumstances, will he not consider the advisability of special legislation? Will he not also consider that there is a precedent for special legislation for that particular portion of the country?
As the Deputy is aware, hard cases make bad law, and we have no intention of making bad law.
May I refer the Parliamentary Secretary to the example set him by the Minister for Local Government, who did make very bad law by means of a very hard case?
Do we understand that the Deputy is asking the House to follow a bad precedent even if such a thing did exist?
I suggest that this would be an excellent precedent. I would ask the House to consider whether the Parliamentary Secretary is not asking them to continue an unjust imposition on these people which they must necessarily feel is unjust. Is he not aware that their opinion is that in reality at present the lands are not a bit better than they were before these charges were put on them?
The Deputy assumes the injustice. The question of whether there is or is not will be submitted to the Commission.
Several years hence.