Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 26 Feb 1947

Vol. 104 No. 10

Private Deputies' Business. - Drainage Policy—Motion.

Mr. Hughes

I move:—

That in view of the extent of flooding throughout the country this year the Dáil expresses its disapproval of the Government's inaction in failing to operate the Arterial Drainage Act passed in March, 1945, and calls for an immediate statement of the Government's policy in the matter.

The motion speaks for itself and I think the Parliamentary Secretary can scarcely be ignorant of the hardships that have been suffered by a great many people in the country. Last summer was an abnormal summer, but every winter that comes brings its own hardships.

It might be well if we reviewed what has occurred in relation to arterial drainage, so that we can have some idea of the amount of time taken by the Government in implementing the scheme of national drainage. On the 15th October, 1938, the then Minister for Finance, Seán MacEntee, appointed a commission,

"to consider the whole question of land drainage (excluding field drainage) with special reference to the technical, administrative, financial and legal aspects of the problem, and to submit recommendations as to:—

(1) How an efficient system of drainage reasonably consonant with requirements and calculated to facilitate future land reclamation can best be secured.

(2) The provisions which should be made for the proper maintenance of existing and future drainage works.

(3) How the cost of drainage works and their maintenance could most equitably be apportioned amongst the various interests concerned.

(4) The changes (if any) in the existing law and administrative system which would be necessary to give effect to the recommendations."

That commission set to work on the 15th October, 1938. It had many sittings and did a considerable amount of investigation. It took evidence and submitted a report in 1940. That report lay in the office of the Department of Finance from 1940 until 1944. On the 17th February, 1944, the Arterial Drainage Bill was introduced by the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance.

He tried to make excuses for the delay in introducing the Bill which was to implement the recommendations made by the Drainage Commission and he summed up by saying (Parliamentary Debates, Vol. 92, No. 4, col. 1320):—

"I make those remarks by way of defence, or by way of meeting any charge which may have been lurking at the back of any person's mind that there was undue delay on the part of those who were charged with that responsibility."

In column 1323, he said:—

"As I say, the Government were anxious to have these proposals introduced. They are anxious now that the work should start as soon as possible on a scheme."

Every Party in the House welcomed the introduction of that particular Bill. The Bill became an Act of Parliament early in 1945. All who were interested in national drainage were expecting that the work would start immediately. As a matter of fact, the Drainage Commission in the recommendations it submitted made reference to a possible delay and in its report in 1940 it stated:—

"If our recommendations are accepted, the promotion of the necessary legislation may occupy a considerable time. We suggest that it might be desirable, pending such legislation, to undertake the necessary preliminary survey work in catchment areas selected for prior treatment so that the actual work could be launched with the least possible delay."

In 1945 a token Vote of £10 was all we provided, and in last year's Estimates, under sub-head J (4), we provided £12,000 for the purchase of machinery; we voted £11,000 for the maintenance of machinery, £7,800 for central repair workshop and stores, and for arterial drainage surveys we provided £4,800. That is as far as we have gone in the matter of national drainage in nine years. No work has been commenced anywhere.

I do not think it is necessary to stress the importance of this matter. We must consider the harm done to the country through the flooding of lands. Large areas are continually being inundated. Through years of neglect, many rivers have become choked and great harm is being done to good pasture land, valuable grazing land. Losses have been incurred through flooding, not merely by individuals, but by the nation as a whole, all through neglect in the matter of national drainage. That aspect is bad enough, but I think the worst aspect is the damage done to the health of very many families.

I have experience of the River Barrow. Strange to say, this commission looked upon the Barrow as a completed job. I am well aware of the fact it is not a completed job. Drainage works were carried out down to Athy, but from Athy down the river there has been great neglect. The work on the upper reaches has resulted in more rapid flooding on the lower reaches and a tremendous amount of land has been inundated, often three and four times during the winter months, and during the summer period of last year. The serious aspect is the inconvenience and hardship caused to the unfortunate people living in the towns along the river, more especially in the poorer dwellings situated close to the riverside.

In the town of Carlow the conditions are appalling, and the same applies to Leighlinbridge. Conditions are equally bad along the river towards Wexford. In New Ross the condition of the river is a disgrace. Valuable land has been completely lost there. Some of the land now continually covered with water in the New Ross district was at one time used for the holding of the New Ross Show. The old show grounds are now inundated because of neglect in the drainage of the river.

I am sure the same applies to other big rivers in the country. Deputy Coogan will tell you what has occurred on the Nore. I have some idea of that myself. Last summer I was down in Fermoy and I came up against the same problem. We have to appreciate this, that the configuration of the country and our very high rainfall contribute to a big drainage problem. It is inevitable that we should have that; but when we look to other countries and see the amount of work they have carried out in regard to drainage, even with a lower rainfall, we realise what might be done. As a matter of fact, in some cases, national electricity was utilised for the purpose of pumping by night where sufficient out-fall through gravitation did not exist. When we consider these activities in other countries, we begin to appreciate the utter neglect of drainage here and the immense national loss not merely in goods but from the point of view of the health of the community.

One can appreciate that if a young family's dwelling is flooded to a depth of one foot or two feet for ten or 12 days, the condition which results from that flooding, even when it disappears, is shocking and must have a very detrimental effect on the health of that young family. My attention has been called to the shocking condition of large numbers of poor families who have to put up with these conditions winter after winter. These people are terribly disappointed and terribly inconvenienced, and their condition inevitably reacts on their health. There are several aspects of the matter. The social aspect is the worst of all, but from the economic aspect the national loss which results from this inundation of good land must be terrific.

The Estimate given by the commission that 470,000 acres had been drained under the Drainage Acts, including the 1925 Act, and that there remained to be drained 259,364 acres is, to my mind, an under-estimation. Most of the old drainage schemes were not well done. They were poorly done because the financial provision was not adequate. Maintenance has been neglected—in some cases, completely neglected—and the work has to be done over again. It is deplorable that when a drainage scheme is carried out, maintenance work is not properly and efficiently done, because neglect will in a few years involve a further capital expenditure of an amount almost equal to the original sum.

I know that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us that he has not got the equipment, and that that will be given as the excuse. As I have already pointed out, we voted sums for machinery as set out in the Estimates. Why were these amounts not asked for long since? In any case, there is any amount of work, very useful work, which could be done on rivers for which no machinery at all would be required. In reply to that attitude which I anticipate will be the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary. I want to point out that Britain, during the emergency, when she was struggling for her very existence, when she was thrown back, to a large extent, on her own resources so far as feeding her people was concerned, could find the opportunity to reclaim 1,000,000 acres. We have talked a lot here about exporting our young men and I have no doubt that, on the reclamation of those 1,000,000 acres, any amount of Irish fellows were engaged, increasing the wealth and productive capacity of England when we could not find the opportunity to use our own nationals to increase the productive capacity of this island. Our sterling assets are big enough and useless enough without sending over Irishmen to add further to these very doubtful assets. In this work alone thousands of men could be employed in doing useful national work, useful from the social point of view and from the economic point of view. That work has been completely neglected, and because it has been completely neglected, and because rivers are becoming more and more choked every year, the problem is becoming bigger and the damage becoming greater every year.

I feel that there is no excuse, so far as the Government is concerned. I feel that a Government facing its responsibilities during the emergency to ensure that an opportunity was given to all our people to find profitable employment at home and looking for sources of employment, would select national drainage as a very profitable source of employment for our young men. Instead of that, thousands of our young fellows were forced to go abroad, and I have no doubt, as I have said, that hundreds, and possibly thousands, of them were engaged on land reclamation in Great Britain. Under the 1925 Act, 70,000 acres of this country were reclaimed, but for very many years no reclamation whatever has been done, and maintenance has, to a great extent, been neglected. It is shocking that that must be said, but that is the position.

In face of what Great Britain has achieved under the very bad conditions which existed in Great Britain during the emergency—as I say, they found it possible to reclaim 1,000,000 acres—it is a disgrace that we were not able to reclaim a single acre. Great Britain brought 1,000,000 acres into effective production, and we can easily understand what it meant to her economy that she was able to increase her production during the emergency by 70 per cent. In complete contrast with that, ours fell by 10 per cent. Is it any wonder that our production is falling if the one thing which is so essential for good land for productivity, and good soil conditions—drainage—is neglected? In our circumstances, with the very high rainfall we have, we have for many years now utterly neglected this big drainage problem and our neglect has not merely reacted on our economic position but has reacted very severely on the health of large sections of our people.

The House will appreciate that Deputy O'Higgins and I tabled this motion in order to bring this serious and urgent matter to the attention of the responsible Minister and to ask for a full explanation as to why nothing has been done. The House and the country were told, when the Arterial Drainage Bill of 1944 was going through, that the intention was to face this problem nationally, as it should be faced, as a big national problem. It was stated that something like £250,000 could be spent annually. The House expressed the view that that was a very small sum, that, on the basis of that expenditure, it would take 28 or 30 years to complete the job and that the job was so urgent that plans should be laid to complete it in a far shorter time.

I think we got agreement from all sides of the House that that was so. The Parliamentary Secretary responsible for the passage of the Bill agreed that the matter was urgent and assured the House that the Government were anxious to have the Act put into operation at the earliest possible moment. It seems extraordinary that this delay has occurred. I cannot accept the excuse that we have not the equipment. Many schemes which would require little or no equipment could have been put into operation. The commission in their report in 1940 envisaged some delay but recommended that preliminary survey work should be entered upon immediately. They stated that there might be some delay about the introduction of legislation but that, pending that, preliminary work should be carried out. I believe that there has been utter and complete neglect of this big problem and that we have suffered nationally as a result. I suppose many young people who were suffering from tuberculosis went to early graves because of this neglect. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will assure the House that something will be done in connection with this matter in the near future.

Dr. O'Higgins

I rise formally to second the motion. Seeing that it is a very simple motion, asking for a statement of Government policy with regard to national drainage, I think that it would be in the interests of the Assembly as a whole and in accordance with the desire of all members from all parts of the House if the Parliamentary Secretary were to assist the House at this stage by giving an outline of Government policy on the matter. I am not asking the Parliamentary Secretary to intervene at an unduly early stage because this motion has been on the Order Paper for a considerable number of months and I am sufficiently charitably-minded to assume that there is a policy with regard to national drainage, even if such a motion never went down. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he has any objection at this stage to stating what Government policy is on the matter.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. O'Grady)

The usual practice, so far as I am aware, in connection with motions of this kind is that the proposer and seconder make their statements, other Deputies who wish to intervene do so and that the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary replies when all the arguments have been advanced. That is the practice, so far as I am aware, and I do not propose to depart from it at this stage.

Dr. O'Higgins

Am I to take it that the Parliamentary Secretary refuses to state to Parliament what the policy of the Government is with regard to drainage? Is that the situation?

Mr. O'Grady

I shall reply in the usual way at the usual time.

Dr. O'Higgins

There is no "usual time". We are not dealing with Government business; we are dealing with Private Members' business. The Government spokesman may speak at any time during the debate. He has no right to speak at the end of the debate. I say that for the information of the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. O'Grady

I do not claim the right to terminate the debate.

Dr. O'Higgins

You claim the right to speak when only one member of the House will have the right to speak after you. I accept that as a statement of bankruptcy with regard to policy and with regard to capacity on the part of the individual opposite. I regard it as a confession that he has got to wait until his brief is prepared by clerks and civil servants. I regard it as a clear confession that he does not know sufficient about the Department for which he is charged with responsibility to state impromptu his views on drainage. There has been so little discussion between himself and his Ministerial colleagues that he does not at the moment know what the policy of the Government is with regard to national drainage. That is clear to all at this point. I base my remarks on the assumption that what is clear to all can be clearly seen as a patent fact.

This motion was put down, asking for a statement of Government policy after 15 years' complete inactivity, after 15 years' contemptuous disregard of the necessity for drainage, after 15 years of increased and increasing flooding of the lands and homes of the people. Three years ago full authority and power was given to the Department over which the Parliamentary Secretary presides in regard to drainage anywhere at any time. The case made for that Bill, which was enthusiastically supported by every section of the House three years ago, was the necessity for speed. The Government spokesman represented that he wanted to cut out the delays which had taken place under previous legislation, that national drainage was urgent and imperative. To get on speedily with the task of draining the flooded farms and the flooded homes of the people, that Bill was sought from the Dáil. On that condition, the Bill was passed by the Dáil. That was three years ago and in those three years not 100 yards of new river have been drained. After three years, thousands of extra acres of land have been flooded. After three years, hundreds of people have had to leave their homes because of flooding. Now, we find that the Government spokesman is unable to state to the Dáil what the policy, views or intentions of the Government are with regard to the drainage of the country. Not only the Government as a whole, but the Parliamentary officer directly charged with responsibility for national drainage is unable to make a simple statement to Parliament as to what the policy of the Government is on this question.

This motion does not ask for details. It asks for a statement of policy with regard to drainage. We had statements of policy with regard to drainage 15 years ago. We had statements of policy with regard to drainage three years ago. But we have had no drainage done. We want to know why no drainage was done and what the policy of the present Parliamentary Secretary is. Is it to carry on, like his predecessors over 15 years, sitting over volumes of paper legislation, sitting over rusty and inactive machines, viewing casually the increased and increasing flooding, viewing contemptuously the clogged-up rivers, watching land become more sodden and less arable, watching people fleeing from their homes during the seasonal flooding and doing nothing and saying nothing about it?

Is that the intellectual bankruptcy with which this Parliament is faced? Is that the pitch we have reached 25 years after we got control of our own affairs. Remember the much-condemned previous Government which the Parliamentary Secretary went up and down the country slandering because, amongst other things, they had not done sufficient drainage, because there were flooding and flooded rivers, because the members of the Government were not devoting all their time to intense and active drainage schemes. The Government at that time were standing and working amongst the ruins of an old Administration, before the foundations of a new Administration had been laid. Despite all the trouble and turmoil of the times, during their short period they carried out the drainage of the biggest river in Ireland—the Barrow.

That was done in face of the opposition and in face of the type of non-cooperation that existed then. But they did not get on with the job quickly enough! They were not doing sufficient drainage! They were not relieving enough flooded areas, they were not reclaiming enough land and because they were not getting sufficient speed into the drainage machine, there were areas of land still subject to flooding. Another man was called in 15 years ago to get on with the job. Yet not a bit of drainage has been done beyond that carried out 15 years ago. I represent a constituency with the Barrow at one end and the Shannon at the other. Appeal after appeal has reached the Department from both ends of that constituency to relieve flooding, due at one end to a great river being left undrained and at the other end due to the fact that the maintenance on work which had been carried out on a great river did not receive attention. The river that was drained years ago is gradually cluttering up again. You get claims for compensation for stock drowned in the flood, for crops carried away by the floods, for seed crops flooded in their early days so that they came to nothing.

That has been going on, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, for the long period of 15 years. Then some years ago people were given hope. A Bill was introduced to remove all the delaying factors that existed in legislation dealing with drainage. It was said that there were too many authorities, that there was divided responsibility, that the undrained position of the greater part of the country was such an acute question that new legislation was required in order that the job could be tackled speedily. Not only that, but considerable sums of money were held dangling before the eyes of the people as the sums that were going to be spent on drainage and spent quickly. Did the people get the drainage? They got hope, they got an election, the Government got their votes, but the drainage was not done and the flooding is still there. Three years after that legislation was passed in the interests of speed, we have the speed merchant opposite so speedy that he is not able to make a statement—not until he gets a brief. He does not know what the policy is until he gets overnight directions. This, in an island country with a centre of bog, an island country sparsely populated, which has not the capacity within itself to feed less than 3,000,000 people despite compulsory tillage and all the rest, because the percentage of land that is regarded as arable is too low even to maintain that tiny population. Where would the nation of Holland be, if the Minister in charge of drainage there was so incapable of making a statement with regard to the policy of the Dutch Government in reference to the drainage of Holland? Every one of them would be flooded out of their farmsteads and homesteads. Here we have reached the point, after 25 years of controlling our own affairs, that we have an individual in charge of the important task of drainage who is incapable of making an impromptu statement as to what the policy of the Government or of his Department is with regard to drainage.

The late Mussolini took over responsibility for Italy many years ago when portion of Italy was suffering from the same disability as we in this island. One of the great achievements that is pointed out to establish his claim to be regarded as a great man with great ideas, thinking nationally and economically, is that the first task he undertook, and undertook in a big way, in a speedy way, was that of draining the marshes, reclaiming the land and resettling more people on the land, creating new homesteads, producing more food for the Italians from inside Italy. Here we have the opposite. We have the management of our own affairs but the water, instead of receding, is advancing from each river bed year after year. Anyone who is in touch with the condition of rivers in the country knows that there is not a single river that is not year by year overflowing its banks to a greater and greater degree. Presumably, we shall have the outworn excuse that is trotted out time and time again—the want of machinery. We shall have that old outworn excuse trotted out by a Government that stood for absolute self-sufficiency. We shall have that trotted out by a member of the Government, whose colleague desired the day when every ship would be at the bottom of the sea, when nothing would be going abroad and nothing would be coming from abroad, a member of the Government which held out hopes to the people 15 years ago of producing everything and making everything that the heart of man could desire here in Ireland. Now, 15 years after this fantastic, lunatic, dishonest promise, we shall have trotted out to us the excuse that because John Bull is otherwise engaged he cannot supply us with the simple machinery to deal with drainage and that people will have to continue to suffer losses of crops and stock through flooding.

Drainage in a big way, drainage on a grand scale was going on in this country through man-power, and man-power alone, before ever machinery for drainage was devised. The tragedy of recent years has been that, as the waters were extending, the rural population was fleeing the country because there were not sufficient work and wages to keep them at home. Down below there in Banagher and the lands around it, where the Minister's predecessor was in touch with people in distress through flooding, two rivers joining flooded an immense triangle of land.

I happened to inquire down there how many people had left, how many young men had gone from that immediate area because of the lack of work, because there were no wages and no living for them there. The number was amazing and it was enough by man-power alone to drain that immense river. Machinery is useful and makes for greater speed, but there is a vast amount of work on any drainage scheme that can be done by man-power alone in advance of the machinery. Flooding is increasing, the hope is turning to desperation, the land instead of increasing in productivity is reducing year by year, the crops produced are being lost and the stock reared is being lost.

All the powers asked for three years ago were given freely and enthusiastically. The money mentioned was agreed to and the argument advanced by the Minister's predecessor for getting these powers was the one of essential speed, to get on with the task immediately. If any criticism was offered during the passage of the Bill, it was from those who said they feared that particular piece of legislation was so much sham window-dressing, that when passed it would lie on the Statute Book forgotten, that it would collect dust in the office of the Board of Works, that we would be exactly as we were, that one year, two years or three years would pass and no drainage would be done. Does the Parliamentary Secretary remember those criticisms? Does he remember those doubts? Does he remember the emphatic way in which those doubts were hurled back and the Parliamentary Secretary then in charge said: "Oh, just give me the chance, give me this and you will see a different Ireland in a few years' time." We have seen a few years' time and we have seen a different Ireland. There is less of the island to be seen, there is more of it covered with water and the legislation is covered with dust.

The present Parliamentary Secretary is not long in his job. If he wants to make an impression in his new Department, he will get some unemployed men to remove the layers of dust from that particular piece of legislation. He will at least take sufficient interest in national drainage to read the Act and, having read it, he will be at least capable of getting up here and making an unprepared statement regarding the policy of the Government on this important question.

Mr. Flanagan

I am very much surprised at the Parliamentary Secretary's silence when called upon to make a statement as to the policy of the Government on this all-important question of drainage. It is three years since the Arterial Drainage Act was passed. Before that, it was one of the major promises of the Fianna Fáil Government at every election, since they first came into this House, that it was their intention to introduce legislation for a complete drainage scheme for the whole country. Election after election came and the same promise was repeated. When this House gave the fullest approval to that Bill, it was left aside and was not put into effect. However, I hope at least now that the Irish people, and especially the Irish farmers who were anxiously awaiting relief as a result of such legislation, will see that this is only another of the empty Fianna Fáil promises which they have no intention of putting into effect.

The fact of the Parliamentary Secretary remaining silent to-night, when called upon by Deputy O'Higgins to make a statement as to the Government's intentions, is a complete indication that there is no scheme or plan for the future implementation of this legislation. If there were, the present Parliamentary Secretary would have been delighted to take advantage of Deputy O'Higgins' invitation and would have displayed to the House the Government's intention to relieve the unfortunate thousands of families living in swamps and suffering from severe flooding.

It would be with pride that he would delight in reading his statement in to-morrow's Irish Press as to the great schemes of drainage it was his intention to put into effect, and thus throw it as a red herring across the trail of those demanding the implementation of the Act. It should be with the greatest shame that he sits silently in those benches to-night and his silence gives a complete admission of the failure of his Department to implement legislation which has received the wide approval of this House.

The present Minister for Agriculture —who was in charge of the Board of Works when steering this legislation through the House—said, and I have only read his words this evening, that it was his regret that such legislation was not presented and adopted by this House years before 1943. It was in the hope that great things were going to be achieved as a result of the Arterial Drainage Bill that many Deputies from rural Ireland, like myself, pledged wholehearted and loyal support to that legislation when it was being enacted. But very few of us thought that it was another plan of the Government's to fool the people again and to fool this House.

If the Parliamentary Secretary knows very little about drainage or realises the need for a complete drainage scheme, let him go to the offices of the Irish Press and find the papers of last September, which show photographs and headlines enough to convince him, from his own newspaper, of the great need for the implementation of the Act. During the end of last August and September and into October, thousands of people became homeless as a result of the very severe flooding, not alone in my constituency but throughout the whole country. Deputy O'Higgins said he represented a two-county constituency, in one end of which was the Barrow and in the other end Ireland's largest river, the Shannon.

The Cumann na nGaedheal Government, as has been pointed out, bravely undertook to carry out a comprehensive drainage scheme on the Barrow at a time when it was engaged in laying the foundations of the State. It was bitterly criticised at the time for not carrying out further schemes on the Shannon and on other rivers by the henchmen, spokesmen, yes-men and back-benchers of the Government Party of to-day who were then holding nook-and-corner meetings and public meetings through the country, demanding that more drainage work should be carried out. I did not agree with the policy of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government and could not, but no matter what may be said for or against it, it undertook at that time drainage work on one of the most important rivers in the State. The present Government can function smoothly. It has an over-all majority and is not up against hindrances of any kind and yet it absolutely refuses to implement the Drainage Act that was passed three years ago. It is supposed to be the Bible for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance. We were told at the time that it was going through the Dáil that its provisions would be put into operation without delay. The hopes of those living in the flooded areas were raised at that time, but now we discover that all that was said here about putting it into operation was just so much gas. The promises that were made have turned out to be false ones. The Government has failed to do any drainage work under that Act or to implement its provisions. Not a bit of drainage work has been carried out since the Act was passed in 1943. One would imagine that since then some indication of Government policy on the matter would be given. I imagine, however, that the present Parliamentary Secretary or somebody else in that office will, say, in two years' time—about six months before a general election takes place—make a statement indicating that the Act is going to be operated. That will be done to raise the hopes of the unfortunate people who have been fooled on more than one occasion. I want to tell the Parliamentary Secretary now that that is not going to be so.

As regards drainage, we have in my constituency one of the worst areas in the country. The River Nore causes severe flooding in a large portion of Laoighis. Its banks burst last year and the year before. The crops and the adjoining land were ruined. Within the last two months an eminent churchman told me that, due to the flooding in the River Nore, 74 families in the City of Kilkenny were compelled to leave their homes. That is a thing which the Parliamentary Secretary, the Board of Works or any member of the Government Party cannot be proud of. It is an appalling state of affairs in any city. The men responsible for it are silent. At the other end of my constituency the farmers and the smallholders on the banks of the Shannon are also suffering severely because of the failure to carry out drainage work. They held a meeting and decided to draw the Government's attention to the seriousness of the situation. The meeting was held in Banagher which suffers severely from the flooding. I was not able to attend the meeting— due to illness or an engagement elsewhere. Deputy O'Higgins, Deputy Davin and Deputy Boland were present. The position with regard to the flooding was fully discussed and reviewed. It was decided to appoint a deputation consisting of Deputy Boland, Deputy O'Higgins, Deputy Davin and Deputy Beegan, who were to be accompanied by a number of small farmers, to wait on the then Parliamentary Secretary and discuss the seriousness of the situation with him. He is now Minister for Agriculture. The meeting arranged for the deputation did not come off. The Parliamentary Secretary, in reply to questions at the time which were raised in the Dáil, said that nothing could be done with regard to the Shannon.

In order to save the supporters of the Government in Offaly from embarrassment in connection with that, the chairman of the Offaly County Council, a member of the Government Party in this House, called a meeting of the Fianna Fáil Comhairle Dáil Ceanntar. It was held at Tullamore. He personally invited the Parliamentary Secretary to attend and hear the grievances of the Party concerned. The Parliamentary Secretary attended and met Deputy Gorry, a member of the Fianna Fáil Party. A number of local people were summoned to meet the Parliamentary Secretary. The intention of Deputy Boland, in calling such a conference under the auspices of Fianna Fáil, was to prevent Deputy Davin, Deputy O'Higgins and myself from attending and of expressing our views on the matter—of pointing out to the meeting that it is the Government alone that is responsible for the appalling state of affairs that exists there. Surely Deputy O'Higgins, Deputy Davin and myself were not going to lower our prestige by going into a building where a Fianna Fáil conference was in progress. That was a wise move, so that the Parliamentary Secretary would not be faced with the awkward position of having to admit failure to three opposition Deputies who have the honour to represent that constituency. If the Parliamentary Secretary at the time had a scheme prepared for the relief of these unfortunate people, he would have instructed Deputy Boland to invite the opposition Deputies, so that he would be in a position to say: "The Government Party are alone responsible for bringing this measure of relief". That would leave the opposition Deputies with very little to say. Instead of that, the Parliamentary Secretary was relieved from the embarrassment of having to admit failure, and the usual promise was made of: "Live horse and you will get grass". It will be done sometime when it comes to the turn of the Shannon. If it takes three years to decide whether they should start on this scheme or not, I wonder when it will be finished.

The Shannon is the largest and most important river in the country. It needs to be attended to more than any other river. The lands on the banks of the Shannon in Galway and Offaly are as highly valued as the most fertile lands in Meath, despite the fact that they can only be used for two months in the year. For the remaining ten months they are under water. The Parliamentary Secretary should know that cattle contract fluke if they are put on waterlogged lands. Therefore, these lands are absolutely useless to the people in the Shannon area. At the present time live stock are dying from hunger and cold in that area because there is not a fork-full of dry hay to give them in this terrible weather, as the hay crop was swept away completely by the very severe flooding which occurred last autumn. That state of affairs should bring home the seriousness of the situation to the Parliamentary Secretary and the need for implementing the legislation which has been passed.

Previously, severe floods occurred in that area. In June, 1929, there was serious flooding there and again in 1933. In 1933, the Fianna Fáil Party promised to have the whole of the Shannon area drained, but the flooding is still going on and the unfortunate people in the area are suffering severely as a consequence. The chief cause of the serious flooding lies between Meelick and Athlone. As if the neglect of the Government to have the Shannon drained was not bad enough, on top of that we have the Electricity Supply Board erecting dams on the Shannon to hold the water back, thus adding to the flooding. Does the Parliamentary Secretary know that, owing to the Electricity Supply Board regulations, the Shannon between Meelick and Athlone can rise almost two feet in 24 hours—one foot nine inches to be exact? As I have already pointed out, for ten months of the year these lands are under water—there is an ocean of water there. Notwithstanding that, the Offaly County Council do not neglect to send the rate collectors round to demand rates from these unfortunate people on land that is useless to them. When I was learning Christian doctrine I was given to understand that there was such a thing as restitution. I say that the Government are bound to make restitution for taking money by way of rates or taxes from these unfortunate people, because it amounts to absolute robbery. It may be legal but, in accordance with Christian teaching, restitution should be made. It is absolute robbery to take rates from these unfortunate people for lands that are completely covered with water for ten months of the year.

When the Grand Canal Company had porter barrels upset out of a boat near Banagher about three years ago, within 24 hours the Shannon was lowered in order to recover the barrels. Surely when the Shannon can be lowered and the Electricity Supply Board regulations put aside in order to find porter barrels, the least that might be expected is that it could be lowered to relieve the flooding on the lands of unfortunate rate-payers who are being mulcted in rates and allowed to suffer damage from the appalling state of affairs in that part of the country. The Parliamentary Secretary may say that this cannot be avoided, that the Electricity Supply Board must hold back the water, but the committee in charge have expert advice that there is a fall of 140 feet between Meelick and Ardnacrusha. I cannot find words sufficiently strong——

Captain Giles

Your words are very strong, but they are perfectly true.

Mr. Flanagan

They should hide their heads with shame when they see the miserable condition of these small holders who are trying to eke out an existence on these lands in Galway and Offaly. The Shannon is not the only river responsible for flooding in the Midlands. Even the own of Clara, which is many miles from the Shannon, was completely flooded last year. As a consequence, the workers found it impossible to get to the jute factory. In one district there, the people were compelled to leave their homes, and I saw the flood almost reaching to the top of a churn in a dairy. Live stock and hay were lost there and there would have been loss of life were it not that the residents of Clara placed their homes at the disposal of the unfortunate people who were flooded out.

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday.