Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 30 Jun 1949

Vol. 116 No. 10

Committee on Finance. - Local Authorities (Works) Bill, 1949—Report.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government (Mr. Corish)

I move amendment No. 1:—

In page 2, Section 1, line 18, to delete "a public road" and substitute "any road whether public or private."

This amendment is being introduced to meet a point that was raised by Deputy Moran and other members of the Opposition who wanted the word "road" further defined. On the Committee Stage I promised that I would include the word "any" before "road". I think I am giving it an even wider definition in this amendment when I describe it as "any road whether public or private." That is the definition of "roads" which appears in the Town and Regional Planning Act of 1934. I would like to say as far as the inclusion of a bridge is concerned, that it is necessary to have it included, because it may be either a foot bridge or a road bridge.

Mr. MacEntee

Why was not this amendment introduced when the Bill was introduced?

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 2:—

In page 3, Section 2, to insert before sub-section (4) two new subsections as follows:

( ) Before a local authority proceeds to execute works under the next preceding sub-section the Minister may direct such local authority to prepare and furnish to him a preliminary report on any matters which he considers should be examined before the execution of the proposed works is begun, including in particular, any of the following matters: (a) the feasibility of the work, (b) the probable cost of the work, (c) the manner in which the work can best be executed.

( ) A local authority to whom a direction is given under the foregoing sub-section shall comply with the direction.

As the Bill stands, it would appear that any local authority, without reference to any constituted authority in the State, can proceed at the public expense to improve the property of any private individual. That seems to me a highly undesirable position to provide for in our legislation. If Deputies will examine the Bill carefully they will see that, provided a local authority is willing to finance the proposed works out of its own resources and does not look for a grant from the central authority, it can do what I have said at the expense of the ratepayers. It can improve the private property of any individual, it can improve any land not owned by it, any permanent construction, not being a permanent construction which was constructed by it or which it is required by law to maintain but which it thinks has sustained, or is likely to sustain, damage from flooding, landslide, subsidence or other similar occurrence. That is the provision in sub-section (3) of Section 2. If it decides that it is in the public interest, it can execute such works as it considers reasonable for the purpose of affording such relief or protection. If land has sustained damage from flooding, or is likely to sustain damage from flooding or from any of the other causes which are recited in this sub-section, naturally its value will be less and, in most cases, I should think, considerably less than it will be if the land or property—the land or the permanent construction which, I must remind the House——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The only matter for discussion here is whether a preliminary report can be furnished.

Mr. MacEntee

Surely I cannot argue the merits of that without referring to the sub-section as it stands. I am pointing out that, in the sub-section, any land or permanent construction which, by definition, includes "any road, bridge, house, buildings, walls or embankments" may be safeguarded against flooding or against landslide or subsidence or other similar occurrences —that even if the land is not owned by the local authority, or if the permanent construction, bridge, houses or embankments are not owned by the local authority, the work may be done at the public expense. I think that lends itself to grave and serious abuse—that public money may be spent in order to advance the interests of private individuals.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

All that is before the House is whether a preliminary report can be made.

Mr. MacEntee

I am going to show——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will have to keep to that.

Mr. MacEntee

I think I am entitled first of all to show——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It has been decided that Section 3 should stand part of the Bill.

Mr. MacEntee

I think I am entitled to show that the amendment is designed to safeguard the public interest against abuse, and that that cannot be adequately discussed without referring to the dangers which it is designed to avert.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

All that can be discussed now is whether a preliminary report should be made.

Mr. MacEntee

Why do we want this preliminary report? Because under sub-section (3) of Section 2, the local authority has power to spend public moneys in the way I have indicated. We do not know whether it is well to spend them in that way or not. Nevertheless, there is power to spend them in that way. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the local authority must, before it proceeds to execute the works under the next preceding sub-section and if the Minister so directs it, prepare and furnish to him a report on any of the matters which he considers should be examined before the execution of the proposed works is begun, including, in particular, any of the following matters, the feasibility of the work—that is to say, whether the work can be done or not— the probable cost of the work, and the manner in which it can best be executed.

The Minister, as we know, is, by the statute law of this country, constituted the general supervisor of the local administration. But just as the local authorities are bound by the doctrine of ultra vires, so too is the Minister. As sub-section (3) of this section stands, the local authority, as I stressed at the outset, could spend the money of the ratepayers in improving the private property of any individual. So long as they provide those moneys out of the rates and do not resort to the Minister for financial assistance in carrying them out, they can do it, and I contend that as this Bill stands the Minister cannot intervene. He cannot even ask them to describe the nature of the works.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that if an abuse is brought to the attention of the Minister, or if a proposal to execute certain works which appear to be contrary to the public interest in so far as the ratepayers' money will be expended for the benefit of private individuals is brought to the notice of the Minister, he will have power without having resort to the cumbersome machinery of a local inquiry to direct the local authority concerned to do what is specified in this amendment; that is to say, that he may direct that local authority to prepare and furnish him with a preliminary report on any matters which he considers should be examined before the execution of the proposed works is begun.

He may, for instance, ask them in what way does the local authority consider the public interest will be benefited by the execution of the works. He may ask them whether the person whose property is going to be improved at the public expense is a member of the local authority. He may ask them whether he is an officer of the local authority. Anyone who is familiar with the past history of local government in this country can see how frequently, not only members of local authorities but officers, abused the position in which they were. We know what was alleged about the old grand jury system.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

How does that come into the amendment?

Mr. MacEntee

The purpose of the amendment is to give the Minister the opportunity of preventing a recurrence of such abuses in this country under this work.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The purpose of the amendment is to get a preliminary report on certain matters set out.

Mr. MacEntee

May I respectfully suggest that you are misreading the amendment, the third and fourth lines of which say "to prepare and furnish to him a preliminary report on any matters which he considers should be examined"?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Relevant to the work.

Mr. MacEntee

No, Sir. I suggest that it is not the function of the Chair to start paraphrasing the amendment. It is the function of the Parliamentary Secretary to adduce reasons why the amendment should not be adopted.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is the function of the Chair to understand the amendment, and the Deputy is wandering miles from it.

Mr. MacEntee

I drafted the amendment and, surely, I am entitled to explain, the purpose I had in mind when drafting it, to say that it was drafted in wide and general terms and to say he is to be furnished with a preliminary report on any matters— there is no limitation there.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

On any matters which the Minister considers should be examined.

Mr. MacEntee

Yes, and if I or any Deputy were Minister and somebody sent a communication saying that under sub-section (3) of this Bill certain works benefiting private individuals, improving the property of private individuals, were being carried out at the public expense and that the expenditure upon these works was not justified in the public interest, I should be entitled— and that is all this amendment asks— to ask the local authority before it proceeds with these works to give me a full report on any aspect of the works which I might consider desirable. As the law stands, the Minister has not power to do that. He has not power to do it in the form in which this amendment, if accepted, would enable him to do it. He could, of course, if he felt a local authority was guilty of malfeasance or misusing public moneys, have a sworn inquiry, but we all know that is a cumbersome and expensive procedure. It is a procedure which involves not only the local authority, but also the persons whose bona fides as private citizens may be questioned, in expense.

This is a simple way of giving the Minister power to investigate any complaint which might be made to him as to the misuse of the powers which are to be conferred on a local authority by Section 2 (3). The matters are "any matters". I mentioned that it might be a question of whether the work is being done for a member of a local authority or for the benefit of an officer of that authority or whether the local authority has misconceived the issue of public interests. Remember, they can do these works only where they are of opinion that the public interest is going to be served. These matters are very relevant to Section 2 (3) and to this amendment which, if accepted, is to be inserted before sub-section (4) and which refers immediately and directly to sub-section (3).

It does not refer to sub-section (2). The case is very different. If the Minister asks why I did not make it apply to sub-section (2), my answer is that in the case of sub-section (2) the property to be improved is property belonging to the local authority; if they wish to spend public money on improving their own property or in safeguarding their own property I am prepared to leave that decision to their own discretion and to, their own judgment. But when, as under sub-section (3), it becomes a case of spending public money to improve, protect or safeguard the property of private individuals quite a different issue is involved and that is why I have suggested this amendment.

Apart altogether from any other matters, what are the matters to which particular reference is made? The reason why they are particularly referred to in the amendment is to make sure that no local authority will be in a position to say that, as it is spending its own money, it will not be the business of the Minister to require such local authority to render an account of such expenditure. When I say it is spending its own money, that is really merely a figure of speech because no local authority spends its own money. It spends the money of the ratepayers and it is the ratepayers' money this amendment is designed to protect.

In relation to that expenditure there are three very important aspects to be considered. First of all, one must consider the feasibility of the works, that is to say, whether the works which it is proposed to carry out are, in fact, well conceived in order to secure the purpose which the local authority has in mind. We agree that the local authority acts bona fide. There is no question of malfeasance. There is no question of improper influence. There is no question of corruption being involved. Granted that everything is open and above-board and that the local authority has come to its decision in good faith, believing that it is in the public interest that these works should be carried out, that does not end the matter because the works which it is proposed to carry out may, in fact, not subserve the end for which they were designed. They may be ill-designed. They may lack skill. They may be imperfect. We, all of us, when we are dealing with an engineering problem relating to flooding or subsidence, know that there is ample room to make many mistakes. I think, again, that, just as a local authority if it is going to carry out a road work, construct a bridge, or even drain a river, has at least to draw the attention of the Minister to what it proposes to do—it does not do it in every case but it does in some cases—it should be bound, before it proceeds to spend this money, to report to the Minister, if the Minister so directs it, as to the feasibility of the work proposed. I think no exception can be taken to that.

I should like to stress that it does not require the local authority to make such a report in every case. Some people might hold that it would be desirable that the local authority should be bound in every case to make such a report. But this amendment does not propose to do that. It only requires the local authority to do it in such case as the Minister may direct it to do so. I do not want to labour this unduly but, as I have already said, the purpose of this amendment is to give the Minister a convenient, easy and inexpensive method of securing the information he may desire to have.

The next point is that they should in particular be bound to report as to the probable cost of the work in order that the Minister may satisfy himself as to whether the benefit which it is hoped will accrue from the execution of the work will in fact be commensurate with the cost of the work. Again, I do not think any serious objection in principle can be taken to an amendment designed to secure that. The third point is the manner in which the work can best be executed. We must remember in that connection that the Minister has at his disposal a very highly qualified and widely experienced engineering staff, a staff such as no local authority can hope to maintain for itself. When I say that I am not casting any reflection upon the existing engineering officers of local authorities. I have had experience of them. I found them very highly qualified indeed. But I do know that they have not the same sort of specialised experience of certain problems and particularly, if I may say so, of drainage problems as have members of the engineering section of the Department of Local Government. They could not in practice have it. The engineers of local authorities are general practitioners. As we all know, many problems may and do arise in which they have to consult specialists for their guidance and information. The Minister is in a much more fortunate position than they are because he has on his engineering staff specialists in every form of civil engineering work. It would be of considerable advantage, therefore, to the local authority concerned if the Minister were able to require that local authority to submit to him a report as to the manner in which they believed the work could best be executed and allow him, in turn, to submit that report to his own engineering staff for their consideration and advice, which, in due course, he will no doubt convey to the local authority concerned.

I have given at some length the reasons why I think an amendment in the terms in which it appears here in the Order Paper should be accepted. The first part of the amendment provides that "before a local authority proceeds to execute works under the next preceding sub-section"—which would be sub-section (3) of Section 2—"the Minister may direct such local authority to prepare and furnish to him a preliminary report on any matters which he considers should be examined before the execution of the proposed works is begun including, in particular, any of the following matters: (a) feasibility of the work; (b) probable cost; (c) manner in which the work can best be executed." Now, the next consequent sub-section to that is a simple one.

"A local authority to whom a direction is given under the foregoing sub-section shall comply with the direction."

The reason why that stipulation forms part of the amendment is because, so far as I am aware, the Minister has no power under any statute other than the one we are now considering to direct a local authority to furnish him with a report such as that stipulated in the first part of the amendment.

I have read the Bill as amended in Committee very carefully and I can see nothing in the Bill as it stands which would give the Minister power to require a local authority proposing to carry out works under sub-section (3) to furnish him with the report which I consider desirable. As I have said, if the local authority is getting a grant from the Minister in order to enable it to carry out works, then the Minister naturally will be in a position, since he holds the purse-strings, to require them to make a report and will be able to satisfy himself that the work which it is proposed to execute should be carried out in the public interest. There is, of course, nothing in the Bill which requires the Minister to provide moneys to carry out any of the works which may be executed under this Bill. There is certainly nothing in the Bill which requires him to provide moneys to defray the cost of any particular works which may be executed under sub-section (3) of the Bill.

Therefore, the position to my mind is that if a local authority proposes to spend only the ratepayers' money, to improve as I have said the property of private individuals, it may do so as the Bill stands without the Minister being able to interfere, to remonstrate with it or to make representations to it as to the unwisdom, or the imprudence of carrying out the works even, if his own engineering inspectors, having become aware of the proposals, report to him that the works are ill-designed for the purpose, that they will not achieve the ends for which they are to be executed, that they will be unduly costly, and that even if the end can be secured, the nature of the works which it is proposed to carry out is not the type of works which would be best calculated to prevent the damage which is referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 2. That is the reason I ask the Dáil to accept the amendment.

Mr. Corish

This Bill is designed to enable local authorities to carry out certain works which they have desired to carry out for a long number of years. When the Bill was introduced, it was intended that it would be a simple Bill and a workable Bill. Such an amendment as this is merely an attempt to lay down an elaborate procedure and, to my mind further to prevent local authorities from carrying out works such as those to which I refer. I do not think there is any necessity at all to legislate for such an elaborate procedure for administrative work. The basis of Deputy MacEntee's argument seems to me to be that the members of local authorities and their officials have not a proper regard for the public interest. Deputy MacEntee and the House ought to remember that the type of people who elect these representatives are, in the first place, the same type of people who elect Deputies to Dáil Eireann and, if you like, Ministers of State and, in the second place, that they are ratepayers. Deputy MacEntee expresses great concern about ratepayers and ratepayers' interests. The view on this side of the House is that local authorities are well fitted to say what the public interest is.

Despite what Deputy MacEntee may think about their behaviour in the past, I think the House and the country generally will agree that the members of local authorities on the whole have shown themselves to be admirable guardians of the public interest. They have the public interest at heart every time they make a decision in their own local council chambers. They decide when they embark on housing schemes how they should build houses. They decide how roads are to be made without any reference to the Minister. In the case of water supplies they decide whether water fountains should be erected in this, that or the other place. It does not enter into their minds whether such fountains are benefiting a member of a local authority, an official of a local authority or their friends. If the Opposition have not sufficient confidence in local authorities and their regard for public interest, at least we, on this side of the House, have.

Deputy MacEntee introduced here about two years ago a Sanitary Services Act. There in one section we had powers which are somewhat analogous to the powers which we are giving local authorities under this Bill. There was a section which gave absolute power to the local authorities to do certain things of a type somewhat similar to that provided for by the Bill now before the House. Section 49 of the Sanitary Services Act of 1948 lays down that "a sanitary authority may take such steps as are reasonably necessary to prevent injury being caused to public health or the amenities of any locality by reason of obstructions in any river or watercourse." There is no reference there to public interest or to compensation. The local authority may decide themselves to do anything that is reasonably necessary without any reference or any appeal whatsoever to the Minister for Local Government. Deputy MacEntee did not think that any safeguard of this kind was required when he introduced the Sanitary Services Bill as it then was, or when it passed through its final stages in this House.

It seems to me that the procedure laid down in the amendment is similar to the procedure which was required before the Minister for Local Government could make a Bridge Order. Nobody would suggest that the erection of a bridge such as the Youghal bridge or the Wexford bridge is at all comparable to the work which it is intended to do under this Bill. The type of information which this amendment requires is information which enables the Minister to hold an inquiry and subsequently to make a Bridge Order. It is altogether too elaborate for this Bill.

As I stated in my opening remarks, we intend to try to make this a workable Bill. In my opinion we have far too many Acts of Parliament under which local authorities are bound up with red tape. They become so disgusted with this red tape and with all the procedure they have to go through, that sometimes they do not think it worth while to go ahead with even some small works which are desirable in their respective areas. The procedure takes altogether too much time. As I have stated, the Road Acts do not lay down any such procedure. Deputy MacEntee might argue equally forcibly that a local authority might construct a road to benefit a particular publican or a particular garage. Local authorities have to do things from day to day and from week to week without having to refer them to the Minister. As I stated at the outset, we at least have sufficient confidence in local authorities to believe that they will have proper regard for the public interest when they decide on a certain line of action under this Bill.

Mr. T. Walsh

I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary is aware of the fact that at county council meetings on many occasions matters that may not be found on the agenda are brought forward at the end of a meeting. A similar position may arise in this case. Works which might suit a certain section of councillors for a particular area might be brought forward at the tail-end of a meeting and carried, even though the majority of the council might not be in agreement. There is a possibility of such a thing happening. I am replying to the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary that it is not very likely to happen. If a number of councillors from a particular end of a county want to have something provided, such as a water supply, they usually wait until the end of the meeting before they make the proposition and, when it is made, it may go through.

Mr. Aiken

I do not see the Parliamentary Secretary's objection to this amendment. He states that it is going to set up a lot of red tape in connection with this whole business of carrying out work by a local authority. Actually, it does not propose to give the Minister any extra power beyond what he has already under the Bill as drafted over such works as a local authority may propose to do on its own property. The amendment only asks that the Minister should empower himself, where work is not done on local authority property but on the land or for the benefit of some private individual, to ask the local authority what it is all about. It does not say that he shall in all cases ask them to give these particulars. It does not say that in a certain class of cases he has to do it, but that, if his suspicions are aroused by a complaint arriving in the normal way, he should have power to ask the local authority why they propose to carry out this scheme, is it feasible, and what is the cost. I think the amendment is a reasonable one and that the Parliamentary Secretary has been making a big "to-do" about it.

Mr. MacEntee

Strange as it may seem, the Parliamentary Secretary must have a hatchery for red herrings, because in relation to this amendment, as in relation to certain other amendments proposed on the Committee Stage, he trotted out a section in the Sanitary Services Act. Those who remember the debate in the Committee Stage on some amendments to the Bill will remember that the Parliamentary Secretary contented himself by merely citing the numbers of sections or subsections and carefully refrained from reading slowly and audibly so that people might apprehend what he was saying, the text of the section which he was proposing to cite as a precedent for what he was doing in this Bill. He has played the same game to-night. He has referred to the Sanitary Services Act and tried to make the procedure under that Act a justification for what he proposes to do in relation to Section 2 and, particularly, sub-section (3) of Section 2 of this Bill. He said that the Sanitary Services Act gave the local authority power to do something. To do what? To carry out its proper functions as a public health authority, so that in any case where a public health authority felt that the public health was being endangered it might come in and remove an obstruction from a watercourse. Under the law it is bound to do that where the public health is in danger—at least it was presumed that it was bound to do that.

The public health code was, as we know, prior to the enactment of the Public Health Act and the temporary measure, the Sanitary Services Act, in a state of the utmost confusion. This was, as I have said, a temporary expedient. What did it propose to do? It gave the local authority power to remove an obstruction from a watercourse in any case where it felt that the public health was being affected by the existence of that obstruction. It meant that they could go in and clear the watercourse of decaying matter, of dead dogs, and all the undesirable debris that you sometimes find in a watercourse. That is very far removed from the power given to the local authority in sub-section (3) of Section 2 of this Bill.

It is not a question of removing an obstruction from a watercourse, though indeed the removal of substances or other things causing obstructions may be carried out under paragraph (b) of sub-section (4) of the Bill. But the Bill gives the local authority a great deal more power. It gives the local authority, in sub-section (3), which is the sub-section referred to in the amendment, power to execute such works as they consider reasonable for the purpose of affording relief from flooding, landslide, subsidence or other similar occurrences on the property of private individuals. That property not only means land but, as I have pointed out, includes roads, houses, buildings, walls and embankments. As I have stated before, this property may be very valuable to an individual. If it is of any value to him when it is likely to sustain damage from flooding, landslide, subsidence or other similar occurrences, how much more valuable will it be to him when it has been safeguarded from damage arising from any one of these causes?

There is a great deal of difference between spending public money to protect public health and spending public money to improve the property of a private individual. And whereas the local authority and the State would be fully justified in the public interest in spending money to protect the public health, certainly, it is conceivable that cases may arise where they would not be justified in spending public money to improve the property or protect the property of private individuals. So, there is no use in the Parliamentary Secretary trying to mislead the House by citing any sections of the Sanitary Services Bill.

Mr. Corish

What does it say about the amenities?

Mr. MacEntee

Those are the tactics which he adopted in relation to some of the amendments which were put down on the Committee Stage. On this Order Paper, not to be dealt with now but, I hope, to be dealt with before this stage of the Bill concludes, there are amendments put down to write into this Bill similar sections to those to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred in endeavouring to justify the present provisions of the Bill. He raised the issue which these amendments will raise on the Committee Stage of the Bill and I hope that, since he did rely on the sections upon which they are modelled to justify the provisions of his Bill, he will accept these. I will be quite content if he does, because then there will be written into this Bill the safeguards which were felt to be necessary by the last Government and which the then Opposition, no doubt, would have insisted on in relation to these other very important statutes to which the Parliamentary Secretary has referred.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 63.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Dan.
• Brady, Brian.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Brennan, Thomas.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Buckley, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Butler, Bernard.
• Colley, Harry.
• Collins, James J.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Crowley, Honor Mary.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• De Valera, Vivion.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, James.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick J.
• Lydon, Michael F.
• Lynch, John.
• McCann, John.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• McGrath, Patrick.
• Maguire, Patrick J.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Ormonde, John.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• Rice, Bridget M.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Walsh, Thomas.

Níl

• Beirne, John.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Browne, Noel C.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
• Coburn, James.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Collins, Seán.
• Commons, Bernard.
• Connolly, Roderick J.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, John A.
• Cowan, Peadar.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Davin, William.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Dunne, Seán.
• Esmonde, Sir John L.
• Everett, James.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Finucane Patrick.
• Fitzpatrick, Michael.
• Flynn, John.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Halliden, Patrick J.
• Hickey, James.
• Hogan, Patrick.
• Hughes, Joseph.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Kinane, Patrick.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Larkin, James.
• Lehane, Con.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• McQuillan, John.
• Madden, David J.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, William J.
• Norton, William.
• O'Gorman, Patrick J.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Sullivan, Martin.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Redmond, Bridget M.
• Reidy, James.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Roddy, Joseph.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Timoney, John J.
• Tully, John.

Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Kyne.

Amendment declared negatived.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 3 is out of order.

Mr. MacEntee

Are amendments Nos. 3 and 4 being ruled out of order?

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes. They deal with new matter.

Mr. MacEntee

The matter of these amendments was raised indirectly by the Parliamentary Secretary in the debate on the Committee Stage. Does that make any difference?

An Ceann Comhairle

There was no promise that anything would be done. They might be dealt with if they arose out of some promise.

Mr. MacEntee

I am not saying that the Parliamentary Secretary promised anything.

Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.

An Ceann Comhairle

On amendment No. 5, I think amendments Nos. 6, 7, 10, 11a and 25 are consequential.

Mr. Corish

I move amendment No. 5:—

In page 3, to delete Section 3, lines 23 to 33 and substitute the following section:—

(1) Where the Minister is satisfied—

(a) that particular works should be executed pursuant to this Act by a local authority, and

(b) that the local authority are unable or unwilling to execute such works, and

(c) that the execution of such works is essential for the efficiency of other works which any other local authority or local authorities are able and willing to execute pursuant to this Act.

the Minister may, after consultation with the first-mentioned local authority, by order authorise the other local authority or one of the other local authorities (as may be appropriate) to execute the first-mentioned works on behalf of the first-mentioned local authority and thereupon the local authority so authorised may so execute those works.

(2) Where—

(a) a local authority are of opinion that particular works should be executed by them pursuant to this Act, but that it is more convenient that such works should be executed by another local authority, and

(b) the other local authority are able and willing to execute such works, the first-mentioned local authority and the other local authority may enter into an agreement for the execution of such works by the other local authority on behalf of the first-mentioned local authority and thereupon, but after notification of the agreement to the Minister, the other local authority may so execute such works.

In this amendment I am proposing to delete Section 3. Some members of the Opposition, I think, had the idea that there was some sinister motive behind the section. To allay their fears in that respect this amendment is being proposed. The first part of the new section lays down that, where a local authority is unable or unwilling to execute works which are necessary for the efficiency of works executed by another local authority, the Minister may, after consulting with the local authority which is unable or unwilling to execute the works, authorise the executing local authority to do certain works in the functional area of the local authority with which the Minister has consulted. I want to stress that the amendment lays down that the Minister may authorise this particular local authority to carry out certain works in the functional area of another local authority. Part II lays down that a local authority may execute works for, on behalf of, another local authority. This may be done by agreement. In a case where an urban council or town commissioners are unable to do certain works due to the lack of staff, plant or machinery, a county council may, by agreement, do that particular work for them. I trust the amendment will meet with the wishes of the Opposition.

Mr. T. Walsh

Am I to understand that the Minister may compel a county council to carry out certain works?

Mr. Corish

No. The Minister may authorise a county council. There is no provision to compel a local authority to do anything.

Mr. MacEntee

I think the Parliamentary Secretary is interpreting very rigorously the word "authorise" when he says there is no power to compel a local authority to carry out certain works. The section, as the amendment proposes it should be, provides that where the Minister is satisfied that particular work should be executed pursuant to this Act by a local authority, and that the local authority is unable or unwilling to execute such works and— and this is the kernel of the whole thing—the execution of such works is essential for the efficiency of other works which any other local authority or local authorities are able and willing to execute pursuant to this Act, then the Minister may, after consultation with the first-mentioned local authority, by Order, authorise the other local authority, or one of the other local authorities, to execute the works on behalf of the first-mentioned local authority. Thereupon—and this is, I think, the crux of the matter—the local authority so authorised may execute those works.

It is very difficult, I will admit, for a layman to interpret that particular sample of the draftsman's art with any certitude but, so far as I can interpret it, it would seem to mean this, that the prime mover in the whole of this section is the Minister. He is the nigger in the wood pile, and where the Minister is satisfied that particular work should be executed pursuant to this Act by the local authority that is set out in paragraph (a) of sub-section (1)—and I assume the local authority referred to in paragraph (a) must be the first-mentioned local authority, since there is no other local authority mentioned in this sub-section prior to paragraph (a)—and where he is satisfied—paragraph (b)—that this local authority is unable or unwilling to execute such works he will take a certain course.

If you will turn to the Bill, as amended in Committee, and look up paragraph (b) you will see that paragraph (b) of the proposed new section is exactly the same as paragraph (b) of the old section and that raises the question again as to whether, when a local authority is unable or unwilling to carry out works which the Minister is satisfied ought to be carried out, the Minister is going to have power, directly or indirectly, to compel that local authority to carry out the works.

Then we go on to see what is the additional matter which is introduced into the first part of the section. The additional matter is introduced in the form of paragraph (c), which reads "that the execution of such works is essential for the efficiency of other works which any other local authority"—and that is naturally any local authority other than the first-mentioned local authority, the authority referred to in paragraph (a)—"or local authorities are able and willing to execute pursuant to this Act."

Now, listen to the three conditions that you have—(a) that the Minister is satisfied that particular works should be executed pursuant to this Act by a local authority; (b) that the local authority is unable or unwilling to execute such works and (c) that the execution of such works within the area of the first-mentioned local authority is essential for the efficiency of other works which any other local authority or local authorities are able and willing to execute pursuant to this Act. I will concede at once that if the local authority referred to in paragraph (b) is unable but not unwilling to execute the works, a great part of the objection which I am going to state in due course would immediately vanish; but the objection if not removed is this local authority is able but is unwilling to execute the works. We better put that this way: that where the Minister is satisfied that works should be carried out, that the local authority within those area he thinks these works should be carried out is unwilling to execute them for reasons which, no doubt, seem good to it and seem to be in the interest of its own ratepayers, but that the execution of these works is essential for the efficiency of other works which any other local authority is able and willing to execute pursuant to this Act, then the Minister, after consultation with the first-mentioned authority—the local authority which is unwilling to carry out these works because it believes that the works proposed are not going to be in the interests of its own ratepayers, of the inhabitants of its own administrative area to whom it is responsible—may, by Order, authorise the other local authority, the local authority outside and removed from and perhaps remote from the administrative area of the local authority which the Minister describes as the first-mentioned one—the local authority reluctant and unwilling to carry out certain works—to execute the first-mentioned works on behalf of the first-mentioned local authority and thereupon the local authority so authorised may so execute those works.

Will the House hard back to the Parliamentary Secretary's reply to Deputy Thomas Walsh? Deputy Walsh asked whether there was any power to compel a local authority to execute certain works which it was unwilling to do. The Parliamentary Secretary, relying upon a very narrow interpretation of the provisions of this section, said: "No, there is no power to compel a local authority to do works which it does not want to do."

He refrained, however, from pointing out to Deputy Walsh that he could authorise another local authority to step inside the administrative area of the first-mentioned authority, according to the terms of the section, and could authorise them to do the works. One can, of course, say: "I will not compel you to take the roof off your house if I want to evict you, but I will give somebody else who feels that you ought to be out of the house, or because the roof in some way offends the amenities or injuries his property, the right to go in and strip the roof off your house. I am not compelling you to remove the roof. I am merely giving somebody else authority to do that."

Mr. Fitzpatrick

It is to put the roof on—not to remove it.

Mr. MacEntee

I will put it in another way: "I am not compelling you to knock a hole in your wall but I will give to another person the right to do so in order to secure access to your property and in order that he may do what he thinks it is right for him to do in his own interest." That is on all-fours with what is proposed in this Bill.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

The hole in the wall must be useful.

Mr. MacEntee

This gives the Minister the right to authorise one local authority to carry out works within the administrative area of another local authority, which is unwilling to carry out these works because it believes, let us assume, that these works would be detrimental to its own interests. We are, of course, living under a Government which has told us that it will restore the rights of local authorities. It has told us that it will do away with the managerial system. It has told us that it believes in local autonomy. We are living under a Government which believes, as the Parliamentary Secretary told us when he was discussing amendment No. 1, that the people who constitute these local authorities are elected under exactly the same franchise as are the members of this House and who can never do wrong. According to him, they are all wise and all prudent.

An Ceann Comhairle

What about amendment No. 5?

Mr. MacEntee

Here is a case where these wise men, these prudent men, these men of unimpeachable honour come to a decision that certain works should not be carried out in their area and certain things should not be done to their property and the Minister thereupon takes power to authorise another local authority, no doubt constituted of men of equal integrity——

Mr. Timoney

Can the Deputy really say that without a smile remembering what he said when on these benches?

Mr. Smith

Yes, because the case is an excellent one.

Mr. Timoney

Do you understand it?

Mr. Smith

I certainly do.

Mr. MacEntee

The Minister is giving to the members of another local authority the right to go from the South Riding of Tipperary into the North Riding, from Limerick into Clare, in order to carry out within the administrative area of the North Riding or the Clare County Council works which the North Riding and the Clare County Council are unwilling to carry out. The Minister is giving the Limerick County Council power to carry out works in Clare for the benefit of the Limerick ratepayers. That is precisely what the Minister proposed to do in this amendment. I have read the debates on this Bill and I do not think this was the issue raised in Section 3. The issue raised in Section 3 was a narrow issue. It was that the Minister should nominate a person to execute the works and that thereupon that person may execute such works in accordance with the directions of the Minister. What has the Parliamentary Secretary said? He has said that he was meeting the objections of the Opposition. But here he is putting before the House a proposal that was not mentioned by the Opposition at all and he is trying, as he did in the debate on the last amendment, to cover up by making us responsible for it.

What is a local authority in any event except a corporate body? It is a corporation acting under its own seal. It acts as a unit. It is a corporate person. All the Minister does here is to substitute the local authority for an individual and, instead of nominating a local authority to go in and execute the works, he is authorising it to go in and execute the work. I grant you there is a certain condition imposed so far as the execution of the works must be essential for the efficiency of other works carried out in the area of another local authority. But I cannot see any very great distinction between the position as it exists under Section 3 of the Bill as it now stands and under Section 3 of the Bill in so far as this amendment proposes to alter it. If I may say so, it seems to me to introduce a principle which is highly objectionable. The position was all very well under Section 3 as it originally stood. I will admit that the Minister, or any person, anxious to carry out work under this Bill could say: "There is work which should be done; the local authority will not do it even though I will provide the full cost; I must, therefore, have the right to nominate a person to execute the work." Consider what is proposed here! Here we are throwing aside the whole foundation of local government. We are throwing that overboard and we are making it a condition that it is only when the benefit will inure, not to the local authority within whose area the works will be carried out but to some other local authority, that the Minister then authorises such latter authority to carry out those works.

There are a number of questions involved here. They will readily occur to other Deputies and I shall not refer to them at any great length. I shall mention them. First of all, if this amendment is carried and if damage is done by reason of the execution of these works within the administrative area of a local authority which is unwilling to execute them, who then will be liable for compensation? I do not see where that is dealt with in the proposed amendment.

Mr. Corish

Then you have not read the amendments.

Mr. MacEntee

I have read the amendment.

Mr. Corish

The amendments—not this particular one.

Mr. MacEntee

Who will be liable for compensation? The Parliamentary Secretary says I have not read the amendments. It is the responsibility of whoever is making a motion in this House to explain to the House the full implications of that motion.

Mr. Corish

When he comes to the amendments.

Mr. MacEntee

The Parliamentary Secretary is introducing a complete new section. If he were doing his duty to this House he would have mentioned that the question of compensation, if it did arise, would perhaps be dealt with under amendment No. 11 which he proposes. Have I read the amendments?

Mr. Corish

You stalled for a few minutes.

Mr. MacEntee

If I might be permitted to refer to the proposed amendment No 11, my recollection is that you did not refer to amendment No. 11. You referred to amendment No. 10 but if——

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 11, part 1, was referred to.

Mr. Sweetman

Will you apologise to the Parliamentary Secretary now?

Mr. MacEntee

There is no apology to the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Sweetman

We did not expect one from you, anyway.

Mr. MacEntee

There is no apology to the Parliamentary Secretary or to any member of the Party opposite and least of all to the Deputy who has interrupted and who is customarily ill-mannered. As I was saying, undoubtedly questions of compensation will arise and it should have been mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary that this question would arise. We should then have been in a position to ask him is he asking the House to accept the principle that a local authority in Limerick may go in and damage the property of an inhabitant of the administrative County of Clare and did he think that was the sort of principle that should be accepted here in this House without question as something that could be smoothed over.

Mr. Timoney

Is the Deputy afraid that would happen?

Mr. MacEntee

It could happen.

Mr. Timoney

Is there any reasonable fear it could happen?

Mr. Smith

Absolutely.

Mr. MacEntee

Is there any reasonable fear it will happen? About that I do not know. I am not a prophet but I do know that the people who drafted this Bill had some reason to believe that, in consequence of works to be carried out by local authorities under this Bill, damage would be done to private property. Otherwise why all these provisions providing that compensation would be paid in the event of damage being done? This amendment No. 11 is a clear admission that damage may be done. Now, it does not matter whether damage will be done or not. That is not the point. The issue that is involved is that, having regard to the jealousy with which local authorities maintain their rights and jurisdiction over their own administrative areas, having regard to everything we have heard about the sacrosanctity of local administration in this country, is it right that we should accept as a valid principle that a local authority— I said in Limerick and Clare, but let me say a local authority in Cavan should carry out works which would damage the property of inhabitants of Laoighis or Offaly or Monaghan? It can be done.

Mr. Timoney

It is not likely.

Mr. MacEntee

Of course it can. If the Deputy wants an instance of some authority interfering with property he had better go and see what was done on the Barrow drainage scheme that was carried out by the Fine Gael Government. If he had any knowledge of the controversies, which raged in this House over a great number of years, he would know how much damage could be done by works which were comparatively remote from the actual site of the damage.

Mr. Timoney

The Deputy is off the line on that.

Mr. MacEntee

I am not off the line. I do not want unduly to delay the House but I do say, first of all, that I think that the principle is objectionable. I think the Parliamentary Secretary in submitting this amendment to the House was not fair to the House because he did not explain the full implications of the section and of the consequential amendments which he must make in order to make the section effective.

Deputy T. Walsh rose.

An Ceann Comhairle

I think Deputy Walshe has spoken already.

Mr. T. Walsh

No, Sir, I just asked a question and my purpose in asking the question is related to the remarks which I am about to make now. There seems to be a doubt in the mind of Deputy Timoney that any damage can be done under this section. I can tell Deputy Timoney that, as far as two local authorities are concerned, damage can be done by one to the other. I take the case of Kilkenny. We have in Kilkenny the county council on the one hand and the Kilkenny Corporation on the other. If Kilkenny County Council execute certain works north of the city on the River Dinan or other rivers, they are bound to do damage to the city. There is a small river there called the Breaga and if the corporation refuse to clean it up, in order to get the water away, then the county council is authorised to go in and clean it up. The cleaning of that river means that you are going to throw 16 or 17 feet of water into the City of Kilkenny as was done in 1947. That was my reason for asking would the Minister compel a council to carry out certain works. In connection with that river, it means that the City of Kilkenny will be flooded again if anything is done with that river.

Mr. Smith

One of our main difficulties in discussing this Bill since it was introduced is due to the fact that we have not got any clear statement from its sponsors as to the actual work they propose to do under sub-section (3) of Section 2. At one time we get the explanation that very little work of the nature envisaged will be undertaken by local bodies. On other occasions we are led to believe that a lot of useful work, in so far as drainage is concerned, will be undertaken. When Deputy Timoney and some others endeavour to make play with the amendment that we are now discussing, which is being moved by the Parliamentary Secretary, I do not know how they derive any source of enjoyment from the one paragraph in this amendment——

Mr. Timoney

The Deputy himself was amused.

Mr. Smith

I was very far from being amused but I was pleased with the delightful manner in which the arguments were presented by Deputy MacEntee.

Mr. Timoney

I was pleased with that also.

Mr. Smith

That is what I was enjoying. I can assure the Deputy, however, that I am very far from enjoying the implications of paragraph (c) if my understanding of what is meant by that paragraph is accurate. In the whole discussion of this Bill since it came before the House I can see a state of confusion from the point of view of those who have introduced it and who will be responsible for implementing it as to what exactly they are endeavouring to achieve, what is the machinery they are actually putting into the hands of local authorities and the extent to which that machinery may be used. The case which I am going to put is even worse than the one cited by Deputy Walsh, because the case he cited was the case of two local authorities in one county. I can visualise a case where ratepayers in County Monaghan might petition the county council and be able to satisfy that body and the engineering advisers of that body as to the desirability of carrying out certain works under this Bill. These works when carried out might result in an easier passage of water from that county into the neighbouring County of Cavan. Suppose the engineering advisers of the Monaghan County Council were to say: "This work is desirable and useful, but it cannot be made effective unless and until the Cavan County Council continue it from the point to which the work is carried out in County Monaghan to whatever point they think is necessary in order to make our work in Monaghan effective." Supposing that proposal is put to the Cavan County Council and they say: "That may be all right and may help to make the work carried out in Monaghan very efficient, but it will not confer upon us any tangible benefit."

You may say: "After all, if it will make the scheme in Monaghan effective, is not the State paying for it and why should the county council object as it will cost them nothing?" The members of the Cavan County Council may say: "Yes, it may facilitate work which is proposed in Monaghan but no land here will benefit to any extent which would induce us to proceed with the work even if it costs us nothing, because we will be liable for damages if they occur. No one will give us any assurance that we will not have to pay for damages if they occur."

This amendment is necessitated by the fact that there was not at any time since these proposals were conceived any proper thought or consideration given to the matters to which they refer and what these matters require. This amendment is just brought in hastily because, in the discussion on the Second Reading and on the Committee Stage objection was raised to the fact that the Minister could nominate a person to carry out work. Of course an effort was made to get over that by substituting "local authority" for "person." In doing so, the draughtsman said: "Here is an awkward sort of situation that will arise. A local authority may put forward a work which cannot be made effective unless and until somebody else downstream is compelled to continue the work." In other words, is it not plain that you are proposing to force local authorities to begin at the wrong end?

What will be the result in the case I have cited? In that case, the water which will flow from the counties I have mentioned will ultimately, in the main, reach a Border county. If, for example, you were to have a scheme proposed in Monaghan which could only be made effective by carrying out work in Cavan; if the Cavan County Council refuses because it did not see that benefit would result and the Minister regards the attitude of the Cavan County Council as unreasonable and authorises the Monaghan County Council to carry out work in an area which comes under the jurisdiction of the Cavan County Council and of the Cavan Urban Council and on to Belturbet, you will find yourself confronted with the County Fermanagh over which you have no jurisdiction. You will find that you are forcing water from Monaghan through Cavan until you reach Belturbet. Then you cannot go on any further and the water will start to come back.

Of course this may be just a bit of window-dressing. As members of the Opposition, however, all we can do is to take this Bill as we see it and to regard its provisions as seriously meant and intended to be operated. From listening to the discussion on the Second Reading and in Committee and on this amendment which has been introduced and which covers a different kind of field from that to which objection was taken during the previous discussion, I see clear evidence that there was no real attempt made to understand this whole problem.

If we are to proceed along the lines envisaged in the amendment and in fact in this Bill, we are going to start on drainage where it appears to be harmless and where it will operate to give some relief without doing too much damage. We are going to give one local authority power to go in on the territory of another local authority at the request of the Minister and carry out further work. That local authority will find itself in an awkward position unless it gets power to go in on the territory of other local authorities and you will be proceeding from the wrong end. That is, of course, if the proposal here is seriously intended and if work will be undertaken to any considerable extent under it.

I think this amendment is a very serious affair. If paragraph (c) means, as I suspect it does, that the Minister can authorise one county council which proposes certain work in its area to go into the area of another county council in order to carry out work so that its scheme will be effective, then I say that is a very dangerous proposal. When it comes to be operated, if it ever comes to be operated, and the minds of technical people are brought to bear upon it, unless it is examined more closely than it has been, you will find that very little work will be done under it.

Mr. Keyes

One thing abundantly clear from the statements of Deputy MacEntee and Deputy Smith is that any attempt made by the Parliamentary Secretary to placate them in their opposition to this measure will not be a success. They profess to be interested in the measure but it is clear to anybody looking at it impartially that their one interest is to prevent the measure coming into operation. The Bill is a simple measure. Forty-five amendments were submitted. Deputy MacEntee spent weeks adapting provisions in other Acts of Parliament and trying to fit them in and trying to block this measure in every way he could. When the Government attempts to meet any opposition that may have been reasoned to enable the measure to be put into operation and to carry out the simple beneficial work that it is designed to do, each amendment, each suggestion and every section is pictured here as being the work of vandals coming in to destroy their own and other people's territory. In regard to this amendment, anybody with common-sense can see that nothing further in the way of words could be put forward to satisfy any reasonable demand. There is no reason on the other side. Where a local authority wants to have work done and a second local authority impinges upon it and portion of the work will be done in the territory of the second local authority to enable the work to be effective in the lands of the first local authority, if the first local authority does not feel like doing the work, they will be consulted and asked to agree to have it done by the second local authority and should any damage arise from it, the compensation will be paid by the party performing the work. That is the sum total.

Mr. Aiken

Is that the Minister's interpretation?

Mr. Keyes

Nobody is going to do damage in Counties Monaghan or Cavan. If they do work in Cavan to take waters from Monaghan and if there should be any incidental damage done, it will be paid for. The work is unquestionably of a beneficial character being attempted by the local authority either in Cavan or Monaghan. Are we asked to believe that people are so unreasonable in Cavan, Monaghan, Limerick or Clare that they will refuse to co-operate to have this beneficial work done? I suggest that everything that could be done reasonably and, in fact, unnecessarily, has been put into this amendment. If that does not meet with the satisfaction of people over there, there is no use in talking any further here. That amendment ought to be accepted by the House.

Mr. Aiken

Will the Minister explain how he makes out that if work is carried out by council A in the area of county council B that it is county council A is to pay for the damage and not county council B ?

Mr. A.P. Byrne

That is amendment No. 11.

Mr. Corish

It is provided for in amendment No. 11.

Mr. Aiken

Amendment No. 11 says:—

"Any person who suffers damage ...shall be entitled to be paid compensation in respect of such damage by the local authority who executed the works or, if that local authority executed the works on behalf of another local authority pursuant to an agreement made under this Act, by such other local authority."

Surely that means that if council A carried out work in council B's area that it is council B who is going to pay for the damage done by council A.

Captain Cowan

Why should not it be that way?

Mr. Aiken

It is directly opposite to what the Minister said.

Captain Cowan

It is only a slip of the tongue.

Mr. Timoney

It appears to me that you cannot read amendment No. 5 without reading in conjunction with it amendment No. 11.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is the first part of amendment No. 11, of course.

Mr. Timoney

Yes—sub-section (1) of the proposed new section. I hope Deputy Aiken is clear now on that point which he was making that the local authority in whose area the work is done by another local authority is liable to pay compensation where it has agreed to accept that liability.

Mr. Aiken

No.

Mr. Timoney

Deputy Smith obviously had not read sub-section (1) of the proposed new section at all because he was in a bad way about the liability which would be undertaken by the local authority in whose functional area the work was carried out by the neighbouring local authority by reason of the fact that the local authority in whose functional area the work was carried out would have to pay compensation for the damage done. Sub-section (1) of the proposed new section—amendment No. 11—covers that point specifically and puts upon the local authority which does the work the liability for payment of the damages.

Mr. Smith

Where there is agreement, is it not?

Mr. Timoney

No; that comes in under sub-section (2) of the proposed new sub-section. If the Deputy will read sub-section (1) of amendment No. 11——

Mr. Smith

I have read it.

Mr. Timoney

——the Deputy will see there that the person who suffers damage by interference shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be entitled to be paid compensation by the local authority who executed the works. That could not be clearer. It then goes on to say : "or, if that local authority executed the works on behalf of another local authority pursuant to an agreement made under this Act, by such other local authority." The net position is that there would be no local authority saddled with liability of any kind except it agrees to be saddled with that liability beforehand. I think that is the net position. I personally cannot see how any more reasonable or sensible provision could be put into an Act of the Oireachtas. The work, as the Minister has just said and as every reasonable person could contemplate, is work of a beneficial kind, work which will cost the local authorities nothing which will be of an unexpected nature, nothing that they will not foresee, and the objections of Deputy MacEntee which, looking at it from over here, were made, I think jocosely and without any seriousness at all, are absolutely groundless. Deputy Smith was obviously under the disadvantage that he had not read amendment No. 11. If he had, he would not have made the speech he made. But, more important than all these points is that amendment No. 5 envisages a degree of reasonableness and a spirit of co-operation on the part of local authorities which we are entitled to expect in this country. Deputy MacEntee mentioned the horror which would be entertained in the North Riding of County Tipperary if the county council of the South Riding dared to put its nose, so to speak, over the border to do something which would be of benefit. I do not know very much about the people of Cavan but certainly the people in Tipperary are a very reasonable sort of people and I am quite satisfied that there would not be that horror in North Tipperary if the people of South Tipperary wanted a bit of help from them and even at a cost to North Tipperary. But, here is a case in which it would cost the people of North Tipperary nothing to have something done which would benefit both counties and benefit the county at large.

I would like to compliment first the Parliamentary Secretary for the idea behind amendment No. 5 and the Parliamentary draughtsman for the clarity with which that idea is expressed. Notwithstanding the confusion which Deputy MacEntee tried to make out of the matter, the sub-section is clear and reasonable and ought to be accepted by anybody who would study it, give it consideration and understand it.

Mr. Sweetman

While I do not agree with the arguments put forward by Deputy Smith, I admit that, compared with the speech of Deputy MacEntee, his speech was about the section and the amendment. Deputy Smith certainly attempted to deal with both. Deputy MacEntee did nothing except try to obstruct this measure all through. One would have thought that he had got a sufficient lesson from his own followers after the speech that he made on the Second Reading of the Bill. It was quite clear that his tone changed when he saw the unwelcome reception his speech had got. This amendment is quite simple. I do not accept the situation that Deputy Smith appears to envisage. I am going to take him on his own ground, that you have a situation in which work is required to be done in the County Monaghan which the county council there, at the behest of the people, think necessitates other work in the County Cavan while the county council in Cavan do not appreciate the necessity for it. Deputy Smith seems to take the view that the work in Monaghan is going to be done before anyone has considered that the work in Cavan is necessary in order to make the work in Monaghan effective. It is clear from that amendment that the matter will be considered before any work is undertaken.

Again, take the position which Deputy Smith visualises, that the Monaghan County Council will take one line and the Cavan County Council another. In the example given by the Deputy, what more reasonable thing can one imagine in these circumstances than that there should be, so to speak, arbitration between the two county councils, and that the Minister should be the arbitrator? That is exactly what the amendment provides, that where two county councils do not agree the Minister should be the arbitrator. One of the county councils must be the moving body, and the Minister must be satisfied that it is correct. If the Minister is satisfied that the work in Cavan is necessary and decides against the Cavan County Council then the Monaghan County Council can come in and do the work.

It is quite clear from amendment No. 11 (1) that it is the Monaghan County Council that is going to pay any compensation that may arise. Deputy Aiken appeared to be confused by the last words in sub-section (1) of amendment No. 11. That is to cover cases where the Monaghan and Cavan County Councils decide that there is work to be done and that, for the sake of convenience, the Cavan County Council requests the Monaghan County Council to do it. When work is done by one county council at the request of another county council, clearly it is the county council which makes the request that should pay any compensation that may arise out of the doing of the work. It appears to me that, unless you had this new section it would be utterly impossible, in the situation which Deputy Smith envisages but which is not the situation that I envisage, for any inland county such as Cavan, Kildare or Monaghan to get any work done under this Bill. Without this new section, a county council might decide that it was not worth while bothering about allowing water to run straight to the sea. Deputy Smith's contention appeared to be that such a county council was not going to bother about its own county at all. This amendment enables that situation to be met. It enables all the objections that were raised by the Opposition on the Committee Stage to be met in a reasonable way. It is not in the least dictatorial. It will enable the people in the various areas concerned to have their full say, and everybody must agree that, where there is contention or a difference between local authorities in administrative matters of this sort, the only person that should be allowed to arbitrate on that is the Minister. That is what the new section does. I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on having brought it forward.

Mr. Aiken rose.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has spoken before.

Mr. Aiken

Not on this amendment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy's name is before me as having spoken.

Mr. Aiken

I put a question in about 20 words to the Minister.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Ceann Comhairle has a note here that Deputy Aiken has spoken. I am bound by that.

Mr. Aiken

I asked a question of the Minister. That was all I did. I did not speak on the amendment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not for me to revise what the Ceann Comhairle has noted.

Mr. Aiken

I do not want you to revise it, but you can ask the Ceann Comhairle. All the members are aware that all I did was to ask a question of the Minister.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am not going to allow Deputy Aiken to speak now. The Ceann Comhairle has noted here for my information that certain Deputies have spoken.

Mr. Aiken

I propose that the Dáil adjourn to find out.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am not accepting that motion.

Mr. C. Lehane

Chair!

Mr. Aiken

I think it is a most arbitrary decision and is not in accordance with the facts. You are going to steam-roll this Bill through.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is not trying to steam-roll anything.

Mr. Aiken

I am not allowed to speak.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is a note before me that Deputy Aiken has spoken.

Mr. Smith

In all fairness to Deputy Aiken——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I cannot decide that.

Mr. Aiken

Ask the Ceann Comhairle.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No.

Captain Cowan

I think Deputy Aiken is making a mistake.

Mr. Aiken

I did not speak.

Captain Cowan

You did.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary to conclude.

Mr. Corish

I think the only objection which Deputy MacEntee had to this particular section is now met —the power, as he alleged, which the Minister had to nominate a person to execute certain works that a local authority was unwilling to do. This amendment meets any fears which Deputy MacEntee or other members of the Opposition had in that respect. Perhaps I should apologise to the House and, if you like, to Deputy MacEntee for the fact that, in moving these several amendments, I merely explained amendment No. 5. I do not say that I misled the House as far as compensation was concerned by not referring to it. I admit that it took Deputy MacEntee five or six minutes before he could get round to that amendment and still talk on it. I think this should meet the wishes of the Opposition. It is designed merely to promote better co-operation between different local authorities, whether they be county council and county council or county council and urban council or corporation.

There are three conditions here which must be fulfilled before the Minister may authorise a local authority to carry out certain works on behalf of another local authority: "Where the Minister is satisfied that particular works should be executed pursuant to this Act by a local authority and the local authority is unable or unwilling to execute such works and that the execution of such works is essential for the efficiency of other works which any other local authority or local authorities are able and willing to execute pursuant to this Act"—I stop there. Deputies will appreciate that, say, for example, in the case of the Westmeath County Council, where there was flooding and where there was an obstruction in a watercourse or some other stoppage in the town of Athlone, it would be quite reasonable for the Minister to authorise the Westmeath County Council to carry out certain works in the town of Athlone to alleviate flooding in the functional area of the Westmeath County Council. That is one of the things which it is hoped to effect under this amendment.

But there is another condition: "The Minister may, after consultation with the first-mentioned local authority." The Minister, with the benefit of his engineering advisers, consults in this case the Athlone Urban District Council and decides then whether or not he may authorise the Westmeath County Council to carry out particular works. In case anybody has fears in that respect "authorise" in this particular case does not mean "compel".

So far as compensation is concerned, if damage may be done I think it is perfectly clear, under amendment No. 11, what particular local authority is liable for the compensation. In the case of a local authority executing works in its own area for its own benefit, that local authority will pay compensation. If the Minister authorises a particular local authority to carry out works in the area of another local authority, the executing local authority is liable for any compensation that may arise as a result of damage. In the case of agreement where one particular county council, after consultation with another, agrees to do the work on their behalf, the compensation is paid for by the county council which benefits.

Deputy MacEntee talked about red herrings. So far as I could judge in the half-hour speech he made on this very simple amendment, he got to a stage where he was arguing with himself. He tried to convince himself that there was something wrong with the amendment. I do not think anybody else recognised that there was anything sinister or damaging or which could be used as a method of punishing a local authority.

Amendment No. 5 put and agreed to

Mr. Corish

I move amendment No. 6:—

In page 3, to delete "or person" in line 34, in line 36, and in lines 40 and 41.

This is merely a drafting amendment rendered necessary by reason of the deletion that was made and the insertion of the new sub-section (3).

Mr. Aiken

I wanted on the previous section to state that the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary and Deputy Sweetman, when denouncing Deputy MacEntee for, as they called it, obstructing this measure, had a right to be grateful to him and one of the reasons is this drafting amendment and the last amendment. On the Second Reading Deputy MacEntee pointed out where the Government proposed to go when they were going to use the jackboot around the country. Whenever anybody came along and wanted a job of work done and the local authority was not prepared to do it, they wanted to nominate a particular person.

This amendment is taking out that person and it would not be proposed if it were not for Deputy MacEntee's criticism. He was the first to point out what the Minister was at. The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have now had to admit it, and they also admitted it in the debate on the last section. Up to this moment Deputy MacEntee has pointed out other weaknesses in this measure, even after his efforts and the efforts of other members of the Opposition to amend the Bill. In these circumstances I hope we will not hear any more about any Deputy blocking the work or obstructing this measure.

This measure was introduced in the Dáil on 23rd February. It is now the 30th June and we are getting the Report Stage. That is not our fault. It is altogether the fault of the Government. If they wanted to get this measure through they should have taken some pains to present it in a form which would commend itself to the people and we would not have had to spend so much time on the Committee and Fourth Stages.

Mr. Timoney

If I understood Deputy MacEntee properly, he made the point that legally there was no difference between the person who is being deleted now—and the deletion of whom Deputy Aiken considers to be a good thing—and the juristic person known as a local authority. Deputy MacEntee made the point that in the legal sense there is no difference whatever between them, so I do not see much point in Deputy Aiken's remarks at all.

Mr. MacEntee

I think the Deputy has contributed to the discussion without clarifying it. Of course there is a difference, a natural physical difference, as Deputy Timoney well knows, as between a juristic person and an individual. The point was made that the Parliamentary Secretary was not meeting the full views of the Opposition which were these, that he should not have power to authorise any person, juristic or individual, to enter on land and to carry out works in the manner in which it was originally proposed he should have power to do under Section 4. His authority is now confined to what Deputy Timoney has called and rightly called, I assume, a juristic person—that is to say, a local authority acting as a corporation.

It is no longer within the right of the Minister to empower an individual, a person of his own unfettered selection, to go in and carry out works, say, under sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Bill, if we accept his amendment, as it would have been within his competence to do if the amendment were not proposed. Now the objection which I stated in regard to Section 4, as it originally stood, was a plain and simple one. Under it, any Minister who was sufficiently corrupt—and I gather from the spokesmen for the Government that we have had a plethora of corrupt Ministers here over a considerable period of time—could decide that a local authority under sub-section (3) of Section 2 of this Bill should carry out works which would improve the value of a private individual's property; and, if this corrupt Minister came to that corrupt decision, he could under Section 4 of this Bill, as it stood prior to this amendment, nominate a creature of his and send him in——

Captain Cowan

A sort of John Brown.

Mr. MacEntee

——to the area of a local authority to carry out works to benefit a private individual at public expense.

Captain Cowan

Yes, and so did John Brown.

Mr. MacEntee

I know, of course, that Deputy Captain Cowan was very anxious that the British should win the economic war. I know that Deputy Captain Cowan was virtually drummed out of the Army because of that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That has absolutely nothing to do with this debate.

Mr. MacEntee

Then let Deputy Captain Cowan stop this John Brown. John Brown has much less to do with it than has the remark I made. However, if John Brown is in order. I make the same remarks about those individuals who rendered him necessary.

Captain Cowan

Sir, I want to draw your attention to a remark made by Deputy MacEntee. I am quite sure it was made in the heat of debate. Deputy MacEntee said that I was nearly drummed out of the Army. I am equally sure that on reflection Deputy MacEntee would not like such an observation to appear on the records of this House. The remark is absolutely untrue. There is no foundation for it and I am surprised that such an observation should be made in a privileged place like this House.

Mr. MacEntee

I accept what Deputy Captain Cowan has said. I would like to apologise to him for having made the remark in the heat of the moment. One sometimes makes a remark subconsciously for which there may be no justification.

I was dealing with the position which we are anxious to remedy. I do not suggest that the present Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary would do what this Bill would give them the right to do if it were not amended in the manner in which the Minister now proposes to amend it. The Bill as introduced into this House would have enabled the Minister, if he so desired, to send in an individual to spend public money in order to appreciate the value of a private individual's property. I am grateful to the Minister for the fact that he has recognised that that was the position and that by this amendment he will at least ensure that if any person has the right to enter land or to carry out works thereon that person will be, as Deputy Timoney has described it, a juristice person and one who is a competent authority and not likely to secure a personal advantage by reason of the works so carried out. That is the only reason why I spoke as I did on the Second Reading of this Bill in order to make sure that this opportunity for abuse would be removed.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 7 agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 8:—

In page 3, Section 4, to insert before sub-section (2) a new sub-section as follows:—

( ) Save for the purpose of carrying out urgent works, no person shall enter on any land under this section between the hour of 6 p.m. on any day and the hour of 9 a.m. on the following day.

In the course of the discussion which has taken place on the several provisions of this Bill and on the amendments we sought to introduce in order to tighten up procedure under the Bill, the Parliamentary Secretary has referred on several occasions to measures for which his predecessors were responsible. To-day, for instance, on another amendment he referred to the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act, 1948. He referred to a specific section in it which lays it down that "a sanitary authority may take such steps as are reasonably necessary to prevent injury being caused to public health or the amenities of any locality by reason of any obstruction in any river or watercourse.""Take such steps as may be reasonably necessary"—there is nothing in this section as it stands providing that entry on land shall be made at reasonable times. In another section in another statute to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred when he was discussing this Bill on the 7th June justifying a particular amendment he said: "This amendment is not a new one. There is a similar provision in the Water Supplies Act, 1942." As I pointed out in the course of the debate, the Parliamentary Secretary was not being candid with the Dáil on that occasion because he did not quote the relevant section of the Act in order that the House might recognise for itself the vital and essential difference between what was done in the Water Supplies Act of 1942 and what it was proposed to do under Section 4 of this Bill. However, since the Parliamentary Secretary thinks that the precedents we have set up should be honoured, I would like to remind him what the Water Supplies Act of 1942 does provide in regard to entry upon land.

Section 17 of the Act of 1942 states that: " Any person or agent of a sanitary authority who is duly authorised in that behalf by such sanitary authority"—I do not think you will see anything here about being duly authorised in that behalf—"may, subject to the provisions of this section, enter on land at all reasonable times"— there is nothing here about "reasonable," as I have said before—"for either of the following purposes"—and the purposes are strictly limited—"that is to say, ascertaining whether an adequate supply of water can be conveniently taken from a particular source of water." Now, entry upon land for that purpose is not likely to do any damage to it. The position is very different, however, where instead of entering upon land for the purpose of ascertaining whether an adequate supply of water can be conveniently taken one enters upon land for the purpose of executing certain works.

Then Section 17 goes on to say:—

"repairing or maintaining any pipes, conduits or other works which are used by such sanitary authority for the purposes of a supply of water."

These are the purposes for which under Section 17 of the Water Supplies Act, 1942, a person may enter on land. They are, in the main, harmless purposes. As I have said, no damage can be done by a person entering land mainly to satisfy himself that water is available. I am certain no damage would be done to the land if a person entered it for the purpose of mending any pipes, conduits or other works which are used by the sanitary authority for the purpose of supplying water. On the contrary, if the pipes were in need of repair, the owner of the land would probably be demanding that the sanitary authority should enter on the land in order to repair the pipes.

Having shown that, in the main, the purposes for which the land might be entered on under Section 17 would not be harmful to the land in one case and would, perhaps, be positively beneficial to the land in the other, let me go on to point out how limited, how restricted and guarded was the power of entry given to a sanitary authority under this Act because sub-section (3) of the section provides that:—

"Save for the purpose of carrying out urgent repairs, no person shall enter on any land under this section between the hours of 6 p.m. on any day and 9 a.m. on the following day."

That, Sir, is one of the things which we propose to do by this amendment, to limit the right of entry on land to reasonable hours—from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. I think that should be accepted as a reasonable and proper limitation, that at least a person should not be permitted to enter land except during the hours of daylight, in order that the person who owns the land may satisfy himself that the person who has entered upon it, has entered upon it for lawful purposes.

As the section stands at the moment, any person who holds himself out as being an officer, servant or agent of a local authority may enter on land. He is not called upon to carry any proof of authorisation. In other cases, where a person is permitted to enter premises he must at least produce his authority.

Mr. Timoney

What about the notice in sub-section (2)?

Mr. MacEntee

The notice under sub-section (2) does not compel him to carry any authority with him.

Mr. Timoney

He has got to give notice under the sub-section.

Mr. MacEntee

I know that he has got to give notice but a local authority will act through its officers and any person holding himself out to be an officer of a local authority may enter on land even if no notice has been given. He does not have to carry anything with him. He may enter at any time.

Mr. Timoney

Is the Deputy serious?

Mr. MacEntee

I am serious. I can see why it was considered necessary under the Water Supplies Act and other Acts to which I do not want to refer, to limit the right of entry or rather to prohibit the right of entry except within certain hours. Why was it considered necessary to do that? Because people could enter on land holding themselves out, as they can here under this section, to be officers of the local authority and in the hours of darkness, outside the ordinary hours of daylight, and do considerable damage to the property of the landowner. Deputy Sweetman shakes his head. Why is this proviso found not only in the Water Supplies Act but in other Acts—Electricity Supply Acts passed by our predecessors as well as by us? Would the Deputy tell the House why it was necessary to insert this proviso, that entry should be made only within certain hours, in the statute law of this country? That is the position we want to see, that a safeguard protecting the property owner, which was thought essential in relation to important work, works of first-class magnitude, about the importance of which there could be no difference of opinion, will be inserted here in this Bill which deals only with minor works.

Mr. Sweetman

Deputy MacEntee I am afraid does not understand country areas very well. I would have thought that even if the Deputy did not appreciate what occurred in the country, there would have been some Deputies in his Party who would have explained the position to him. This work, as I think even the Deputy appreciates, is going to be carried out by officers and servants of local authorities. In the country the officers and servants of the local authority, who will be carrying out this work, will be road men and so forth under the control of the county engineer.

In the country, as I would have thought the Deputy would have found out, we get up before 9 o'clock, even though people in the City of Dublin may not get up at that hour. The effect of this amendment would be, of course, that the local authority and the Exchequer would be paying men employed by the local authority who would be sitting twirling their thumbs on the side of the road for an hour every morning. I do not know whether the Deputy wished that to be the case, but certainly that would be the effect of the amendment. I want to put it to Deputy MacEntee also that the work that will be done under this Bill will be different from the kind of work that is visualised, for example, under the Water Supplies Act. The purpose of this Bill is to clear up natural watercourses that have become clogged up. The purpose of the Bill is to remove obstructions in natural watercourses, to clear them out of the way and to enable the water to flow in the manner that Nature intended it should flow, before the watercourse became clogged up and thus assist in the prevention of flooding in any part of the countryside. All the work to which the Deputy referred under the Waterworks Act and under the Electricity Supply Board Act is an artificial type of work. We all know that there is a very great difference between going in and doing new artificial work, such as laying watercourses or putting up electricity poles and the work of assisting Nature to clear up her own watercourses. There is not the same necessity in this as there is in these other cases for identification of the persons concerned. In the country, as I thought the Deputy would have learned from his own colleagues, everybody knows in every area who is working for the local authority and who is not. If Paddy Murphy goes into a field, we know quite conclusively that Paddy Murphy is a local road ganger and is doing drainage work under this Bill. In the case of the Water Supplies Act, to which Deputy MacEntee referred, the work is never done by the local authority. It is always done by contractors, by strangers in the locality. Similarly, in regard to Electricity Supply Board work, it is done by strangers whom people in the area do not know are working for the Electricity Supply Board. Even if it is done by local people, the news does not travel in the same way as the news that people are working for a local authority. It is an entirely different type of work and there is an entirely different class of people doing the work. As Deputy Smith will explain to Deputy MacEntee, in the country we get up before 9 o'clock if we have to start work before that hour.

Mr. Corish

Deputy MacEntee goes on the assumption that local authorities are not reasonable men and have not reasonable officials. Listening to Deputy MacEntee, you would think the road workers romped around the countryside digging up roads and drains at 3 o'clock in the morning. You would also imagine that it is necessary for the execution of works under this Bill to supply the council workers with identification cards or passports. Apart from that, under this Bill the landowner will get 14 days' notice. He will know that he may expect county council workers to enter on his land for the purpose of doing work which, in the majority of cases, will be a benefit to him.

We ought to realise that there is some sense of co-operation between the farmers or landowners or rural dwellers and the local authority in the execution of works such as this.

It is expected that this Bill will be worked on the basis of co-operation. It is a Bill which is intended to do good to such people as farmers and landowners. We do not need to lay down when the county council workers should work, or between what hours they should work. In any case, I do not see the necessity for the provision that they should not enter between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. County council workers' hours are well defined in most counties and are generally from 8 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. As Deputy Sweetman said, it is not intended that county council workers engaged in work for the relief of flooding should twiddle their thumbs between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. I do not think we should accept the amendment or assume that the people in rural Ireland will not co-operate in the execution of works under the Bill which will be subsantially for their own benefit.

Mr. Timoney

I should like Deputy MacEntee to tell us what would be consequential on this. Assuming that this sub-section is inserted in Section 4 and that a servant of a local authority enters upon land before 9 a.m. or after 6 p.m. what is to happen then? Is not the sub-section as it stands incomplete? It merely prohibits the entry Would it not be necessary to have some consequential provision as to whether he was committing an offence by entering? Apart from that, there will arise cases in which the men working and the people having charge of the work may find it desirable to work overtime. If this sub-section were accepted, it would prohibit the working of overtime. In weather such as this, there are many working hours outside the period between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. The sub-section as it stands seems to me to be open to quite serious objection, to be totally unnecessary and to serve no useful purpose, and I would certainly oppose the acceptance of it.

Mr. Aiken

The Parliamentary Secretary asked Deputy MacEntee whether he thinks county council workers romp around the roads at all hours of the night and morning. Could not the Parliamentary Secretary adopt Deputy MacEntee's amendment by simply substituting for the hours of 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., the usual working hours of county council workers? I am sure that would meet Deputy MacEntee's point of view. The Parliamentary Secretary said that Deputy MacEntee wanted county council workers to go around with identification cards and that all the people whose land will be entered upon will get notice. No thanks are due to the Parliamentary Secretary for that. On the Second Reading, the Parliamentary Secretary and those supporting him stood strongly by the Bill as introduced, in which there was no provision for notice of any kind to be given to the owner of land, whether the county council worker or the surveyor came to him in the middle of the day or the middle of the night. As the Bill was introduced, these workers could enter upon his land at any hour of the day or night without notice. One of the reasons for Deputy MacEntee's speech on the Second Reading, about which so much complaint was made at the time, was that there was no provision for notice and that at any hour of the day or night land could be entered upon. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary should continue on that particular line. He should agree with Deputy MacEntee, as so much play was made by members of the Government with the fact that "pipsqueak" inspectors were to be kept outside the farmer's gate. But here he is objecting to a reasonable amendment that would keep them out during the small hours of the morning and at midnight and he refuses to accept it. I would not mind a member of a Government who had less of that type of speech behind it than the present Administration has refusing to accept Deputy MacEntee's amendment by saying that it is not really necessary, but they accused Fianna Fáil, when in the Government, of providing thousands of inspectors and arming them with all sorts of powers to kick farmers around. Deputy MacEntee has called attention to the fact that when we were supposed to be doing that we actually had in Bills introduced by us safeguards which went quite in the other-direction. The Parlimentary Secretary now says that we are giving the farmer unreasonable powers to keep people off his lands. Instead of the Parliamentary Secretary having to justify letting people in or arming local authorities with powers to enter on farmers' lands at any hour, he wants us to justify keeping them out. He thinks that we should make the exact case as to the exact number of minutes during the late night and the early morning that they should be kept out.

If the Parliamentary Secretary was living up to a lot of the speeches that were made by his colleagues who are now in the Government he should have been overwilling to meet Deputy MacEntee's amendment and, if he was not completely satisfied with the terms of it, he should have introduced an amendment to that amendment setting out the exact time during which county council workers could enter on the farmer's land. I want to remind him that the Bill as introduced gave power to enter any time of day or night and what I am suggesting is that he should accept Deputy MacEntee's amendment with perhaps a minor amendment that the hours should be, not from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., but the usual working hours of the county council.

Mr. Coburn

Really, I cannot see the necessity for this amendment. It is going to confine the hours of work from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. As men of commonsense, surely Deputy Aiken and Deputy MacEntee must recognise that there are certain works in the county which he and I have the honour to represent, such as the repair of embankments, when a breach occurs as the result of a spring tide, that necessitates the closing of the breach as quickly as possible.

Mr. Aiken

Coast erosion does not come in under this Bill.

Mr. Coburn

If there is a breach in an embankment that would allow the water of a river to overflow the land adjoining and injure the road, under the terms of this Bill I think a local authority is entitled to repair the embankment.

Mr. Aiken

But not in the sea.

Mr. Coburn

The sea does not respect areas as a rule. The sea travels very long distances.

Mr. Aiken

Coast erosion does not come under this Bill.

Mr. Coburn

I can visualise a job being done to one of these embankments and if the men must stop at 6 o'clock, within half an hour of the completion of the work, if the high tide comes again the work they have done will be rendered useless and the last position will be worse than the first. Do Deputy Aiken and Deputy MacEntee want that state of affairs to occur by simply stating 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.? Take the example of a man making a cock of hay. At half past five he has a premonition that there will be a cloud-burst that evening that would destroy the cock of hay. Is he to down his fork and say: "I will not work one minute after six?" Surely Deputy MacEntee and Deputy Aiken do not wish that state of affairs to occur. It could happen that there would be a very bad week of wet weather, that the men could not work, and the ganger, with the consent of the county council or the urban council, in order to give the men an opportunity of making money and to make up for the broken time, would allow them to work until eight or nine. That is often done even in building work.

A good employer will allow his men to work a little overtime to make up for the time lost as a result of wet weather. Surely both Deputies do not wish to prevent these men from earning a few extra shillings, especially if the work is of such a nature that when once begun must be finished. The same thing occurs when there is a break in water pipes. Once the plumber starts on the work he has to continue, if necessary, during the night, until it is finished. I am sure Deputy Aiken and Deputy MacEntee would be two of the first men to make a complaint to the city manager if they found there was no water in their homes. Surely it would be unreasonable to expect the city manager or the county engineer to carry out their work satisfactorily if they were restricted to these hours. There is no necessity to fix the hours from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Deputy MacEntee quoted the Act dealing with entry into land where water pipes and water mains are concerned. That is all right up to a point. Everyone knows that if you have to renew or examine pipes there is a good deal of inconvenience caused to the farmer. Trenches have to be opened all over the fields through which the pipes run. It is not the small job that Deputy MacEntee seems to think it is.

Surely we are all reasonable men. The farmers are reasonable men and the members and officials of public bodies are reasonable men. There is no such thing as people going in with tommyguns or machine guns to point it at the farmer and to say: "I am going to enter your land at 3 o'clock in the morning." What fool is going to enter land with an army of men and picks and shovels at that hour of the morning? He will not be there very long before he will be asked why he is there. No matter what precautions the county council may take, some people, for a joke or otherwise, could go in and say: "I am a member of the county council." Who is to say that he is not? No matter what the Minister may put into the Bill, there is always something that can happen if people want it to happen. Some of the Deputies opposite see dreadful dangers in this Bill. I cannot see any. Knowing the condition of affairs in the country, I cannot see why, above all, there should be this fixation of hours from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. It is a case of "Thus far shall you go and no further".

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy who has just sat down gave us a pathetic picture of the haymaker about to finish a cock of hay, throwing down his fork at 6 p.m. and walking home. It is quite clear that the members of the Government Party who are supporting this Bill are cock-eyed and hay-wire as to what it means. This Bill is not a Bill to facilitate local authorities making hay though it will, I am sure, enable some of them to make hay on another man's land. It is a Bill which provides for the carrying out of certain works.

Mr. Fagan

The whole thing is nonsense.

Mr. MacEntee

Deputy Fagan says the whole Bill is nonsense.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

He says that the whole of your speech is nonsense.

Mr. MacEntee

Perhaps I may be permitted to stress the reason why I think the amendment is an essential one. Apparently, in the case of this Bill a split seems to have occurred in the Ancient Order of Hibernians. The national president believes in keeping inspectors or pip-squeaks outside every farmer's fence at all hours of the day and night. Deputy Coburn who, I understand is a national trustee of the organisation, on the other hand, feels that pip-squeaks and inspectors ought to be permitted to invade and trespass on any man's land at any hour of the day or night. Quite obviously there is no unity in the Party opposite in relation to this question of the right of a man to ensure that his property, his premises, his house or his lands will not be invaded except by due authority at reasonable hours. I know, of course, that there are people opposite who think that a landowner should have no rights, that, in fact, it is a crime against the natural law for a man to possess, or claim to possess, private property and land. It is quite clear, from the attitude which is being taken here by people who are supporting this Bill, that that principle meets with much more general acceptance among Government supporters than we ever could have believed.

Mr. Timoney

That is nonsense.

Mr. MacEntee

It is not nonsense.

Mr. Timoney

Of course it is.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not to be discussed on amendment No. 8.

Mr. MacEntee

If I am to be confined, as I am being confined to Section 4——

An Ceann Comhairle

As a matter of fact the discussion is confined to amendment No. 8.

Mr. MacEntee

The amendment proposes to restrict, by inserting a following sub-section, the general power of entry given under sub-section (1) of Section 4 to the power of entry at reasonable hours. Under Section 4, as it stands at present, a person holding himself out to be an officer, servant or agent of a local authority may enter land of any kind, and if a person resists his entry and should be proven to have resisted it under the misapprehension that the person who was the trespasser on his land was not in fact an officer of the local authority, then, under sub-section (5) of the section he commits an offence.

Deputy Timoney wanted to know what was the purpose of the amendment. Its purpose was to ensure that, by limiting and restricting the right to enter at reasonable hours, a farmer would not be guilty of an offence under the section if he drove off his lands a person whom he regarded as having no right to be there, if that person happened to be there during the hours of darkness between 6 p.m. and 9 a.m. the following morning. Where is the injustice to a local authority or to any other person by trying to give the landowner that protection against unauthorised trespass? Where is the public injustice done to anyone?

Deputy Fagan, apparently, believes that a local authority has the right to enter any man's land at any time he likes, and so, apparently, does Deputy Timoney. Deputy Sweetman has made it clear in his contribution to the debate on the section that he does not know what is in the Bill. He said, in the course of his speech on the amendment, that the sole purpose of the Bill was to enable watercourses to be cleared. I would ask him to read Section 2 again. If he does, he will see that it gives the local authority power to do any work, including, in particular, "the making of drains, the removal of substances or things causing obstructions in watercourses, the widening or deepening of watercourses, the making or repairing of walls or embankments, the diversion of water into watercourses". A great deal more can be done under this Bill than the mere removal of obstructions or the implementation, as I think Deputy Sweetman said, of the ordinary operations of Nature. Well, I never saw Nature clearing watercourses of its own accord, except perhaps as the result of volcanic upheavals.

Mr. Sweetman

Have you seen many volcanic upheavals in this country?

Mr. MacEntee

I think it is sufficient for me to show Deputy Sweetman that there is a great deal more in this Bill than the mere removal of obstructions in watercourses.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not in amendment No. 8.

Mr. MacEntee

Amendment No. 8 is related to the general purposes of the Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has said that twice—that a part must include the whole or the whole a part, and that on any amendment a Deputy is entitled to discuss the Bill. Neither Deputy Sweetman nor the Deputy can argue the general trend of the Bill on an amendment.

Mr. MacEntee

I am in this difficulty that Deputy Sweetman based his old case against the amendment, and was permitted to do so, on the grounds that the only thing this Bill proposed to do was to remove obstructions from watercourses.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have not heard Deputy Sweetman. Even if he did stray so far from this amendment it does not put the discussion in order. He is not the guide as to what is in order here.

Mr. MacEntee

I know that is quite true. We expect to be guided by the Chair. When the Chair did not see fit to impose any limitation on Deputy Sweetman, I feel that I am labouring under a disadvantage in having to accept, as I readily do, the strict ruling of the Chair.

An Ceann Comhairle

I was not here Deputy Sweetman may have made a passing reference to what was in the Bill, but that does not justify a long discussion in differing from him.

Mr. MacEntee

Deputy Sweetman did not make a passing reference. He based his whole case against the amendment on that.

Mr. Sweetman

Indeed I did not.

Mr. MacEntee

I apologise to you for occupying the time of the House in this discussion. I merely want to explain that I was not going outside the bounds of order. If the Chair thinks I must not discuss the general nature of the works, that is all right.

An Ceann Comhairle

I think that is obvious, without any instruction from the Chair, to one with experience of the Dáil—that on an amendment to a section one cannot discuss the whole Bill.

Mr. MacEntee

I respectfully suggest that the amendment makes reference to carrying out urgent works and I assume I will be allowed to deal with that, because Deputy Coburn was talking about men making hay.

Mr. Corish

He gave it as in illustration.

Mr. MacEntee

He did not give it as an illustration; he was saying what would happen if this amendment were accepted—that men completing the building of hay cocks at 6 p.m. would throw their forks down and walk out of the field. Other Deputies said that county council workers would be sitting twiddling their fingers from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m.

Mr. Sweetman

So they would.

Mr. MacEntee

If so, it has been suggested here that we could amend this proposed amendment by agreement. If it is felt the hour of 9 a.m. is too late, why not make it 8 a.m., and if it is thought that the hour of 6 p.m. is too early to exclude trespassers, why not make it 7 p.m.? We would at least give the landowner this assurance, that if he finds a man on his land who is not able and who is bound to produce an authority showing that he has a right to be there, he will know that he will be entitled to ask that man to leave his land and, if he does not leave, he will be entitled to eject him and will not be committing an offence.

Deputy Timoney asks what is the purpose of the amendment. I do not know whether Deputy Timoney has read sub-section (5), which makes it an offence for any person to obstruct or interfere with the exercise of the power conferred by Section 1 and makes such a person liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £10.

Mr. Sweetman

The amendment will not cure that.

Mr. MacEntee

It will, to this extent, that the farmer at least will not be committing an offence if he tells a man who is on his land and who he thinks is there for a wrongful purpose, to leave if he finds him there before 9 a.m. or after 6 p.m. That will at least give the farmer that much assurance and will safeguard him to that extent. It is only reasonable we should do that.

The Parliamentary Secretary again mentioned that we had allowed power of entry under other Acts. Of course we did, but we restricted it in the case of water supply schemes and other schemes of great magnitude carried out for a useful public purpose. These schemes were carried out by the officers of the local authorities. Deputy Sweetman said I knew nothing about rural Ireland. I know a great deal more about the people of rural Ireland than Deputy Sweetman because I do not come from the middle-class squireens.

An Ceann Comhairle

That has nothing to do with the matter under discussion.

Mr. Fagan

Deputy MacEntee can always be counted on to do the dirty.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy need not talk. I know the people of Ireland better than Deputy Sweetman.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should deal with the amendment.

Mr. MacEntee

I am dealing with a personal attack made on me by Deputy Sweetman.

Mr. Sweetman

It was not a personal attack; it was an attack on the city as against the rural outlook.

Mr. MacEntee

I was accused of knowing nothing about rural Ireland. I at least know this, that the water supply schemes are carried out mainly by officers of the local authorities, that the people who are the keepers and the stewards of the local water works are all local people, farmers' sons for the most part.

An Ceann Comhairle

What has that to do with this amendment?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes, it has.

An Ceann Comhairle

I fail to see it.

Mr. Sweetman

So does everybody else.

Mr. MacEntee

I am in this difficulty, that Deputy Sweetman alleged against this amendment that the farmer would not know if the people on his land were the officers of the local authority.

Mr. Sweetman

I said he would know.

Mr. MacEntee

He would know—I beg the Deputy's pardon. In the case of the Water Supplies Act the works were carried out by strangers and, therefore, the farmer had a safeguard. I am saying that if the farmer had to have that safeguard in the case of water supply schemes he should equally have the same safeguard in the case of this Works Bill. I think I am justified, in order to refute Deputy Sweetman's argument, in telling the House that local water supply schemes have been carried out in the main by officers of local authorities, by the servants of the local authorities, by people who are sometimes road workers, at other times quarry workers and at other times working on behalf of the local authority where the schemes are carried out by direct labour.

It was suggested, by Deputy Coburn in particular, that this amendment would prevent the officers of local authorities entering on land in order to carry out repair works which were urgently needed. He referred to the sea breaking through embankments and encroaching on the land. This amendment provides for that, because it makes it clear that if the purpose of the entry is to carry out works of urgent importance the land may be entered on at any time; but the fact of the matter is that Deputy Coburn did not read the amendment any more than he read the Bill and any more than Deputy Sweetman read the Bill and, therefore, neither one nor the other knew what he was talking about when he tried to induce the House not to accept the amendment. However, I think Deputy Aiken has made a reasonable suggestion to the Parliamentary Secretary. That is, if he thinks that the servants or officers of the local authorities in general start work earlier than 9 a.m. and work later than 6 p.m., he should accept the principle at any rate and put some reasonable limitation upon the hours during which land may be entered on by the officers of local authorities.

Mr. Timoney

The Deputy agrees, then, that it is an unreasonable limitation.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not. I am leaving it to the discretion and judgment of the Parliamentary Secretary to fix his own hours. I do not want him to give them power of entry for 24 hours round the clock under the Bill as it stands. I gather that that may not meet with the approval of some people, but I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will look at this matter reasonably. As he cannot do anything here, perhaps he would introduce an amendment in the Seanad accepting that principle. It is not right that the officer of a local authority or, indeed, any person, should be given unrestricted right of entry at all times in the day and night upon private property.

Amendment put and declared negatived.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 9:—

In page 4, Section 4, to insert before sub-section (4) three new sub-sections as follows:—

( ) Any person to whom a notice of intention to enter on land has been given under this section may, not later than 14 days after the giving of such notice, apply to the justice of the District Court having jurisdiction in the district in which such land is situate, on notice to the local authority by whom or on whose behalf such notice was given, for an order prohibiting the said entry on such land, and, upon the hearing of such application, such justice may, if he so thinks proper, either wholly prohibit such entry on such land or specify conditions to be observed by the person making such entry.

( ) Where a justice of the District Court prohibits under the next preceding sub-section of this section a proposed entry on land, it shall not be lawful for any person to enter on such land under this section, and where a justice of the District Court specifies under the said next preceding sub-section of this section conditions to be observed by persons entering on land under this section, every person who so enters on such land shall observe the conditions so specified.

( ) Any person who suffers damage by anything done on any land under this section and, within one month after such thing is done, makes to the local authority on whose authority such land was entered under this section a claim for compensation in respect of such damage, shall be entitled to be paid by such local authority reasonable compensation for such damage and to recover such compensation (when the amount thereof has been agreed upon or has been determined under the next following section) from such local authority in any court of competent jurisdiction as a simple contract debt.

The purpose of this amendment is to confer upon persons whose land it is decided to enter upon some of the rights of appeal conferred by existing statutes on persons similarly affected. In the course of his speeches on the Bill the Parliamentary Secretary referred on occasions, apparently with approval, to Acts of his predecessor. He referred to one in particular, the Local Government Act of 1946. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary in this section to give a person upon whose land a local authority proposes to enter the same right of appeal as is given in Section 54 of the Local Government Act, 1946. That section provides that any officer or agent of a road authority who is duly authorised in that behalf by the authority may, subject to the provisions of the section and without prejudice to any other power, enter on any land between the hours of 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. on any day for the purpose of performing any duty imposed on the authority by that Act. Apparently the House is not disposed to accept that restriction upon the right of entry under this present measure. It then goes on to say:—

"A person entering on land under this section may do thereon all things reasonably necessary for the purpose for which the entry is made, and, in particular, may survey, make plans, take levels, set up gauges to record the flow of water, make excavations and examine the depth and nature of the subsoil."

These are all works of a minor character which would be extremely unlikely to damage or injure land in any event. Section 54 of the Local Government Act, 1946, provides that right of entry is restricted to the hours of daylight; the purpose for which entry can be made is strictly defined and limited. Furthermore, sub-section (3) provides that notice shall be given. The Parliamentary Secretary has already accepted the principle that notice should be given.

Mr. Corish

If the Deputy will allow me, perhaps it would avoid a good deal of delay if I tell him that I am prepared to accept the first two sub-sections of this particular amendment.

Mr. MacEntee

That will satisfy me.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment No. 10 agreed to as follows:

In page 4, line 3, to insert "executing works" after "authority".

An Ceann Comhairle

Part I of amendment No. 11 is consequential on Part II. As to how far Part II of amendment No. 11 meets amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15 is a matter for consideration.

Mr. MacEntee

There is a vital principle involved here. I think we can discuss sub-section (2) and perhaps amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15 on amendment No. 11.

Mr. Corish

I move amendment No. 11:—

In page 4, to delete Section 5 (1) and (2), lines 9 and 19, and substitute the following sub-sections:

(1) Any person who suffers damage by reason of any interference, caused by the execution of works pursuant to this Act or an Order or agreement made thereunder, with any land owned or occupied by him or any easement, profit-a-prendre or other right belonging to him shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be entitled to be paid compensation in respect of such damage by the local authority who executed the works or, if that local authority executed the works on behalf of another local authority pursuant to an agreement made under this Act, by such other local authority.

(2) Every claim for compensation made under this section shall be made in writing to the local authority concerned before the expiration of the period beginning on the commencement of the works which caused the interference to which the claim relates and ending either two years thereafter or one year after the completion of such works (whichever is the later).

I am concerned with sub-section (2) On the Committee Stage I promised to reconsider the section dealing with the claim for compensation. Some Deputies thought that the time given during which to make a claim for compensation was inadequate. Other Deputies made the point that it might be easier to date the period either from the commencement of the work or from the completion of the work. I gathered that it was merely a matter of opinion as to whether the date of commencement or the date of completion was the most appropriate. This amendment, therefore, gives the applicant for compensation the option of making that claim within either two years from the commencement of the work or one year after the completion of the work, whichever is the later. I think that ought to go a long way towards meeting the desires of those Deputies who spoke on this particular section on the Committee Stage and I recommend acceptance of the amendment to the House.

Mr. Aiken

Sub-section (2) of this amendment is certainly an improvement on the Bill as introduced. Under the Bill originally, the period set down was 18 months from the commencement of the work. This amendment fixes the period at two years from the commencement of the work or one year after the completion of the work. I still think it does not go far enough. The claim put forward by the majority of the speakers on the Committee Stage was that a person who is damaged by reason of the carrying out of these works should get a reasonable time within which to discover and make a claim if damage is caused. Many people approach this whole question of drainage as if water were an enemy to be got rid of as quickly as possible. It is in certain circumstances an enemy but, like many other elements, it is a friend if you treat it properly. You may have a situation where drainage is undertaken which will have the effect of lowering the water-table in certain districts. That lowering of the water-table may carry with it no ill effects when a dry year comes but as we have often a succession of wet summers following wet winters, it would be impossible to discover what real damage has been done to the level of the water-table by drainage until a dry summer or a succession of dry summers comes. We therefore ask that a longer time should be given than a year after the completion of the works or two years after the commencement of the works as the Parliamentary Secretary suggests.

We should do what Deputy MacEntee suggests in amendment No. 13, namely, give a man whose property has been damaged five years in which to discover the damage and make his claim. It would be very little consolation to him to discover at the end of two years or one year, whichever is the later, that damage had been done but that the time for claiming compensation had passed. To take again damage that may be done by flooding, if water is released from upstream down to middle stream or to the lower reaches of a river, and a lot of drains are opened upstream, they may not cause damage if we have a succession of reasonably dry winters. It is only when we get a really wet winter that we see the full effects of the presence of a lot of water in the river basin upon drainage. Deputy MacEntee wants to give farmers in the middle stream or the lower reaches of the river five years in which to discover the damage and make their claim.

I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary would indicate that he would accept that five year period at this stage rather than the year or two years. I do not think he would have anything to lose in doing that and by doing it he might prevent very serious injustice. If the public interest demands that certain works be carried out, there is no reason why any individual adversely affected by the performance of such work, should be prevented from claiming reasonable compensation. If no damage arises within the five years, we may take it that none is likely to arise and there is no reason why a person should not be estopped from claiming compensation thereafter, but there is every reason to allow at least a period of five years. If we take the present spell of fine weather, I think it can be said that it is five years or more since we have had a dry summer following a dry spring. I do not remember the Electricity Supply Board ever having to call for a saving of electricity at this time of the year, even though a couple of power plants have come into operation within the last 12 months that were not in operation before. Many farmers have had to go four or five miles to get drinking water for cattle and for human consumption within the past few weeks. It might easily occur—and I am sure it will occur in certain cases—that with the best will in the world even when the work has been carried out by competent engineers, farms will be affected by this drainage to such an extent that farmers whose lands never suffered from absence of water, will be left without water and will have to travel several miles to find water for themselves and their cattle.

I should not be so much concerned about this were it not that the Parliamentary Secretary has given no undertaking that he will consult with the only properly-constituted authority in the country before executing works under this Bill. We set up the Board of Works as the drainage authority. We spent a lot of money in getting engineers trained. We also spent a lot of money in one way or another in paying for the mistakes these engineers made, and they now have a knowledge of their business much better than exists in any other Government Department, whether that be the Department of Local Government under this Bill, or the Department of Agriculture under another Bill that is before the House. The Parliamentary Secretary has steadfastly refused to commit himself to taking advice from these people. In the absence of some commitment from the Parliamentary Secretary that he will consult with the Board of Works when damage is likely to be done by drainage, I feel that we should make certain that the time for claiming compensation is extended beyond a year after the completion of the works or two years after the commencement of the works as mentioned in sub-section (2) of the Parliamentary Secretary's amendment.

Mr. Sweetman

As I understand Deputy Aiken, these amendments— three of them running one after another—are in a descending order—five, four and three years. While from one point of view, I am in theoretical agreement with what Deputy Aiken suggests, from the practical point of view I am not very happy about it. We all know that even after damage has been ascertained farmers are sometimes slow to move and it might be that the point at which a court would declare that damage had been ascertained was in fact a point more than three months before the claim was lodged by that particular farmer. Therefore, while the Deputy is trying to confer a benefit, it could possibly be construed in a way which would affect the claim of the owner of the land more prejudicially than the amendment of the Parliamentary Secretary.

The Parliamentary Secretary has made a very great concession in fixing the time within which a claim may be made as commencing from the date of the completion of the works. As I said the last time, I am entirely in agreement that it is essential that the work should be finished before the period should start to run. I am afraid, however, that if one were to take the first amendment to which Deputy Aiken has referred, that is, three months after the damage was done or five years after the work was completed, it would be very difficult indeed for anyone to determine five years after the work was done whether or not in fact the damage was done by the work carried out by the local authority. However theoretically beneficial such a procedure might be, certainly the practical difficulties of it would completely outweigh any theoretical benefit which might arise and I think that, in these circumstances, the balance is strongly in favour of the Parliamentary Secretary's amendment.

Mr. Timoney

I feel obliged to say that I consider that any one of the three amendments by Deputy MacEntee is preferable to Part II of amendment No. 11, sponsored by the Parliamentary Secretary. It is very easy to visualise a case in which damage will not become apparent until after the statutory limit laid down in the second part of amendment No. 11. As a solicitor practising in the country, I can visualise a farmer coming in to me and saying: "Work was done two and a half years ago; damage has now resulted to me as a consequence of that work", and I having to tell him that he is statute barred, that he has no redress. If any of the amendments of Deputy MacEntee would meet that situation, it ought to commend itself to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the House. Even at this stage I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider the position and accept the principle laid down in Deputy MacEntee's amendments. The principle is important and I think it ought to be accepted.

Amendment No. 11 agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 12, 13, 14 and 15 not moved.

Mr. Aiken

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would consider when the Bill comes before the Seanad lengthening the time for appeal for compensation.

Mr. Corish

The Deputy need not take it as a promise, but I will consider it.

Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.

Mr. Timoney

I move amendment No. 18:—

In page 4, Section 5, to insert before sub-section (5) a new sub-section as follows:—

( ) Notice of application for determination by the District Court of the amount of compensation to be paid by the local authority under this section shall be in writing signed by the applicant or his solicitor, and shall contain such particulars as shall in the opinion of the court be necessary and may be served on the local authority by posting same by ordinary post to the secretary of such local authority, and the District Court Rules applicable to the time for service, the entry, the notice of defence and the hearing of ordinary civil processes, shall apply to every such notice of application.

Since I put down this amendment, it has been pointed out to me that in Section 17 of the Interpretation Act of 1937 provision is made for the idea I had in mind in putting down this amendment. I agree that that provision is there, but I think it is a very handy and desirable thing that an enactment which provides for a reference to a specific court of specific matters should provide in as simple a form as possible the machinery for that. There are statutes which do contain in themselves machinery for an application to courts. Speaking from memory, one of these would be the Public Dance Halls Act. There are other enactments which do not contain machinery for application to courts and rules have had to be made by the rule-making committee to provide the machinery necessary. Sometimes these rules are not very satisfactory. While I understand that this amendment would not be accepted, I feel I ought to say that, from the point of view of the solicitor down the country—it is mostly country solicitors who will be dealing with cases under this Bill—the acceptance of the amendment would be of very considerable convenience.

I do not know how long the rule-making authority will take to provide rules which would give us the machinery. There will, however, be a time lag and it is desirable that there should not be such a time lag. Therefore, from the point of view of simplicity, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the acceptance of this amendment. It is a good principle that, as far as we can do it, each enactment should stand by itself and should contain in itself the machinery for its own implementation. We all agree that simplification of the law is desirable. People have strong views about the desirability of a codification of the laws from that point of view. A start could very well be made with the idea which is behind my amendment, namely, that an enactment which provides for specific matters ought to contain within itself the machinery for its implementation.

Mr. Corish

The Deputy complains that I have not the same legal experience or knowledge as he has but I think he will appreciate that this particular Bill would be an inappropriate place to amend legislation or to provide for legislation which would change court rules in any way whatsoever. I think it is undesirable as well as being unnecessary that we should accept this amendment because, as the Deputy himself stated, Section 17 of the Interpretation Act provides that the rule-making authority of the court shall have power to make rules to lay down the practice and procedure to be followed in making application for compensation. I am advised that no such provision as that proposed by the Deputy is embodied in any legislation which gives to a district justice a power to assess compensation. So, I think he can readily take it for granted that the rule-making authority will lay down the practice and procedure in this particular case.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Timoney

The same remarks apply to amendment No. 19 so, in order not to waste time, I will not move the amendment.

Amendment No. 19 not moved.

Mr. Corish

I move amendment No. 20:—

In page 4, to delete Section 5 (5) and (6) lines 34 to 45 and substitute the following sub-sections:—

(5) A justice of the District Court when making an order under this section may at his discretion order the costs, to an amount not exceeding three guineas, incurred in relation to the proceedings by any party thereto (together with such witnesses' expenses as the justice considers reasonable) to be paid by any other party thereto.

(6) Where, in the case of an application to the District Court to determine the compensation to be paid under this section by a local authority, the compensation determined by the court does not exceed that offered unconditionally by the local authority before the application was made, the court may order that such costs and witnesses' expenses of the local authority as the court considers reasonable shall be deducted from the compensation determined by the court.

During the Committee Stage we had a discussion in which Deputies expressed the opinion that under the terms of the Bill as it was the district justice did not have power to award witnesses' expenses. I am still of the opinion, and I am advised, that even if this particular amendment were not introduced he would still have power to award witnesses' expenses and I quote here Article 147, sub-section (1) of the District Court Rules, 1948, which reads as follows:—

"A justice in hearing and determining any civil process shall have jurisdiction to grant to the successful party such witnesses' expenses as he shall think fit to award and the grant of such costs shall be in accordance with the schedule of costs annexed hereto."

This amendment, in any case, is to allay any misgivings or fears that Deputies might have as to the power of the district justice to award witnesses' expenses and I recommend it for acceptance.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 23 not moved.

An Ceann Comhairle

I would like to state that there were several allied amendments providing for proposed works to be executed in accordance with the decision of the Board of Works. The key amendment was No. 11, put down by Deputy MacEntee and moved by Deputy Aiken, and I suggested that amendments Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14 and 42 could be taken together as far as the principle was concerned and that the principle be decided on amendment No. 11. That was agreed to. Then Deputy Aiken asked about a decision on some other amendment and I said the principle was decided on No. 11 but that if Deputies desired they could have a decision on any of the others. Amendment No. 42 of that series now becomes No. 24, but the Deputy did not move for a decision on No. 42. However, if he thinks he is in any way aggrieved, I am sure that he would get a decision now on it, but there should not be lengthy discussion as the principle was discussed on No. 11. If the Deputy desires to get a decision on the matter I would say, in fairness to the House, that there should not be a long discussion on it. If the Deputy should think he was aggrieved he can get a decision now.

Mr. Aiken

I move amendment No. 24:—

In page 4, before Section 6, to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) The Commissioners of Public Works, if satisfied upon a report of their chief engineering officer that serious flooding is likely to occur if additional waters are drained into a river basin shall, by Order made under this section, schedule such river basin as a prohibited river basin.

(2) It shall not be lawful for a local authority while a river basin is scheduled under this section as a prohibited river basin to cause additional waters to be drained into such river basin without the prior approval of the Commissioners of Public Works.

(3) An Order made under this section may by Order be amended or cancelled.

I do not propose to discuss this amendment at great length and I thank you for the opportunity. All I want to ensure is this: We have one fully qualified drainage authority in the country. They have taken decisions in the past that what were called minor drainage schemes should not be embarked upon where they would cause additional waters to flow into river basins which were not prepared to receive them. Seeing that the Commissioners of Public Works have adopted that attitude in the past, I feel certain that, if notified, they would take up the same attitude in future and I want to give the commissioners the power to schedule a river basin into which additional waters must not be caused to flow until they have prepared such river basin or until they or the local authority or some other person has improved the river basin to such an extent that the additional waters will not cause destructive floods. I think the amendment does not require to be read. It is clear in itself and I am hoping that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept it. If he does not accept the wording as it stands, if he accepts the principle, he could amend it to his liking in the Seanad. However, as it stands, it seems to me to be perfectly all right to give the power to the Commissioners of Public Works to schedule certain rivers and to keep them on that schedule until they are satisfied that they are in a fit condition to receive extra waters. It will save a lot of growing in the country and will reassure a number of people who live on the lower reaches of rivers who have been subject to great floods in the past that worse floods are not going to be caused under the operation of this Bill. I gave him one instance before where in Sligo the Board of Works refused to carry out a drainage because the main basin was not prepared. I put it to the Parliamentary Secretary that the Board of Works should have powers to schedule a river such as the Nore, which caused such havoc in Kil-kenny last year, and to keep it on the schedule. They should have the power to prevent further waters flowing into the Nore until the Nore is in a better position to receive the floods. If not, Kilkenny, instead of getting a couple of feet of water for a few days, may get several feet of water for several weeks and the indignation of that district will certainly make itself felt around this district. In his own interest, and in the interest of the community, the Parliamentary Secretary should accept the principle of this amendment.

Mr. Corish

We discussed this particular subject at length on Committee Stage and, contrary to what Deputy Aiken said earlier on this evening, I did state, and it was stated several times here, that we have consulted both the Commissioners of Public Works and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance on this Bill and its provisions. I do not think we ought to legislate for work which is purely administrative. We ought not to legislate for what would be done in the normal course of events. The local authorities will be advised to consult with the Department of Local Government if they think there is any danger of an interference with arterial drainage, or the causing of a greater flow of water into a river than it could hold. They will be advised to consult, through the Department of Local Government, with the Commissioners of Public Works. In view of the fact that these will not be huge schemes, Deputies may be assured that all the precautions necessary to allay the fears of Deputy Aiken will be taken.

Mr. Aiken

Speaking with a considerable experience of Government Departments, I do not believe they will undertake to carry out all the consultation that is necessary to avoid damage unless there is a duty imposed on them by law to do so. Every Department is in a hurry to get its work done and wants to cut out consultations with other Departments. That is quite natural. It wants to get along with its work. I feel that there should be a definite legal obligation imposed on the Department of Local Government to consult with the Commissioners of Public Works, and that the latter should have power to operate their authority by scheduling rivers into which additional water should not be caused to flow.

It is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that the works under this Bill will not be big, but a number of small rivers sometimes carry more water than would be regarded as normal for a big river. If you have several minor rivers emptying into a river basin, which is already full, it is going to overflow its banks. I would strongly press on the Parliamentary Secretary to accept the amendment. The Commissioners of Public Works will be reasonable. They will not schedule rivers unless they know, from their past experience, that extra water would cause damage. I think it is a reasonable assurance to ask for people who live on the lower reaches of certain rivers that they are not going to wake up some morning and find great floods of water in their houses or on their lands.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Corish

I move amendment No. 25:—

In page 4, to delete Section 6, lines 51 to 60, and substitute the following section:—

(1) It shall not be obligatory on a local authority when executing works pursuant to this Act or an Order or agreement made thereunder, to comply with the Fisheries Acts, 1842 to 1944.

(2) Notwithstanding the exemption conferred by sub-section (1) of this section, a local authority shall, when executing works pursuant to this Act or an Order or agreement made thereunder, take such precautions and make such provisions for the protection of fisheries as the Minister for Agriculture either generally or in particular cases may advise.

This is merely a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos 26 and 27 not moved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 28 is out of order.

Mr. MacEntee

On what grounds?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The amendment was offered on Committee Stage and was not moved. It is a new section.

Mr. MacEntee

Is it not usual, when notice is given to put down an amendment on Committee Stage, to reserve the right to withdraw it and put it down again?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has been notified that this amendment is out of order. The Ceann Comhairle has so ruled.

Amendment not moved.

Amendments Nos. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 not moved.

Question—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and declared carried.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

When is it proposed to take the Final Stage?

Mr. Corish

I would like the House to take it now.

Mr. MacEntee

We object. There are a good many things to be said about this Bill before it finally becomes law, particularly in view of some of the observations that were made by the Minister for Local Government and the Parliamentary Secretary in the course of——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Deputy is raising an objection, that is all.

Mr. Corish

Will the House take it to-morrow?

Mr. MacEntee

No.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Final Stage ordered for to-morrow?

Mr. MacEntee

The House has to agree to that.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Dillon)

There is a method of testing that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The question is: That the Final Stage of the Local Authorities (Works) Bill be taken on to-morrow, Friday.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 60; Níl, 51.

Tá

• Beirne, John.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Browne, Noel C.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
• Coburn, James.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Collins, Seán.
• Commons, Bernard.
• Connolly, Roderick J.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, John A.
• Cowan, Peadar.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Davin, William.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Dunne, Seán.
• Esmonde, Sir John L.
• Everett, James.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Finucane, Patrick.
• Fitzpatrick, Michael.
• Flynn, John.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Halliden, Patrick J.
• Hickey, James.
• Hogan, Patrick.
• Hughes, Joseph.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Kinane, Patrick.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Larkin, James.
• Lehane, Con.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• McQuillan, John.
• Madden, David J.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcaby, Richard.
• Murphy, William J.
• Norton, William.
• O'Gorman, Patrick J.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
• O'Leary, John.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Redmond, Bridget M.
• Reidy, James.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Roddy, Joseph.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Timoney, John J.
• Tully, John.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Dan.
• Brady, Seán.
• Brennan, Thomas.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Buckley, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Butler, Bernard.
• Carter, Thomas.
• Colley, Harry.
• Collins, James J.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Crowley, Honor Mary.
• Davern, Michael J.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• De Valera, Vivion.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Kilroy, James.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick J.
• Lydon, Michael F.
• Lynch, John.
• McCann, John.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• McGrath, Patrick.
• Maguire, Patrick J.
• Moylan, Seán.
• O'Briain, Donnehadh.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Ormonde, John.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• Rice, Bridget M.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Walsh, Thomas.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Kyne; Níl: Deputies Kissane and Ó Briain.

Question declared carried.