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.