Deputy Blowick gave notice that, on the motion for the Adjournment, he would raise the subject matter of Question No. 21 on to-day's Order Paper.
Private Deputies' Business. - Adjournment Debate—Barrier Across Keel River, Mayo.
To-day, at Question Time, I asked the Minister for Finance "if it was with his sanction and knowledge that a three feet high barrier was erected across the Keel River (Lough Carra to Lough Mask), and if he is aware of the extensive damage to over 130 farmers due to flooding caused by the barrier; and, if so, if he will take immediate steps to have it removed or compel those who erected it to remove it."
The reply given to me by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance was that he had given no sanction or authority to anyone to erect the barrier across the Keel River, and said that if I would bring the facts to his notice he would have them investigated. He did not say that he would try to have the barrier removed. The first implication in that answer is that he knew nothing about it, and, secondly, that my question may have been a purely fictitious one, or that it may have been incorrect. I want to assure the House and the Parliamentary Secretary that I did not put down the question for fun or for the purpose of misleading him or his Department. I think he could have taken it that, when I put down the question, there was at least some cause for complaint and that otherwise I would not have put down the question. He seemed to treat this very important matter in a most frivolous manner. I gave notice of the question on Thursday last so that the Parliamentary Secretary had six clear days in which to make an investigation. Yet, he walked into the House to-day with an unprepared reply, obviously given to him by somebody else who did not take the trouble to investigate whether or not there was any substance in the complaint contained in the question.
The fact is that a group of men spent almost a fortnight erecting a barrier across the Keel river, the only outlet from Lough Carra into Lough Mask. Lough Carra itself has three principal rivers flowing into it. One is a fairly large river, and the others are two minor ones. The surrounding area is split up into the usual average sized holdings of land so typical of the West of Ireland. Owing to the fairly flat nature of the country surrounding the lake and that part of the country which forms the watershed of the rivers flowing into Lough Carra, any rise or fall in the river, particularly when it is artificially created by the erection of a barrier, is bound to have a very detrimental effect on the livelihood of vast numbers of farmers. I have been told that 132 farmers are affected. I believe it would be true to say that double that number is affected. The fact is that a group of men set to work and built a barrier which is approximately three feet high. It is a stone barrier—not a porous one. It is fairly well constructed across the river, leaving only a small gap right in the middle of the barrier.
During the last few years, particularly since the Clann na Talmhan Party came into the Dáil, a great deal of public attention has been focussed on the question of drainage. Shortly after we came into the Dáil, the Arterial Drainage Act of 1945 was passed, and during the period of the inter-Party Government the Local Authorities (Works) Act was passed. It also had a lot to do with drainage. In my opinion, these were two of the most useful measures passed by this House since it was established. Despite the passing of these two Acts, we have this situation in County Mayo. We have this interference with the Keel River which affects quite a large area. Some time ago Deputy O'Hara of North Mayo raised a question in connection with the Moy River. The building of these barriers by certain people across a number of the rivers there is causing flooding at a time when we are engaged in the effort, or at least should be, of effecting drainage in these areas.
I want the Parliamentary Secretary to tell me whether, since Question Time to-day, he has made any inquiries in regard to the points I raised in connection with the erection of this barrier. I have seen it myself. Does he doubt my word, or is the position this, that perhaps the word of an official will carry more weight than that of a Deputy? The barrier can be seen even from the main road between Castlebar and Ballinrobe. One can see it from the road without leaving one's car.
I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary by what authority anybody enters a watercourse and tampers with it, thereby affecting adversely the livelihood of hundreds of people. By what authority and under what statute does anybody go into a watercourse and deliberately proceed to impede the flow of water in it, or are there a few specially privileged people in each county who can do that? I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if there are some people who have the right to interfere with a watercourse in that way; have the people whose livelihood is threatened by the placing of an impediment to the flow of water the right to pull it down?
Have they the right to take the law into their own hands and simply pitch those engaged in the building of the barrier into the river and give them a free dip? Does the Parliamentary Secretary, by the callous indifference which he has displayed, want to create a situation so that people will be forced to take the law into their own hands in order to have their grievances brought to light?
This is a very serious matter and one that cannot be treated as lightly as the Parliamentary Secretary treated it to-day. Now that he has knowledge that the barrier is there, I should like to hear him explain to me what steps he proposes to take to have it removed. Lough Carra, Lough Mask and Lough Corrib form a network of lakes which are the subject of an arterial drainage survey at the present time. On Lough Ayle, tributary of Lough Mask, a hut has been erected to enable the engineers of the Board of Works to estimate the volume of the water which passes there during a given period and get some idea of the cubic yardage of excavation work required so that a good arterial drainage job may be carried out there. These men are there within a few hundred yards of the place I speak of. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that it would not have put him out very much if he had to ask his officials who are there on the spot to let him know all about this barrier, especially in view of the fact that he got notice of this question six days ago. Even if no official of his Department was in Connacht it is the duty of these officials to investigate the matter—I am sure if the Parliamentary Secretary asked them they would have done it—to see if Deputy Blowick was putting down a question on the Order Paper for the sake of causing mischief or wasting the time of the House. The Parliamentary Secretary on a previous occasion tried to treat Deputy O'Hara when the question of the barriers on the Moy was raised, in the same rather indifferent flippant way he has treated me to-day.
Is this the attitude of the Government towards the whole drainage problem? It seems to be in keeping with the cutting down of arterial drainage and of drainage under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. I am at a loss to understand the attitude of the Government. Perhaps it is that I and other members of the Clann na Talmhan Party are just being foolish in thinking that drainage is a major problem in this country. Perhaps the Government think otherwise. Judging by their actions, it would appear to be so, because they have cut down most of the drainage work.
It is a strange thing that since they came into office this wall building across rivers in Mayo has been developed and permitted, and the Parliamentary Secretary takes very little cognisance of it. Seemingly it does not matter a whole lot. Perhaps it will improve the fishing prospects, and that fishing is considered more valuable than the livelihood of these farmers. If this is allowed to continue in that area some of the best arable land which these people have will be completely useless in the coming spring. It is a shocking state of affairs that a group of paid men with stones and cement can build a very substantial barrier three feet high across a principal watercourse. The Keel river, across which this barrier has been built, is the outlet from Lough Carra and the rivers that flow into it. The Lough Carra catchment area is a pretty wide one. It is not a mountainous area. The land around it is flat, and a rise of one foot in the river creates a very serious situation for nearly 200 farmers.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell me what he has found out about this or if he has found out anything? Will he take steps to have the barrier removed? I ask him to go further and to make an example of whoever has been responsible for erecting this barrier so that it will act as a deterrent against those who think that it is all right to put up barriers on a watercourse. A watercourse is considered much more valuable by some people than roads or entrances to their houses. They have to live on the land and if the land is flooded it is no use to them. They might put up with a bad road for a period of time, but if the land is flooded they have to clear out. I should like to know what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say about the whole matter.
Deputy Blowick has been a member of this House for almost a decade, for three years of which he was Minister in charge of a State Department. Therefore he cannot be regarded as a notice in the game of politics. He has long since passed that stage. The tactics he has employed in regard to this question are a clear indication—and I would not expect it from him—that he is prepared to play cheap politics for the sake of publicity. I can come to no other conclusion.
The Deputy says that I received this question six or seven days ago. The first intimation we had of the erection of any barrier was when the question reached my office last Friday afternoon. I did not see the question until last Monday evening. One would imagine that a Deputy with the experience of a Minister for three years in charge of a Department would at least, in the first instance, write to the Commissioners of Public Works and give a few relevant particulars regarding this matter. The Deputy did not do so, however. If the Deputy had done so the commissioners could have made an investigation. In that way the investigation could have been made much more quickly than by the roundabout method which the Deputy has adopted.
It is quite obvious that the Deputy put down this question in order to gain some notoriety. When the question came up to-day I gave the Deputy the only reply it was possible for me to give him in the circumstances. I think I made a very modest request when I asked him to give me the exact location of this barrier and the date on which it was erected. That was a reasonable request. If the Deputy knows as much about it as he claims, that would not take him five minutes. A man as well versed as he is in instructing people how to make applications for such things as rural improvement schemes and minor employment schemes could put that in a telegram or he could convey it over the telephone to the secretary of the commissioners and there would be no trouble about it, but he did not do that. Of course, he stated at the end of the supplementary questions, although it may not appear in the Official Report, that he would give the particulars to the Parliamentary Secretary. At that time he did not even intimate that he was raising the matter on the Adjournment. It was only at 5 o'clock this evening that I was notified that he intended to raise it on the Adjournment. I do not mind that because I am fairly conversant with this kind of playacting. It does not surprise me.
Deputy Blowick sent in another question on the same day last week which would have some relevant bearing on this problem, but for reasons best known to himself he withdrew that particular question. I suppose he had the feeling that the reply I might give to it would not redound to his political credit amongst his supporters in South Mayo. I can come to no other conclusion or no other assumption. As I have pointed out, we have had no objection from any of the 130 people whom Deputy Blowick says are injured as a result of the erection of this barrier of which we know nothing at the moment beyond what was brought forward here in this vague publicity question of Deputy Blowick's.
Deputy Blowick is pretty conversant with Acts of Parliament, and I am sure he has studied the Arterial Drainage Act from beginning to end. He knows quite well that the Commissioners of Public Works have, under the 1945 Arterial Drainage Act, certain powers in certain circumstances, and that it is only when a case is investigated that they can decide whether such powers should or should not be invoked. Deputy Blowick has asked me a number of questions here to-night. I pointed out to him in reply that this barrier was not erected with the sanction of my office or with my sanction and I repeat that reply. I have asked him for two simple particulars, very simple indeed. Further, if these particulars are supplied to me, I give him my assurance that the matter will be very quickly investigated and I think that that is quite reasonable, but I will not assure him or anybody else that after the investigation is made the obstruction will be removed. It can be removed by the commissioners only if a particular set of circumstances exists as a result of the erection of the barrier.
He knows that Section 47 of the Arterial Drainage Act of 1945 covers all that. What more does he want? Nothing except to go the roundabout way and get publicity for this. That is the only thing. I believe that what he should have done in the first instance was, as I have pointed out, to write to the commissioners. If he did not get satisfaction, then of course it would have been his responsibility and his duty to come into this House and raise the question in a very vehement manner. If he gets the particulars I have mentioned—they are very simple, very short—I assure Deputy Blowick that the matter he has raised will be investigated very soon, but, in the absence of these particulars, I do not think it would be fair to ask for this investigation.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary accept the information I have given him on the Adjournment now as being accurate? If my information is correct the whole thing was done in the last three weeks.
That is good enough for me.
I do not see what that has to do with it.
It has certainly. It has a very big bearing on this and the Deputy knows it well.
No, I do not. I am in complete ignorance of its effect.
The Deputy is not nearly as innocent as he pretends to be. He has given the approximate date.
About three weeks to a month ago.
He has given me the approximate location, between Ballinrobe and Claremorris.
The Keel River is only a mile long but it is as well known in the West of Ireland as the Shannon.
I did not ask the Deputy the name of the person or persons who put the obstruction there.
They will be found out on investigation surely. I did not doubt his word at all to-day but I just wanted to get the relevant particulars.
My reason for putting down the question was to short-circuit red tape. When I say that, I am casting no reflection on anybody in the Parliamentary Secretary's office but if I wrote in to the commissioners, as the Parliamentary Secretary suggested, the matter would not be attended to as quickly as it will now.
I doubt it very much.
I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one question. It is not for cheap publicity that I wanted to raise the matter here.
That is not a question.
The reason I raised the matter is that I found it alarming that irresponsible people can deliberately throw down a barrier across a principal watercourse. I am in complete ignorance of any Act which allows anybody to do that.
That is not a question.
I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary to enlighten me as to whether there is any Act which allows people to do that.
If they are irresponsible people who are doing it it will be very hard to do anything to prevent them but if they are responsible people who are doing it——
It was not done by officials.
——then, apart entirely from the Arterial Drainage Act, the people aggrieved have a legal remedy.
Who is to protect the farmers?
The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 13th November, 1952.