Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 29 Nov 1961

Vol. 192 No. 6

Private Members' Business. - Local Authorities (Works) Act— Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

"That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that, as a practical step to stimulate increased production through the improvement of the fertility of our land by badly needed drainage schemes and at the same time to help to relieve unemployment in rural areas, the necessary moneys to put the Local Authorities (Works) Act into operation should be provided immediately."— (Deputy McQuillan.)

Mr. McQuillan

I do not propose to speak at any great length upon this motion because there are a number of Deputies on both sides of the House who would like to express their views on the necessity of restoring the Local Authorities (Works) Act and I do not intend to deprive them of doing so in the limited amount of time available for this discussion.

It is accepted by all members of this House that the majority of our county councils in the last few years and the General Council of County Councils have time after time, passed resolutions urging the Government to restore the Local Authorities (Works) Act. It cannot be denied that even the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis on a number of occasions in recent years passed resolutions directing whatever group control that organisation to have the Local Authorities (Works) Act restored. The members of the Fine Gael Party, of the Labour Party and of all other groups in this House are unanimous in their desire to see the Local Authorities (Works) Act revived. Yet, we have the absolutely impossible situation created that the Minister does not believe that this is a good Act.

Surely, he knows from the members of his own Party that it is their desire that it should be restored, that it is the desire of the members of local authorities on which many members of the Fianna Fáil Party sit, and that very necessary and desirable drainage work is being held up because this Act is suspended?

If I am to accept the Minister's line of thought, it must be that he has little or no confidence in his own Party and in their judgement when they press so strongly for the restoration of this Act. Members of the Minister's Party, colleagues of mine in this House, who do not agree with me on many things, have expressed the view to me outside this House on a number of occasions that they believe the Act should be restored and without delay. I hope they will get up here tonight and express their view.

This motion is a repetition of a motion discussed in this House in December, 1959 and the present Minister, Deputy Blaney, made a contribution to the debate on that motion in which he outlined his objections as Minister and the objections of his Department to the restoraton of the Act. I shall just comment on them and will leave it at that.

The Minister's main argument against the Act was that a big percentage of the money spent was wasted. One of his reasons for stating that money was wasted was that there was no maintenance work carried out after a drainage scheme had been put into operation. That is not a sound or solid argument for suspending the Act. Is it not a very simple thing to make provision for maintenance after the work had been done? Does it present any difficulty to a Minister to bring in a simple amending section to state that no money would be expended under the act unless provision was made for maintenance? That, to my mind, clears away this fog of nonsense that emanates from the Department of Local Government that the money was wasted.

But, apart from that, how can the Minister suggest that money was wasted when the county engineers passed the schemes and when the work recommended by the county engineers was further inspected by the engineers of his own Department? All I can say is that that is a reflection on the technical men of his own Department and I do not believe for a moment that the Minister meant to cast a reflection on the engineers in his Department. I think the Minister was talking political rubbish in the hope that some of his own followers would have their consciences satisfied and would be able to return to their constituents and say: "The Minister told us there was a lot of money wasted in Wicklow" and the people in Cork could swallow that and the Deputies in Wicklow could say that the money was wasted in Cork.

I want some Deputy to tell me was money wasted in his constituency and, if there was, let him make confession here about it. Open confession is good for the soul. I have no doubt confession of that nature would help his political future the next time he is on the hustings if he is able to tell us here that the money spent under the Local Authorities (Works) Act was wasted in his area.

The other argument put forward by the Minister against restoring the Act was that the work was done piecemeal and, therefore, was liable to clash with major arterial drainage schemes and would prove unsatisfactory, perhaps cause flooding elsewhere, and upset generally the wonderful drainage plans that have been prepared over the years.

I do not accept that argument either for the reason that the Minister was prepared and has already sanctioned what I can describe as piecemeal drainage and he did it as a result of the "old reliable" known as "pressure". The screws were put on and, as a result, the Minister sanctioned what I can describe as piecemeal drainage. In spite of the advice of the Board of Works engineers and officials, the Minister has sanctioned drainage works that are piecemeal. When he did that, why does he suggest that, as far as the Local Authorities (Works) Act is concerned, all the work being done under that Act could be piecemeal? I do not think it is fair of him to utilise that argument.

The third argument he put forward was that engineers who were the employees of local authorities are not capable—I will not say that but perhaps, not got the engineering experience—of carrying out the drainage works. Every Deputy who is a member of a local authority will support me when I say that all the engineers in the local authorities, especially the seniors, are quite capable of making a proper survey, carrying out the necessary technical investigations and preparing a scheme for minor drainage of a nature that could be carried out under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. I do not think the Minister meant it that way but it was a reflection on the skill, knowledge and ability of the engineers attached to the various local authorities to say they were not capable of carrying out the necessary drainage work.

As far as the Minister is concerned at the moment and as far as the Board of Works and every other Government Department are concerned, they cannot get any kind of engineer to do any kind of work. It is no use for the Minister to come in here and tell me the engineers, the county surveyors and assistant county surveyors, are not fit to carry out drainage when there is not an engineer available in the Board of Works to carry out drainage at the moment to increase the volume of work. There are no engineers available in the Department of Local Government to carry out housing schemes. So, under the circumstances, we should be very glad to have available the services of first-class engineers in the local authorities to carry out work that, if we were waiting for the Board of Works to do it or waiting for engineers from the Department of Local Government to do it, we would all have had our turn at landing on the moon.

The Minister in his reply to me two years ago said that he would not interfere with existing drainage schemes and that as far as he was concerned, local authorities would not be entitled to carry out what he described as piecemeal drainage. In my constituency, there is a river called the Crannagh Cross. I think it kept the Minister awake for some time and it also kept the Taoiseach awake when he heard what was going to happen as a result of the flooding of that river. The Roscommon County Council had commenced a drainage scheme on this river under the Local Authorities (Works) Act and had spent some thousands of pounds—I cannot recall the exact figure—when the Act was suspended by the Fianna Fáil Government. That left that scheme dud.

What did the Minister do? As a result of pressure brought to bear on him—the farmers grouped together and said: "We will pay no rates; we cannot pay our rates unless drainage work is done"—he said to the county council: "You can go ahead and drain that river." Out of the generosity of his heart, he said that the Department of Local Government would pay 40 per cent. of the loan charges for the drainage of this river. In other words, he gave permission to the county council to raise a loan for the drainage and the Department of Local Government were prepared to pay 40 per cent. of the repayment charges of that loan. Up to that, the first portion of that river was done under a full cost grant. Why should the Minister saddle the ratepayers of the entire county with 60 per cent. of the cost of draining a river that did not affect the entire community?

That was on one side of the River Shannon. On the other side, we had the River Inny which was drained under arterial drainage and under a full cost grant. I did not begrudge the farmers of Meath, Westmeath and Longford the work done under full cost grants. The farmers there are better able to bear the burden than the small farmers whose lands adjoin rivers like the Crannagh Cross, with valuations of £10 to £20, and who, if half their holding is flooded, are in the position that they are practically out the door financially that year. The Minister agreed that there was a necessity for some alternative, if he did not approve of the Local Authorities (Works) Act.

Having decided against restoring the Act, he announced here that he was bringing in an intermediate drainage scheme. I understood that the Minister for Finance was going to implement the scheme and that the work would be the responsibility of the Board of Works. The Minister made that announcement here in December, 1959, and at that stage, his Department and the Board of Works, according to him, had been working on the preparation of the scheme for the previous eight months. That is nearly three years ago. I should like to ask the Minister now what drainage schemes have been carried out, and in what counties they have been carried out, over that period, since he started planning this alternative, namely, the intermediate drainage scheme?

It is only fair that he should let us know whether this alternative has come into operation at all. I should like to be sure that I am not unjustly criticising the Minister if I say that, in my opinion, no scheme under the intermediate drainage scheme has been completed in the two years and eight months which have elapsed since he announced this scheme.

At the time also the Minister told us that the rivers which would be surveyed for drainage works under this intermediate drainage scheme would be rivers which ran directly to the sea. In other words, no tributaries of the Shannon, for instance, would be included for survey work. I should like to ask him has that position been altered? Have other rivers been allowed, or will they be allowed, to come in under the intermediate drainage scheme? My impression at the time was that rivers in Kerry, Wicklow and Donegal and other maritime counties were the only ones likely to benefit; in other words, mountain rivers and streams which had a direct run and a quick fall into the sea, with no great problem involved. Has the scheme been altered and have rivers flowing into the Shannon, or the Suck, and smaller tributaries generally of the larger tributaries, been included? It is very important that the House should know the situation, that the Shannon is on the long finger and while it is on the long finger, many rivers and tributaries flowing into it will be left untouched for the next 20 to 30 years. That is poor hope for the small farmer who has very little spare land available. At the moment a bottleneck has been created in many counties as far as the Land Project is concerned. Many farmers, as well as the Department of Agriculture, are held up because of the fact that the outfall of the major streams is not capable of carrying away the flow of water. Consequently, Land Project work cannot be completed in many areas.

When I hear the Taoiseach and Ministers on the radio exhorting farmers to produce more, I feel that they have not got the foggiest idea of what the farmer has to face. How would the Taoiseach feel if he were in a small farmer's house near the river Suck or the Crannagh Cross or such rivers and heard these pronouncements at 10 o'clock at night: "Expand; produce more; the farmer is the backbone of the country and agriculture is our primary industry"? And when that farmer goes outside in the morning, he finds his backyard flooded and without even a dry stand for his cattle. What does he think then of the Taoiseach ?

I think drainage is an absolute fundamental and all the exhortations in the world for increased production are sheer nonsense, unless the man can see the land from which he is to get increased production, or any production. At the moment all over the country, a large amount of damage and flooding has been caused by storms and many of the smallholders are at their wits' end in regard to meeting their rates. I suggest to the Minister that he would give great hope to small farmers and workers if he would reconsider his decision and restore the Local Authorities (Works) Act. The alternative in many areas is that the Government will have to take steps to have the land derated because it is impossible for small farmers to pay their rates, due to the losses they have suffered. Whether the Government have their ears to the ground or not, they will know that very shortly when they realise the reaction to the increase in rates that is bound to come all over the country. I warned the Minister about what was going to take place over the Crannagh Cross river and luckily he took the hint before things became too bad. In conclusion, I should like the Minister to allow a free vote of the House, if he is not prepared to accept the motion.

Dr. Browne

I formally second the motion.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I do not think there is any problem of greater importance to the people of the western areas like Mayo and Roscommon than this particular problem of drainage. I am a native of a spot where there are three catchment areas within one square mile. Where I was born is within one hundred yards of a river whose source is 250 to 300 yards away and which ultimately empties into the Moy. At the other side of the house is the beginning of a long catchment area which ultimately drains into the Shannon. The third catchment area, which is about a mile and three quarters away, is the Corrib-Claredalgan, the Clare end of it, to be exact. Drainage problems are always worst at the source of a river—in other words at the top of the catchment area—and I have seen them at their worst in regard to three of our catchments. Only one of them has been at all improved, that is the Claredalgan, which, in the course of the past year or two, was done as far as Ballyhaunis.

It is interesting to mention, in connection with that, that a proposition was put forward by myself and some others that the White Lake might be drained into the Corrib catchment area which could have been very conveniently done. That proposal was turned down because it was stated by the Board of Works that it was not the policy that one catchment area should be drained into another. For that reason, the farmers in the area, looking across at their more fortunate neighbours, naturally felt disappointed that they had to face a further period, perhaps 15 or 20 years, before they could have similar benefits.

I have a great deal of sympathy with any sensible proposition put forward in this House with regard to drainage, but I was thinking to myself tonight when listening to Deputy McQuillan whether it would be of any benefit to his constituents, those people along the Shannon basin who have suffered so much in the years gone by, who are still suffering and who apparently have many years of similar disadvantage ahead of them—whether the operation of the Local Authorities (Works) Act, as distinct from the Arterial Drainage Act, would be of benefit or disadvantage to them. My feeling is that it would be a distinct disadvantage.

For instance, about ten years ago, or perhaps a little more, the Minister for Agriculture, who was not getting on with his Land Project as quickly as he had hoped, decided to divert a figure of £50,000—I am subject to correction on that but at any rate, a very substantial figure—towards the partial drainage of the Lung River, that portion of the river from Lough Gara up towards Crennane Bridge. One can imagine without difficulty the joy that came to those who derived benefit from the partial drainage of the Lung carried out as a result of that decision. But I think one can also imagine the chagrin of those in my constituency, just over the border in Kilmovee and in the other areas in east Mayo up to the point I mentioned earlier which I can see from my house, that they had not been included, that a partial drainage scheme had been done and stopped. They were asking why was it that the people of a particular area were able to get an advantage and they were told they could not have a like advantage. One of the reasons was that a far greater flow of water was released by the work done than had been expected, with the result that Deputy McQuillan's constituents were flooded out to a far greater extent than they would have been, had that work never been put in hand.

There is nobody more anxious about drainage problems than I am because they affect my area in the way I have mentioned. But if some piecemeal scheme, under the Land Project or any other scheme you can think of, is to be implemented in this fashion without a concomitant scheme to cope with the flow of water lower down, you are simply robbing Peter to pay Paul, and unfortunately it is the people further down who are being robbed. I have great sympathy with any scheme designed to alleviate immediate problems for farmers, but I think we must look at this problem of drainage from an overall point of view and not against the background of the temporary advantage it may give a locality. In other words, I must say that if the disappointed people of the East Mayo area had not been disappointed and that that particular work had been carried on by the expenditure of a further £50,000, the only effect it would have, as far as Deputy McQuillan's constituents are concerned, is that their problems would be far greater.

Mr. McQuillan

In other words, we should be thankful for a small mercy.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I do not think so. I feel, if anything, sorry for the people in the Shannon basin for the reason that the drainage of the Shannon basin is quite obviously the biggest problem in drainage this country and the Board of Works have been faced with. But I do think that we should tackle the problem as an entity, not piecemeal. I know that certain good work was done under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. It is hardly conceivable that £7½ million should have been spent without some good accruing to somebody, but I think the Minister for Local Government pointed out two years ago that of that £7½ million, something less than half was actually spent on drainage.

I would be interested to know what the comparative figure is where arterial drainage under the aegis of the Board of Works is concerned. I very much doubt if the figure is anything as low as that which applied to the Local Authorities (Works) Act while it was in operation. The position of the ratepayers is only the obverse side of the same problem, because all the work that was done under the Act was by virtue of full cost grant. That meant that the ratepayers had no liability whatsoever. It also meant they had no responsibility. I have seen, in the very river I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, an operation carried out under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. I cannot say the job was particularly well done in the first instance, though I do admit the flow of water was improved. It is, however, sad to relate that it was of very temporary advantage and that at the end of less than twelve months the river was back in a condition at least as bad as it had been before the work was put into operation.

I have often wondered in respect to drainage whether drainage without maintenance does not cause the weeds to grow more quickly. If you leave the river bed alone, the weeds are inclined to choke themselves. It is certainly a fact that if you do not make up your mind that you are going to maintain the remedy it is no use making a savage assault and then withdrawing into your foxhole, never to return. It appears to me that the idea of partial drainage is wrong in principle, that an all-out assault followed by a complete withdrawal is the wrong attitude to our drainage problems. Surely those people who are obtaining advantage from drainage are prepared to accept the responsibility of maintenance. I believe they are, and I believe most people would be quite prepared to accept the responsibility and the expense if only the job were done properly and from the right point of view at the beginning.

When the Minister for Local Government spoke on this matter some time ago, he pointed out that in his opinion that £7½ million could have been better spent had it been diverted to the operations of the Board of Works under the Arterial Drainage Act. I am in wholehearted agreement. I say that knowing I am talking against my neighbours to some extent, knowing that if that policy is followed some of my neighbours cannot expect to obtain real advantage for fifteen or twenty years to come. But I would say they would be better pleased to know the job will be done properly in ten, twelve, fifteen years' time rather than that a botch job should be done now without any guarantee of permanent advantage. The truth of it is that maintenance work was not accepted as a responsibility, that it was not done.

Mr. McQuillan

It can be done now.

Mr. S. Flanagan

It can be done, but if it is to be done it must be within the scope of a bigger scheme which will cope with the flow of water below. In regard to smaller drainage work that has been done over a number of years, I have to urge the Minister to support me in the view that those who contribute to drainage schemes should have the first opportunity of obtaining employment in such schemes. That applies particularly to Rural Improvement Schemes where the local people are asked to contribute. I have experienced great difficulty in getting people to sign for the reason that they cannot be guaranteed the opportunity of working when the scheme is sanctioned. In fairness, however, I do not think this matter is relevant to this motion.

The gist of what I am saying is that it is not a reflection on the engineering ability of the officials of the Department of Local Government to say that schemes of this nature ought to be a co-ordinated national effort. It is no reflection at all on them, because it is not their jobs as engineers to solve a problem which creates an even greater problem. No engineer can hope to satisfy all unless he is tackling the problem with a view towards complete solution.

I would urge the Minister to reject this motion and to use his good offices with the Government to increase the amount of money to be given to the Board of Works to enable a national scheme being operated by the Board of Works to be accelerated. In the meantime, I feel far too much politics has been made of the fact that the present Government some years ago put an end to the operation of the Local Authorities (Works) Act. It is, to say the least of it, remarkable that a motion almost exactly the same, almost in the exact terms, should reappear in a little over two years and, if I may say it, sponsored by the same Deputy.

Mr. McQuillan

Because there was no move made in the last three years to substitute another scheme.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I think the figures will prove otherwise, and I think that the expenditure on arterial drainage has increased substantially over the past three years. The amount of money earmarked by the Board of Works will, I think, considerably exceed that spent last year and very considerably that spent in 1959 when this motion was discussed before.

I would ask the two Departments involved to co-ordinate their efforts to improve the allocation of moneys for arterial drainage purposes. I do not believe it would be of other than haphazard advantage to individuals to reintroduce the Local Authorities (Works) Act. I say that for the reasons I have already given and in the knowledge that, while individuals certainly would benefit, the return to the taxpayer would not justify the individual reward.

I began by saying I had great sympathy with the people who are affected by drainage problems—and that is true—and that the people of the west of Ireland are more affected by them than perhaps the people of other counties, but I think our salvation lies with the Commissioners of Public Works rather than elsewhere and that the experiment that was tried, for instance, ten or 11 years ago which resulted in the lowering of the level of Lough Gara, while it gave an advantage to the few, was a disadvantage to many of those on whose behalf Deputy McQuillan urged his motion tonight.

Mr. Gilhawley

Ba mhaith liom aguisín a chur leis an méid atá ráite annso ar an ábhar seo. I wish to support Deputy McQuillan's motion. I must say I am very surprised that a Deputy from any county west of the Shannon should take any other action. On this day week in reply to a question of mine the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance admitted that in one small area of my county of Sligo, there were 116,000 acres involved in a catchment area drained by the main artery of the Arrow and the Owenmore. Out of that question came the point that in 1903 the same answer was given in the British House of Commons as was given here last Wednesday. Under the Wyndham Act, this river was placed No. 8 in the county priority list and it is No. 16 in 1961.

We have in our county an area of approximately 450,000 acres with a valuation of approximately £162,000. Allowing about one-third for land which is mountain and bog and one-third for land which is underdevolped due entirely to flooding and neglect of drainage of potential agricultural land, I estimate an area of 100,000 acres which could be improved; the Minister's answer says 116,000 acres. Normally in our part of the country and in my constituency, due to underdeveloped land, it takes about three acres to maintain an adult beast per annum. On a very conservative estimate, there is a loss of £1 million to the farming community in that area. If further proof is needed, may I say that the figure for adult agricultural employees has dropped in the past ten years in my county from 1,500 to 1,000; in other words, by one-third. If the £1 million I have estimated as a loss to the farming community were spent in the way of drainage, there would be, from the long term point of view, increased production and, secondly, in the initial stages, increased employment and emigration would be arrested.

When the Local Authorities (Works) Act was introduced, something in the region of £50,000 was spent in County Sligo and no matter what anybody says, I feel it did a tremendous amount of good. It was a capital investment not involving risk. A lot of money has been invested in other industries. I need not remind the Minister about Killybegs in his own county, where the money invested was subject to risk and approved as such. Any money put into drainage in the West of Ireland is not subject to risk. It is significant perhaps that so far here tonight only three Deputies have spoken and all of them are from west of the Shannon. Drainage is a serious problem in the West. It definitely is a problem in my constituency of Sligo-Leitrim though it may not be a problem in the rest of Ireland. I think, still, that probably we shall have to go back to 1st May, 1954, to find the real reason for the problem that has arisen in Connaught. In my experience, the Local Authorities (Works) Act was one of the finest Acts ever enacted in so far as the people in my constituency are concerned.

This day last week, I raised a question about the River Arrow. I tried to show how the Local Authorities (Works) Act could alleviate immediate problems in my county. The fact is undisputed that 116,000 acres of arable land is undeveloped due to flooding by the Arrow and Owenmore which have their confluence at Collooney and enter the sea at Ballisodare.

It is impossible to go overland from Dublin to Donegal without crossing the river at Ballisodare. If you look down on your left you will see the sea several feet beneath you. If you look on your right you will see a rock and about a foot of water with a river about 30 yards wide. In 1956, a scheme was prepared to excavate the rock from Ballisodare to Collooney, a distance of approximately two miles. We intended at that time to use the money provided under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. A scheme was drawn up at a cost of £12,500 for the two miles. Then there was a change of Government. The Local Authorities (Works) Act was put in abeyance and we are still where we were in 1903.

I know the Local Authorities (Works) Act is there. If money is advanced to carry out works under the Local Authorities (Works) Act and if work of that type could be undertaken it would not be a waste of money and certainly, in so far as my county is concerned, it would prove a tremendous benefit. There would be no such thing as a botched job about it. When the Arterial Drainage Scheme comes along at a later stage it could follow on from there. The amount of benefit that would be derived from the farming community over one-third of the county would be so great that the money would be well spent. Probably, with the increase in wages, and so on, that scheme would cost £15,000 to £20,000 today.

If money is not provided to implement the Act, I would ask the Minister to consider some concession for our problems in the West of Ireland. You can call it anything you like. I would ask him to consider the drainage of even that much of the Arrow, two miles. Above that, there are artificial obstructions, mostly, but, in that two miles, there are natural obstructions of the rock, and so on. If that two miles were done it would benefit the farming community. The money spent would be very well worth spending and then, when the Arterial Drainage Scheme comes along, which I estimate would be in 20 to 25 years' time, you could continue from there. That is a very fair suggestion. The people in my county think it rather strange that any Minister should ask for increasing production when, year after year, due to rivers becoming blocked, the tendency is towards diminishing returns, not increased production.

I remember attending a meeting of a Committee of Agriculture in Sligo. The Minister for Agriculture was present. He made the statement that he thought the money spent under the Local Authorities (Works) Act was badly spent, that it was a waste of money. The point there is—and I think other western Deputies will agree with me—that it might have been a waste of money in his county. It might have been a waste of money in the midlands and in the south of Ireland but definitely it was not a waste of money in my constituency of Sligo-Leitrim.

I saw people saving their hay in bottoms. I saw them trying to get the highest point on which to build their cocks of hay and afterwards taking off only the tops of hay cocks. That is all they saved from destruction, water backing up even 8 to 10 miles from the main artery. If the Minister saw all that I think he would realise the significance of the problems facing us in that part of the country. I would ask him to use his good offices to provide money under any scheme he likes to alleviate distress caused by flooding in my constituency.

Mr. Treacy

I rise to support the motion. As a member of a local authority I realise only too well the inestimable value of the Local Authorities (Works) Act. I can assure the Minister that when he abandoned this Act he did a serious injustice to county councils. He hindered them very much in the carrying out of essential works and minor schemes.

Some suggestions were made for the abandonment of the Local Authorities (Works) Act. It was suggested here tonight that the money was wasted. If that is true, someone is guilty of serious dereliction of duty. Was it the local overseers, gangers, engineers, or was it perhaps the Minister's own Party? I choose to think that where State money of this kind is made available there is a responsibility on the Minister's Department in particular to see that it is spent wisely and well.

There are a number of minor relief schemes that local authorities cannot do, however much they would like to suggest the drainage of our rivers and their tributaries. I speak for a county which is rather low in priority in relation to the national Arterial Drainage Scheme. We shall have to wait many years before our river and its tributaries are drained. The loss of the Local Authorities (Works) Act is felt very keenly because we cannot find money out of the rates to do these essential works to alleviate flooding and recover the fertile land of Tipperary which is inundated with water in places for months of the year.

There are also bridges, roads and boreens which need attention. The owners or users of these are not able to avail of the various grants and schemes available for the purpose and the local authority is not willing to take them over until they conform at least to the minimum requirements laid down by the county engineer. These are works that have been done and could be done again under the Local Authorities (Works). Acts. I am vitally concerned in the motion because that Act has provided employment for workers, particularly those in seasonable employment, county council and Bord na Móna workers and forestry workers. When work ran out on the roads men were given work on important schemes of this kind. The suggestion that the money was wasted is absurd. If it was wasted, the people responsible should have been brought to book at that time.

It was also suggested that the Board of Works is a more appropriate body to do this kind of job. From what I know of the Board of Works it is a very big and cumbersome institution and if we wait for it to carry out the type of work we have in mind we shall be waiting a long time. I would again appeal to the Minister on this point because I know it is the feeling of the House and of his own Party members on the various councils on which I have the honour to speak that this Act should be brought into being again. I am not speaking in a political vein; it is a matter of indifference to me who sponsors the motion, but I am conscious of the intrinsic value and worth of the Local Authorities (Works) Act. If my watch becomes broken I do not take out a mallet and smash it up; I have it repaired.

I suggest to the Minister that if he is conscious of any defects in the Local Authorities (Works) Act from what he has learned, he should rectify them; let him correct any omissions in the Act and see to it that it is operated properly, efficiently and economically in future. That, I feel, is the limit of responsibility of his Department. It might be suggested that local authorities did not take a proper interest in the works concerned. Again, the Minister is making the money available and he should put an obligation on local authorities to see that the work is carried out and that they will maintain such work in the future.

Particularly from the point of view of flooding and for areas, whose rivers, like the Suir, are low in the order of priority, I would ask the Minister to put this Act into operation, to give the necessary money to relieve flooding in our county, retrieve fertile lands, stimulate production and give our farmers a fair chance. Above all else, give us an opportunity to do the kind of small, essential jobs which the local authority is either unwilling or unable to do and give us the further satisfaction of knowing that we shall be able to ensure continuity of employment for the workers I have mentioned, county council road workers, workers in Bord na Móna or anywhere else who need a job and the money to maintain a wife and family at certain times of the year, particularly in winter.

Mr. Cunningham

The previous speaker mentioned a broken watch. A broken watch, as everybody knows, should be sent to a watchmaker. I suggest drainage problems should be left to drainage authorities and the drainage authority in this country is the Office of Public Works. I think that all drainage should be entrusted to one body. Actually, arterial drainage, rural improvement schemes drainage and minor employment scheme drainage are entrusted to them. I think it was a mistake ever to entrust drainage work to a group or groups who had not, have not, and never will have, the personnel, machinery or the opportunities to carry out drainage work. In addition to that I would say that any road works done under minor employment or rural improvement schemes should be handed back to the Department of Local Government who have the men, the machinery and the material to do road work. The point I want to stress is that drainage work should be left to the Office of Public Works who have drainage engineers, machinery, technical personnel and the other facilities necessary for drainage work.

Up to now in the Opposition we had the attitude towards the Local Authorities (Works) Act that no matter how much money the Government spent on drainage it was no good unless it was labelled Local Authorities (Works) Act. Money expended on drainage was no good and the Government were falling down on the job unless that money was spent under the Local Authorities (Works) Act.

Mr. O'Sullivan

A rose by any other name.

Mr. Cunningham

Would not smell so well.

Mr. McQuillan

Of course Donegal came out very well. There is no need to worry about the rest of the country.

Mr. Cunningham

Many areas in many counties benefited under the arterial drainage programme. Many others would never be reached under that programme. The new idea of minor catchments is a good one and more or less corresponds with the Local Authorities (Works) Act.

Mr. McQuillan

Especially in Donegal.

Mr. Cunningham

Deputy Gilhawley made a very good case for the extension of the arterial drainage scheme because the rivers and catchment areas he mentioned are of a type that would fall into—not a minor but the next-step-to-it—drainage scheme. When he talks in terms of 116,000 acres he is not talking in terms of the Local Authorities (Works) Act but in terms of arterial drainage and so I suggest that what we should have, and what is being started at the moment, is an extension of arterial drainage to cover minor rivers——

Mr. McQuillan

In Donegal.

Mr. Cunningham

——and I suggest that could be usefully extended to the rest of the country. Because of the geographical contour of the country, rivers running west are generally small.

Mr. McQuillan

These are from the missing mountains in Donegal.

Mr. Cunningham

The suggestions I have made may meet with the wishes, but they will not meet with the sanction of Deputy McQuillan who has had this Local Authorities (Works) Act bug for a long time.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The Fianna Fáil Árd Fhéis had the bug, too.

Mr. Cunningham

Nothing that is being done by way of extra expenditure on drainage will satisfy Deputy McQuillan.

Mr. McQuillan

The Deputy was not at the Árd Fhéis evidently.

Mr. Cunningham

Deputy McQuillan must have the Local Authorities (Works) Act; if the Government spend extra money on drainage under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, that would be O.K. It is true that there should be provision for maintenance and the county councils would be only too glad to allocate money for such a purpose. We believe that the extension of arterial drainage to cater for all rivers is better. Drainage should be left in the hands of the recognised drainage authority. They are the people who have the equipment and materials to deal with it. I would urge the Minister to advise the Government to stick to present policy and not be misled by this periodic political propaganda which crops up from time to time here and which, when this motion is finished, will not be finished; we will have it again.

Mr. McQuillan

Quite right.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I regret that Deputy Cunningham should think this is purely political propaganda. Deputy Cunningham will remember sitting at his Party's Ard Fhéis when the delegates representing every Fianna Fáil cumman in the country passed a unanimous resolution requesting the Fianna Fáil Government to re-implement the operations of the Local Authorities (Works) Act. What bug affected that convention? Why did they advance that resolution publicly at their Party Ard Fhéis? Was it done to embarrass their own Government? I contend it was done quite seriously. It was put forward as a very excellent suggestion from the Deputy's Party.

Mr. Cunningham

To get more money for drainage, which they got.

Mr. O'Sullivan

It was a resolution suggesting the re-implementation of an Act they had seen in operation, particularly those of them who were members of local authorities. The Deputy must also realise that, when this matter comes up for discussion at county council meetings throughout the country, there is no allegation then that it is politically inspired. Many of the councillors who are the first to speak in favour of the resumption of activities under the Local Authorities (Works) Act are members of Deputy Cunningham's Party. The moment the matter enters this Chamber, it becomes political. The only politics in it are the politics of the Party who says: "No, no, no; it is wrong and it will never be implemented so long as we have authority to prevent it." That is done in defiance of the most cogent arguments advanced in favour of resuming activities under the Act.

Deputy Gilhawley speaking here with reference to his particular part of the country—that part of Leitrim which is now annexed to Sligo—emphasised the value of the work done under the Act in his constituency of Sligo-Leitrim. Deputy Gilhawley, and others who represent the West, are not alone in this. The matter is as important in mid-Cork as it is in Sligo. There is no county which has not an intense interest in the resumption of operations under an Act which was implemented so successfully for years.

One of the greatest advantages in the Act was that schemes initiated under it did not involve any great administrative cost. The moneys voted were disbursed through the media of the county councils and went directly into the pockets of the men who worked on the schemes. There was never a scheme devised by this House under which the moneys voted went in their entirety into the pockets of those working on the scheme. The administrative and engineering staffs of the county councils administered the schemes. They had the advice of every member of the council as to locations. No member of the Fianna Fáil Party serving on any local authority felt his obligation to his Party prohibited him from advancing a scheme. They were as quick off the mark as any other councillor. They did not regard the expenditure as a waste of public moneys. They did not dissociate themselves because of the foolish manner in which a large amount of money was spent. They were among the first to advance schemes for their particular parishes or localities and they all wanted their schemes to get first attention when these moneys were being expended.

To my mind, the best feature of these schemes was that the moneys voted went almost in toto into the pockets of the workers. I am horrified that Deputy Cunningham should assert that county councils have not got the necessary personnel to deal with drainage and that only the Office of Public Works is competent to take charge of drainage. Is Deputy Cunningham aware that the Department of Agriculture are doing drainage work at the moment? Under the Land Project, groups of farmers have organised and pooled the Land Project grants in order to do drainage work. If Deputy Cunningham's argument were to be accepted, all such works should cease immediately because the proper personnel is not there to supervise the work.

One of the biggest snags in the drainage being done under the auspices of the Department of Agriculture is that there is no legal provision which entitles those anxious to drain land to go in on another man's land. Under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, there was provision whereby drainage could be carried out, despite objection by a landowner. Considerable difficulty is being experienced in my area. It has been found difficult to prevail, perhaps, upon a certain landowner and get his co-operation in draining a stream; he may not like his neighbour. We all know these difficulties arise. There are certain intractables who are prepared to suffer if they can make their neighbour suffer also, in this combined Land Project work in relation to drainage, I know of at least three instances where the work cannot be carried out because of a sole objector. Under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, you could go in to do the work and complete it.

It is for that reason that I earnestly urge upon the Minister and the Government to re-allocate the moneys for distribution under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. Let us get this work done. We know that priority was given to the carrying out of schemes where roadways were affected by flooding from rivers and streams under that Act.

The rates and the Minister's Department have now to meet the cost of repairing the ravages on these roads caused by flooding by streams and rivers that could be cleaned under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. There are many difficulties operating at the moment against the clearance of these streams. This very week before I came up to the Dáil, I met a deputation of farmers who had land on both sides of a public roadway. They were prepared to participate jointly under the Land Project to get a stream cleaned but because it crossed the roadway at one point, the Land Project officer told them that he could not entertain the application. The work could have been done under the Local Authorities (Works) Act because it is the council engineer responsible for that roadway who would also supervise the drainage of the scheme. Here were four farmers who are denied the benefits of the Land Project in relation to drainage because they could not get the work to coincide with the local authority work. Every winter, this roadway is torn up by the flooding by the stream. There is no Deputy, no matter to what Party he belongs, who could not cite dozens of examples similar to the one I mention.

Furthermore, in regard to arterial drainage, some of the objections are eliminated. The outfall is improving. We are not aggravating any flooding in lower reaches. These are in the main, minor jobs. They would, bring immediate fertility to land which cannot be worked at the moment. It would have that effect. We would be in favour of retaining the provision in the earlier Act to give priority to streams and rivers affecting public roadways. As well as improving the land, this would have the effect of reducing the cost of the upkeep of public roads.

Let me mention the labour content in regard to those who were employed under the Local Authorities (Works) Act when it operated. These were, in the main, men of an age and a status who had no alternative work to go to. Shortly after the Local Authorities (Works) Act was abandoned, we had a Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Social Welfare to give unemployment assistance to men who had been employed under that Act. We had to give them two-thirds of what they were getting when they were employed. For one-third more investment, they could have been employed full-time on work such as this. We took them out of that employment and told them to walk, or if they had bicycles, to cycle to the employment exchange to draw money when they could have been usefully employed on work such as this. They were men of an age who could not emigrate as did so many others who lost employment. They could not adapt themselves to employment in other spheres as more energetic men could. This was a source of employment for such men, employment in which they handled the same implements all their lives before the machine took over. They were adept at that work. They could have continued to give service to the community in one of the very few remaining types of work open to them and in which they could competently participate.

Deputy Cunningham is enamoured of the provision in regard to intermediate drainage. It is easy for a Deputy from a county such as Donegal to talk having regard to the physical character of that region. There is no problem there in relation to the intensification of flooding in the lower reaches of main rivers. They have direct access to the sea. The outflow is directly to the sea.

We know the machinery is available. The Act is there; the legal provision enacted by this House is still in existence. The engineers are there in the local authorities traversing the country on other work. They could easily look after this work with the other work they are doing. It would not mean the engagement of one additional engineer to look after works under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. It would appear that in recent times there is something abhorrent to the Minister and Government in providing a 100 per cent grant for any purpose but they are profligate with schemes and plans to encourage the ratepayers. They tell them: "If you put up so much, we will cover it pound for pound." But because this was a scheme that imposed no charge on the rates, it appears it will not be viewed with favour by the Government.

In the years during which the scheme was allowed to lapse, we had flooding and a deterioration in the outflow of many streams. This is work in which we can employ many men who were displaced from road work. Since this scheme was abandoned, many men were displaced from work on the maintenance of roads. In previous years, I made an appeal to the Minister to re-introduce the operations of the Local Authorities (Works) Act. We will continue to do so until such time as a Government are elected who will do it. I appeal to the Government to restore these operations in present circumstances, in the knowledge that it will bring the benefits mentioned in this motion—an improvement in the fertility of the land, provision of badly-needed drainage schemes and relieve unemployment in rural Ireland.

There is increased employment in particular regions where heavy industries are established but in the remote rural parts, road work, apart from the work available on the land, represented the only outlet for local labourers. Every day it appears that whatever opportunities existed at one time are rapidly receding. Surely it would be a good thing to afford some opportunity of employment for such people by engaging them on these schemes. We are not asking the House to pass this motion purely as an employment-giving scheme. It is not merely for the purpose of giving employment but for the purpose of giving productive employment—employment in connection with which there is little or no administrative expense and employment which would, within a very short time redound to the benefit of the community in the form of better employment on land which is at the moment subject to flooding by streams and rivers. It would relieve the ratepayers of the additional impact on them involved in having to maintain, improve and repair so many roads in the coming months, roads which will be torn up by the flooding by many of these streams and, consequently, save such roadways from the ravages of flooding in the winter months.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 30th November, 1961.