With reference to this Bill a Message has been received from the Dáil to the effect that it has agreed to our Amendments 1 to 9 inclusive and to Amendment No. 12 but it has disagreed with Amendments 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15.
PUBLIC BUSINESS. - ARTERIAL DRAINAGE (MINOR SCHEMES) BILL, 1928—MESSAGE FROM THE DÁIL.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I move:
"That the Seanad do not insist on Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15, with which the Dáil has disagreed."
There are five of these amendments but they only amount to one because four are consequential on Amendment No. 11 which is the real amendment. It is not the kind of amendment on which the Seanad ought to insist. It involves no principle and it is not of any practical use. I should state that the county council or the joint committee is responsible for the maintenance of these small drainage schemes. What this amendment did was that it permitted the county council or the joint committee to get the work of maintenance in all these small schemes performed by the occupiers whose lands had been improved. As the county council or the joint committee is responsible for this work there is nothing to prevent them under any section of the Bill from doing it in any way they choose. They can do it by direct labour, by employing a contractor or by getting the occupier to do it. They do not want the section and it is a section which does a considerable amount of harm because it may suggest to the county council that this is the way they should do it. That would require the approval of the Minister to any contract entered into with the occupiers. The Minister ought to have nothing to say to it. I suggest to the Seanad that it is not an amendment we ought to insist upon and that we ought to agree with the Dáil in the matter.
As one who took considerable interest and trouble in this Bill when it was presented here on the first occasion, I have pleasure in seconding Senator Brown's motion. When the amendment was originally moved by Senator O'Farrell I pointed out that it was quite unnecessary and would do no good. I know perfectly well the object which Senator O'Farrell had in view. It is a point that has been considered over and over again, but has been found to be impracticable, and no harm can be done by eliminating the amendment.
Motion put and agreed to.