Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 5 Jul 1929

Vol. 12 No. 20

Arterial Drainage (Amendment) Bill, 1929—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be read a Second Time."

Mr. Milroy

When this Bill came on on Wednesday Senator Sir John Keane suggested that there should be some explanation of it. I would like to make a few observations on it. This Bill is entirely non-controversial and is intended to remedy an oversight in the Arterial Drainage Act of 1925 which omitted specifically to include county borough councils equally with county councils in the definition. Though that omission occurred it was generally assumed that county boroughs were so embraced in the provisions of the Act, and a joint scheme was promoted by the county council and by the Corporation of Waterford City for the purpose of draining certain marshes, portion of which area is within the city boundary and portion of which is outside it. When the work had progressed to some considerable extent it was discovered that there was a doubt as to whether or not the borough council came within the interpretation of the Act. The matter was submitted to the Attorney-General, and I think he decided that it did not. It was pointed out in Section 3 of the Act of 1925 that

Every council to which a petition is presented under this Act shall refer such petition to the county surveyor for his report on the general merits of the proposal contained in the petition.

From this it was argued that there was no corresponding or alternative reference to a borough surveyor in any part of the Act, the Act as worded could not be made to apply to a borough council unless and until it was amended. It is for this reason that the necessity arises for the introduction of this Bill. The Bill has received general assent in the other House and it is entirely non-controversial.

Mr. Barrington

As one who has been associated with arterial drainage for many years, I should like to say that I thoroughly support this Bill. But I would like some explanation as to whether it is quite non-controversial or not. I remember that when the Arterial Drainage (Minor Schemes) Bill came before the Seanad I moved an amendment to carry into effect what this Bill proposes and the Minister strongly opposed it. He would not have anything to say to it. I do not know why. I would like to know whether the Ministerial attitude has changed now, and what the reason is why this Bill should receive the approbation and approval of the Minister, seeing that when I made a similar proposal on the Minor Schemes Bill it was strongly opposed. There is no objection to this Bill, and I support it.

Mr. Kenny

In reply to the last Senator, I think the Minor Schemes Bill only referred to drainage works estimated to cost £1,000 and under. For that reason the Minister opposed that amendment because the amount involved was so small that it was not easy to see that county boroughs would be affected at all. It was not visualised when the 1925 Act was brought in that any drainage area would be within a city boundary.

Mr. Barrington

It was explained that several places would be affected.

Mr. Kenny

I am referring to the Act of 1925.

Mr. Barrington

So am I.

Mr. Kenny

I am advised that it was not anticipated that arterial drainage schemes would have any bearing on borough council areas. I was present in the Seanad at the time that Senator Barrington raised his objection, and I am wondering why I did not intervene, because that point was always present to my mind. I do not think that is exactly the point Senator Barrington made then—that borough councils should or should not be included in the Bill.

Mr. O'Connor

I wish to support this measure for reasons that, more or less, concern my district. There has been great delay there in getting this Act properly working to the satisfaction of the people, so that any benefit would be derived from it. It was complicated a few years ago by the Land Commission handing over the turbary rights to people in Clongorey district. Drains were not properly cleaned and the land could not be worked. The drainage in that district has not yet been satisfactorily settled, owing to other interests that intervened, between the bog land and the River Liffey. I attended two or three meetings of the tenants, and I went to the County Surveyor in order to try and get the matter put in order. If this Bill is to be of any advantage it would be a blessing for the district I am referring to. The people are very anxious to see the Act working so that their land may derive some benefit from it. The working of the Act is not thoroughly understood, especially where many interests are concerned, and where other people's property has to be crossed, there seem to be objections that have not been cleared up. I hope this Bill will be the means of getting this drainage question properly fixed up.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Kenny

I move:—

"That the Standing Orders be suspended for the purpose of enabling the remaining stages of the Arterial Drainage (Amendment) Bill, 1929, to be taken to-day."

My reason for doing so is because of the matter that Senator Milroy referred to. A joint scheme was projected in Waterford between the County Council and the Corporation, and it advanced to a certain point. The Board of Works sent down men who made surveys. The scheme had the general good-will of the County Council and the Corporation. The work was held up at a certain point, when an objection was raised that borough councils were not included in the Act. This will clear up the point made by Senator O'Connor. Schemes are initiated by petition. Six or more land holders in any area subject to flooding, or in an area that requires drainage, may send in a petition to the county council with certain maps outlining the area. The county council must refer the matter in the first instance to the county surveyor for a report as to the practicability of the scheme and the necessity for it. The county council will then approve or disapprove of his report. If approved of, the report and the recommendation of the council are sent to the Commissioners of Public Works, and they proceed to investigate the matter. The proceeding is laid down in the Act. The parties interested in the first instance, the landowners, simply petition the county council and the whole proceeding goes through and a decision is taken as to whether it is economic or uneconomic.

Cathaoirleach

Are you not going outside the terms of your motion, Senator?

Mr. Kenny

Yes; but I was trying to clear up one or two points which are rather ambiguous and that Senator O'Connor wished to have information upon. My reason for asking that this Bill should be put through all stages to-day is on account of the urgency. The work with regard to the Waterford scheme has been done up to a certain point. The summer-time is the only time that these drainage schemes can be most effectively carried through. In Waterford district, once winter rain sets in, the whole work must be suspended. The greater portion of the summer season has already passed, and only a few months remain during which the work could proceed. Hence the urgency of this measure.

Mr. O'Connor

I second.

Question put and agreed to.