Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 21 Jun 1995

SECTION 9.

Mr. M. Ahern

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 5, subsection (1), lines 29 and 30, to delete all words after "embankment" and substitute the following:

", coastal and estuarine incursions or other works that has or have been completed pursuant to a drainage scheme, or pursuant to section 3 (2).".

Erosion problems, which have caused incursions into banks around the coast, should be included in this legislation. Works were carried out over the years; many of them under the old Land Commission schemes. Damage has been done and many acres of land have been flooded because of erosion caused by culverts and incursions of the sea. To date, nobody, the local authorities or the Land Commission, which is still part of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry has accepted responsibility.

The Coastal Protection Act, 1963, was supposed to come into play in this area but it has not. With the Departments of Marine and Agriculture, Food an Forestry and the local authorities all operating in this area, nothing is being done. It is important that works are undertaken, especially in situations where large works are not necessary to prevent such flooding.

Mr. Coveney

This amendment proposes the addition of coastal and estuarine incursions to the definition of relevant works, which appears in sections 9 and 10. Coastal works are covered by the Coastal Protection Act, 1963, which has been the responsibility of the Minister for the Marine since 1990 having been transferred from Office of Public Works. Having transferred the responsibility to the Minister for the Marine with one hand, we cannot really take it back with the other. While I agree with the Deputy, as a former Minister in that Department we felt we had the responsibility but we did not have adequate funds. I know there are instances of that in the Deputy's constituency. There would be little point accepting the amendment because the responsibility rests squarely with the Minister for the Marine.

The inclusion in the Bill of the words "or other works" in the definition as it stands covers, where appropriate, estuarine works such as dredging and embankments, with which we will continue to deal.

To expand further, the Commissioners are empowered, under Part IV of the 1945 Act, to take over responsibility for old Land Commission embankments and have done so on many occasions, in the Shannon estuary in particular. That power will continue and should cover the point the Deputy makes.

Mr. M. Ahern

I will withdraw the amendment as a result of the Minister's explanation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. McCormack

I am concerned about section 9 (4) and I would like a further explanation on the ramifications of it being included in the Bill before I query it. The subsection begins: "The costs incurred by the Commissioners in reinstating relevant works under ... section 9 (3) (a), which states that "If relevant works are modified, relocated or altered in any other manner by a person with, or without, the consent of the Commissioners, the Commissioners may, as they consider appropriate in the circumstances ...". Section 9 (4) continues"... where the modification, relocation or alteration of the works had been carried out without their consent, be borne by the person who carried out the modification, relocation, or alteration and, in default of payment by him or her of those costs, may be recovered by the Commissioners from him or her as a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction".

Does section 9 (4) mean that somebody who drains a piece of their own land into a scheme that is being carried out has altered the scheme? That seems to be very far reaching and I would like clarification of that subsection.

Mr. Coveney

Section 9 (4) and 9 (5) provide a mechanism whereby the costs incurred by the Commissioners in reinstating relevant works modified, relocated or altered without their consent can be recouped from the offending parties. I would have thought that is in everybody's interest. For this purpose, the owner of the land where the modification took place would be deemed, unless or until the contrary is established, to be the person who carried out the modification in question. In this connection, it would be reasonable to assume, in the absence of any contradictory information, that such owners would at least have consented to the modification in question without reference to the Commissioners. The method for recovery of costs by means of a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction is a standard provision.

Mr. McCormack

If a farmer carried out drainage work into a Office of Public Works scheme to relieve the flooding in his field, that would be an alteration to the scheme. If this section goes through without question it would appear that person could be held liable for an alteration of the scheme.

Mr. Coveney

The instance the Deputy described would not be an alteration to the scheme. Surely he would accept that if a scheme is undertaken for the public good in a particular area and an individual decides to breach a bank, for example, which might cause serious disruption to the scheme, that should not be allowed and he should have to pay the consequences of reinstatement. We cannot allow people to take the law into their own hands.

Mr. McCormack

If there is a head drain or a river running by a man's land he is entitled to drain his land into it. That has been the case for generations.

Mr. Coveney

That is not what we are talking about here.

Mr. McCormack

Would that be considered a change or alteration of the scheme?

Mr. Coveney

No.

Question put and agreed to.