I do not come in here as a champion of those people who are objecting to compensation. I have come in here to have the whole matter thrashed out. The Minister— and I do not want to twist his words —said that these people were being treated very generously. I am not asking for special treatment for anyone. All I am asking is that in this case the facts be considered in a proper light, completely divorced from what has happened in the past in relation to some of them.
On the Committee Stage, the Minister stated that 13 out of 16 landowners agreed to compensation. Let me inform the Minister that that is not correct. In proof of that, I can give the figures submitted by the E.S.B. themselves. The number of people affected, according to the E.S.B. returns, in the townland of Cronody— the main townland where the people are really affected—is nine. In the townland of Fergus where they are affected to a much lesser degree, the number is three. Therefore, instead of 16 landowners being affected, the actual number, according to the E.S.B. returns, is 12. In the townland of Cronody, where they are much more severely affected, of the nine landowners, five objected to compensation and insisted upon the replacement of the bridge. It also appears, as can be seen from the E.S.B. returns, that of the nine landowners in that, townland, the five who objected happen to be the five landowners with the greatest amount of land. Therefore, from that aspect alone, the people concerned in the area most severely affected are those who are not in favour of compensation. They ask that the bridge be replaced.
In view of the Minister's statement that they are being very generously treated, I should like to ask upon what basis the E.S.B. are making their offers in relation to this compensation. The E.S.B. in their defence against these people have put forward the argument that it would cost approximately £250,000 to provide a new bridge, whereas, in actual fact, expert evidence presented by one of the most highly qualified professional men on behalf of the farmers, shows that the actual cost of the replacement, and so on, would work out at roughly £100,000. The E.S.B. in their defence try to put up the argument that, as it would cost so much to replace the bridge, it would be better if compensation were accepted. What is the compensation based on?
I do not for one moment ask that these people should get more compensation than they are justly entitled to. We cannot, therefore, understand upon what it is based. The Minister is satisfied with the negotiations that have already been carried out by the E.S.B. representatives in relation to compensation. It is quite obvious that the Minister admits now that the offer for compensation was made before this Bill was introduced in this House. Therefore, this is not the case of a new departure. In effect, it is being said to the E.S.B. that the offers already made at a time when there was no legal power to do so are now being legalised through an Act of Parliament. In other words, the offers which were illegally made will be legalised.
Can we stand for that? Why is it that the Minister made no reference to the fact that the E.S.B. have been doing that which they were not entitled to do? I would certainly support most strongly the view expressed by a colleague of mine from South Cork, Deputy Manley, when he said that strange things happened in relation to the offers of compensation to different individuals, the playing off of one against the other and the threats indirect and, at times, direct, issued to people.
It is quite obvious that if the section being provided here by the Minister is to operate the E.S.B. will decide whether or not serious damage has been caused. In view of the fact that, in one townland, five landowners have stood out against them and refused compensation, what protection is in this section for these individuals? Unless serious damage is admitted by the E.S.B. then they are out of court straight away.
The Minister is apparently still prepared to say that if the E.S.B. should become over-generous and decide there is a certain amount of serious inconvenience or damage caused the E.S.B. can decide compensation. Again, may I ask upon what basis? Why is it that the board's representatives can go to one person on their own initiative, with no one to hinder them, decide that the landowner stands to suffer a certain amount and assess the amount themselves? They may go to another man, a man who agitated for the replacement of the bridge, and they may tell him they will give him £10. There is nothing in this section to prevent their doing that. In my opinion it would be far better not to legislate at all rather than bring in a section like this, a section which gives such arbitrary powers to the E.S.B. Remember, these powers can be abused.
In one particular instance a small bridge has been erected to accommodate one individual. If this section is enacted, there is nothing to prevent the E.S.B. compensating this man still further on the ground that he is suffering a certain amount of inconvenience not completely covered by the bridge they have provided. Nobody can dispute that that position may arise.
The Minister made his case and now, I think, the other side must be considered. In March of 1956, or 1957, the former Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Norton, inspected this area. A good deal of surprise was occasioned by his visit to the townland. It is not often that Ministers of State take the trouble to see the actual situation for themselves. He travelled the entire area and examined it in detail. The outcome of his visit was— this is a fact known to the present Minister—that when the E.S.B. asked for permission not to replace the bridge Deputy Norton refused the permission and gave them 12 months in which to replace it. As far back as 1953, when this battle first started, the E.S.B. never said they would not replace the bridge.
Now, having got the 12 months, they did nothing. On the 19th December last, the people concerned had to assert their legal rights. They moved for a conditional order on the E.S.B. to replace the bridge. The case came before the court for hearing on 17th January, 1958. What happened? The Minister knows well what happened. The E.S.B. got 14 days in which to prepare their defence. Just before the 14 days were up, they asked for an extension and they were given another 14 days. They had 28 days in which to prepare a defence. It is on the records of the court that, if the Minister interfered during that period, who might be considered as a person who should be before the court for contempt. Yet, before the second 14 days had elapsed, on the 3rd February this year, the Minister stepped in and gave the E.S.B. the power they were seeking, namely, the power not to replace the bridge.
It is easy for the Minister to come in at this stage and say that he told the E.S.B. in the month of May to try to get agreement between all concerned. Why did he not adopt the same course in February? He knew the E.S.B. had not got agreement. He knew the E.S.B. had no power to offer compensation. He knew that the matter was before the courts for decision. Yet, he stepped in subsequently and interfered in a manner which has now complicated the entire issue. I fail to understand why the Minister should say that, because these people are now being dealt with so generously by the E.S.B., we should do no more.
This is not merely a case of championing a cause purely for the sake of the cause. If the people are entitled to compensation, they should get compensation; they should get nothing more and nothing less than that to which they are entitled. But it is quite obvious that under this section they cannot get that to which they are entitled. They will now be at the mercy of the E.S.B. It is the E.S.B. who will decide as to whether or not they are entitled to compensation. It is the E.S.B. who will decide as to the extent of the compensation. In these circumstances, I would under no condition agree to the section.