Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 22 May 1934

Vol. 52 No. 11

Public Assistance (Acquisition of Land) Bill, 1934—From the Seanad.

The Dáil went into Committee.
Seanad Eireann does not insist on Amendment 1 made by it to the Public Assistance (Acquisition of Land) Bill, 1934, with which Dáil Eireann has disagreed, but, in lieu thereof, has made the following amendment to the Bill, to which the agreement of Dáil Eireann is desired.
Section 7. Paragraph (d) deleted and two new paragraphs substituted therefor as follows:—
(d) when a public local inquiry has been held pursuant to the next preceding paragraph of this section and the person by whom such inquiry was held reports that the acquisition of the lands proposed to be taken would seriously interfere with the amenity of the residence of the owner of such lands, the minister shall refuse to confirm such compulsory acquisition order;
(e) when a public local inquiry has been held in pursuance of paragraph (c) of this section and the person by whom such inquiry was held does not report that the acquisition of the lands proposed to be taken would serlously interfere with the amenity of the residence of the owner of such lands, the Minister, having considered the report of the person by whom such inquiry was held and the objection or all the objections which occasioned the holding of such inquiry (other than an objection that the acquisition of such lands would seriously interfere with the amenity of the residence of the owner of such lands), may, as he shall think proper, either refuse to confirm such compulsory acquisition order or make an order con firming such compulsory acquisition order without modification, or make an order confirming such compulsory acquisition order with such modifications as the Minister shall think proper.

I move that the Committee disagrees with the Seanad amendments as set out on the Paper. The effect of these amendments would be to give to the person holding an inquiry power to decide whether the acquisition of certain land would seriously interfere with the amenities of the owner of such land. If it is right and proper that the decision, on all other objections to compulsory acquisition, should rest with the Minister, it appears to me that no special case could be made in connection with the question of interference with amenities. The situation would be entirely anomalous if the Minister were placed in the position of having to accept, and act upon, the report of his inspector, entirely regardless of whether he agreed with it or not. It would be a complete reversal of administrative policy and, certainly, no case was made for this amendment in the Seanad, and I do not think any substantial case can be made for it here.

Question—"That the Committee disagree with the Seanad amendments on the Order Paper"—put and agreed to.
Ordered: That the Seanad be notified accordingly.
Top
Share