There are two definitions given in this section, one, "the Liffey undertaking," and the other, "the Liffey works." When we come later to deal with the question of exemption from rates, I want to inquire from the Minister if he has considered and come to a decision on his own that it was a proper thing to exempt the Liffey works as they are defined here from rates, instead of the narrower point of say, the ground which would be devastated by holding up the water. There is a big difference between the areas involved. In fact, the Liffey works may be widespread—so widespread that nobody can comprehend them at the moment. But it is definitely the wider definition which is implied for the purpose of exemption from rates?
Liffey Reservoir Bill, 1936—Money Resolution. - Liffey Reservoir Bill, 1936—Committee.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
It is the Liffey works.
I do not know whether the Minister will discuss that particular point as to the remission here or later. It arises in two places.
Better raise it later on; this is only the definition section.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 2 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 7.
(1) For the purposes of the execution of the Liffey undertaking, the performance by the Board of the obligation imposed on it by the Scheduled Agreement, the generation and transmission of electricity by the Board under this Act, and the construction of works by the Board under this Act, or for any one or more of those purposes, the Board may do all or any of the following things, that is to say:—
(a) impound, hold up, divert, take, and use the waters of the River Liffey above Ballymore Bridge and any river or stream tributary to, and any lake, pond, or canal on or connected with, the River Liffey above the said bridge; ...
I move amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (1) (a), line 9, after the word "bridge" to add the words "Provided that the Board shall not at any time reduce the average flow of water in the River Liffey, during any week in the period from the 1st April to the 30th September, below such quantity as shall have been ascertained to be the average flow during such periods in the five years ending 1936."
In asking the Minister to accept this amendment I am under no illusion as to the importance of the City of Dublin having an adequate water supply. The amendment really means that during the period of the year when normally the river would be low, it shall not be allowed to fall below the average supply. Of course, the Minister may say that Dublin must have first call on the reservoir. While I agree with that, I should like to point out that there is another reservoir at Roundwood, and surely by working the two together it can be managed that an adequate supply will always be left in the river for fish. We do not want, for instance, to find that all the fish in the river have been killed, and that by a slight manipulation that could have been avoided. I am anxious to hear what the Minister has to say on that matter. I should also like to ask him what would be the relative storage capacity normally of the Liffey basin and the reservoir in Roundwood.
On the amendment, I should say at the outset that our advice is that the works proposed to be constructed on the Liffey will not interfere with the fisheries. In any event, the main purpose of the Bill, of course, is to confirm the agreement which has been made between the Electricity Supply Board and the Dublin Corporation, and one of the items in that agreement provides for the discharge of water. The arrangement in contemplation provides that where the low level of the reservoir falls below a particular point the Board will not permit to be discharged more than 1.5 cubic metres per second. That figure was fixed on the basis that it was ascertained that the minimum flow of the Liffey was 1.5 cubic metres per second. What the Deputy is proposing in his amendment is to improve the position in respect to fisheries, because he is seeking to provide that the flow will always be maintained at the average, which would be an improvement, of course, upon present conditions, where exceptionally low water may prevail at some time. We are providing that, in the worst of circumstances, the minimum flow would not be less than the minimum flow has been in dry seasons in the past.
In any event, Section 16 of the Bill provides that there shall be consultation with the Minister for Fisheries and that whatever works he considers necessary for the purpose of preserving the fisheries shall be carried out. I give the Dáil the assurance that the power of acting in consultation with the Minister for Fisheries in that matter will be exercised in order to ensure that the damage done to fisheries, if any, will be kept to the minimum. Of course, the primary consideration must be the efficiency of the works in order to ensure that they will be properly utilisable for the purpose of generating electricity and providing water to the city. It is not anticipated that that will do any damage to the fisheries, and if such damage is feared, then the Minister for Fisheries will be able to step in for the purpose of suggesting the works that should be done to prevent the damage. I can assure the Deputy that the Minister for Fisheries is already taking a keen interest in that matter to ensure that this particular function will be discharged.
There is only one point to which I should like to direct the attention of the Minister. The Minister for Fisheries, with a pistol more or less put to his head, by saying: "Do you wish the citizens of Dublin to be left without water?" may have to agree to something that, as Minister for Fisheries, he would never think of agreeing to. What I am really coming at is that the Liffey and Roundwood should be considered as one for the supply of water to Dublin, and that— I am now, I know, trespassing on dangerous ground by asking about the pipes—there should be proper supply pipes from both reservoirs, so that the Minister for Fisheries cannot be some morning confronted with a water shortage which could be avoided if there were proper and adequate pipes from Roundwood. I ask the Minister to look into that matter.
In any event, the flow will be, at least, equal to the minimum flow in the past. It is not unlikely that, as a result of the construction of the works, the general position as regards the flow of water in the Liffey will be improved. Deputy Dockrell is probably influenced by reports he has heard here and outside as regards damage to the fisheries in the Shannon. The damage done to the fisheries in the Shannon has been very slight. With the new arrangement being made there, consequent on the enactment we passed last year, the Shannon fisheries will become a considerable national asset. The nature of the works contemplated on the Liffey materially differs from those carried out on the Shannon. In fact, a number of the tributaries of the Liffey enter the river below the point at which the reservoir will be constructed. My general argument in relation to the Deputy's amendment is—(1) we are advised that no damage at all will be done to the fisheries; (2) if damage is considered by the Minister for Fisheries as likely to arise, to the extent that it is possible to do so, such works will be undertaken by the Board, or by a contractor acting under the Board, as will avoid the possibility of that damage occurring, subject as provided by Section 16, to the necessity of ensuring that the works will not be of such a nature as will be detrimental to the Liffey works or involve a substantial hindrance to their operation or a substantial increase in the cost of their construction. If it should happen that damage must unavoidably be done, the compensation provisions will come into operation.
The Deputy asked what was the proposed capacity of the Liffey reservoir in relation to Roundwood. It is necessary to bear in mind that the reservoir on the Liffey is being constructed for another purpose than the supply of water to the city. The capacity of the Liffey reservoir will be from 15 to 20 times the capacity of Roundwood. The amount of water that the Corporation may draw is, of course, limited— 20,000,000 gallons a day.
Where did you get the information as to the storage capacity?
I am aware of what the capacity of Roundwood is.
I want to know who told you the capacity of the new catchment.
I am aware of it from the plans which have been prepared.
The experts' plans?
The plans of the Board.
You have seen these?
Yes.
The House has not seen them. That is what I was dealing with a minute ago. The Minister is speaking of information which he got and went into in detail.
I am giving any information I have to the House.
We would rather get it first hand and we would get it first hand if a copy of the report were put in the Library. Why should we not have it?
Is the Minister inclined to say why we should not have it?
That matter has been dealt with and a division has been taken.
The matter does not arise on this amendment.
It arises on the Minister's speech, in which he has given certain figures which the House has no means of correcting. The Minister says he got these figures from a certain report. Why should we not get that report?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill."
On the section, I want to say, for the information of the House, that Deputies are not being asked to decide on the nature of the plans which have been prepared by the Electricity Supply Board in conjunction with the Corporation. They are being asked to provide the capital required by the Electricity Supply Board for the purpose of the extension of its activities over the next few years, including the construction of these Liffey works.
If the catchment had half the capacity which it is proposed to have, the House would not be asked to supply the amount of money it is being asked to supply now. That amount must bear a relation to the storage capacity of the catchment. Nevertheless, we are asked to supply this sum of money without knowing what the capacity is. The Minister got a plan and investigated it. He told us on the Money Resolution that it was not proper for him or his civil servants to put their judgment against that of the experts, but they exercised sufficient judgment to make up their minds whether the experts were right or not. Section 7 follows almost line for line, with the necessary changes— putting in the word "Board" and providing for the change regarding the Liffey above Ballymore Bridge—the clauses in the Shannon Electricity Act of 1925. There is one important addition. In 1925 it was thought that very wide powers should be taken in connection with the construction of the whole Shannon works. The clause which corresponds with clause (d) in this section gave the Minister power to "remove, or alter, repair, construct and maintain such sluices,... and other works as may be necessary for or incidental to the doing of any of the things mentioned..." It was, however, left open to anybody who thought the Minister was acting beyond his powers to go to the courts and challenge him. That is now precluded by the insertion of the phrase "as may in the opinion of the Board" be necessary.
There was no difficulty in carrying out the other works with the limitation on the people then working, that their action might be challenged in the courts. That is all guarded against in the present Bill. There is a reaction beyond that particular clause because when we come to (b) the Board is given power to enter on any lands or premises for the purposes of doing thereon all or any of the things which the Board is authorised by this sub-section to do. One of the classes of things which they are authorised to do is covered by this clause as to what they deem necessary. Finally, seeing that there is an enlargement in the earlier clause, there is, by repercussion, a corresponding enlargement in (i).
The scheme of the Bill is that the Board is, so to speak, to do all this work itself but then by sub-section (3) the more practical side comes in. It is recognised that the board will do this work through contractors and, when it enters into contracts for the execution of any of the works, it may confer on the contractors the right to do whatever it is authorised to do. Does that transfer to the contractor the power to decide that something is necessary in his opinion? Does the expression which covers the Board under (d) cover the contractor when the Board gives the contractor powers or will the contractor be limited by appeal from time to time to the courts when he is doing something governed by (d)? Is the contractor to be subject to supervision by a court authority or may he also be protected by having transferred to him this power and by saying that, in his opinion, the work is necessary and therefore can be done?
The intention is to ensure that the contractor will be allowed to do only such things as are necessary in the opinion of the Board. I think that that is the obvious interpretation of sub-section (3). It is clear that, in practice, the contractor would be carrying out a contract which he has made with the Electricity Supply Board to do certain things which the Electricity Supply Board has deemed to be necessary in connection with the carrying out of this project.
It is necessary, therefore, to give the contractor these powers to enter upon lands and to give those other powers which the Electricity Supply Board will have conferred on them by this statute.
There was no difficulty in carrying on without that phrase in other cases.
I would not be inclined to agree with the Deputy there.
As a matter of fact, there was not any.
Why should we, in any event, without regard to the experience arising out of the 1927 Act, create the possibility of the question being raised in the courts as to whether the construction or the alteration of dams, embankments, sluices and weirs is necessary for the carrying out of the work specified in the preceding paragraphs of the sub-section? I think the commonsense thing to do is to set out in this Bill that the Board can do such things as may, in the opinion of the Board, be necessary for the purpose of carrying out any of the things mentioned in the earlier part of the sub-section.
The difference lies in the phrasing. Here we have the phrase that the Board may construct embankments and other works which in their opinion it would be necessary for them to do for the purpose of carrying out the things mentioned in previous paragraphs. I suggest that the phrasing should be that the Board are empowered to construct such embankments, etc., as may be necessary to carry out all the previous matters. The point is, will they be doing something so outrageous and so clearly outside the previous matters that the court may say that these things are not necessary and they may hold the board off from doing that? Why should not an independent judgment be given on that point? The Minister says he does not want to give these people any more powers than are necessary to construct the works. They are only asked to run the gauntlet on this one point: Can they justify to an independent authority, for instance, a court, that what they propose to do is necessary? Why should they be allowed to say: "We think this is necessary, whether the court thinks so or not?"
Let us take a reasoned view of the circumstances and let us use the same illustration as the Deputy has used. Is it more likely that the board will construct an embankment for the purpose of impounding the waters of the Liffey of so extraordinary a nature that the court will deem it to be unnecessary or that some person with a bee in his bonnet and a taste for litigation will go to the court for the purpose of getting a declaration that something which the board are quite reasonably doing is wholly unnecessary and so waste time and money endeavouring to delay the project?
You mean with the court's permission—that the courts will lend themselves to that?
The Deputy seeks to delete from the section words which are a safeguard for the Board in that connection.
But you say in the early part of the section that the board are entitled to divert the waters of the River Liffey above Ballymore Bridge and any river or stream tributary thereto. There may be some question arising on any one of these phrases. In all these matters there is a certain phraseology used and if people are in doubt about the interpretation, or if they have a bee in their bonnet, they should be in a position to go to the court and get any one of the phrases explained. If the Minister wants to safeguard the board and if he thinks there will be people with bees in their bonnets, he can put the phrase "in the opinion of the board" everywhere. He only does it when he comes to the incidental powers—something necessary or incidental to the doing of other things. It is only in paragraph (d) that he does it. I suggest that that carries on down to (h) and (i), particularly (i), which is very wide. It is the usual clause of the incidental type. It has to be grafted on to the enlargement of (d). To that extent "in the opinion of the board" will cover not merely whatever is incidental in (d), but whatever may be incidental under the more general clauses later.
The Shannon works was a far bigger undertaking, and yet it was carried out without any obstruction. No one thought fit with regard to the work that went on there of putting forward the plea that certain things were not necessary. There was no difficulty, and that work ranged over four-and-a-half years. The phrasing is already wide enough and why put down such things as "which may be necessary for or incidental to"? Why extend it?
The whole thing is subject to this, that the Board are given these powers for the purpose of carrying out work under the scheduled agreement. We cannot assume that the Board are going to do all sorts of unnecessary things simply because these powers are given to them. They will only use the powers for the purpose of carrying out the Liffey undertaking under the obligations imposed upon them by the scheduled agreement.
They can do anything which they think is necessary for or incidental to the doing of other things. Surely that enlarges the whole thing?
Undoubtedly.
Why give them that power? Why not allow the court to give it to them?
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
(2) At any time after the passing of this Act and before conveyance or ascertainment of price or compensation, but subject to giving not less than one month's or, in the case of an occupied dwelling-house, three months' previous notice in writing to the occupier of the lands or premises or the owner of the easement or other property or right affected, the Board and every contractor authorised so to do by the Board may enter on and take possession of any lands or premises or exercise any right which the Board is authorised by this section to acquire compulsorily, or may terminate, restrict, or otherwise interfere with any easement or other property or right which the Board is authorised by this section compulsorily to terminate, restrict, or interfere with, or may divert, close, remove, or otherwise interfere with any road, way, bridge, water-way, or water-course which the Board is authorised by this section compulsorily to divert, close, remove, or interfere with.
(3) Whenever the Board under this section enters on and takes possession of any lands or exercises any right (as the case may be) before payment of the price or compensation, the Board shall pay to the occupier of the lands or owner of the easement or other right affected (as the case may be) interest on the amount of such price or compensation when fixed at the rate of four pounds per cent. per annum from the date of such entry or taking possession or the exercise of such right (as the case may be) until the date of the conveyance from such occupier or owner to the Board.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In sub-section (2), lines 25-26, to delete the words "one month's or, in the case of an occupied dwelling-house, three months"' and substitute the words "six months'."
The object of this amendment is to increase the time of notice, because the farmers consider they are entitled to several months' notice in advance with regard to what the Board are going to do with the land. It seems to me that a longer notice than one month in the case of land, and at least three months in the case of a dwelling-house, should be given. I do not want to press the Minister unduly over this matter. I would be satisfied if I could get from him an assurance that a couple of months' notice will be given. Perhaps he will give me the assurance that reasonable notice will be given and that these people will not be turned out a month or even three months after they have been notified?
I have sympathy with the amendment, even though I do not think it would be wise to insert it in the Bill. Following representations along the lines submitted by the Deputy now, which were made by representatives of the County Wicklow and other persons interested—the persons likely to be affected by this section—I got in touch with the Electricity Supply Board and received an assurance from them that in the vast majority of cases they will be able to give even a year's notice of the intention to exercise their right of interference. Only in very few cases will shorter notice have to be given. It is desirable to maintain their right to do that so that the work can be proceeded with expeditiously. Even in respect of these cases it is to be borne in mind that the actual giving of the notice to secure right of entry on the land will not necessarily involve immediate interference. Such work as the clearing of trees, the levelling of ditches and so on would have to be undertaken, in any event. The Electricity Supply Board are in complete agreement with me that in each case the longest possible notice should be given. They say that in the majority of cases the notice will not be less than twelve months.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In sub-section (3), page 7, line 44, to delete the word "or" and substitute the word "and."
This is only a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 8, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
There are one or two matters to which I would like to refer. I am not quite sure whether I am in order in raising them on this section. I understand that with regard to the Blessington sewerage, there will probably be an increased cost of about £1,800 due to this Liffey Bill. If that be so, it is a terrible extra charge to put on a local area. Can the Minister give us any idea of what will happen in that case and whether compensation will be given?
The Wicklow Board of Health decided to have a sewerage system in Blessington, but when this Bill was initiated, the engineer to the Dublin Corporation made an order requesting the board of health to continue the system four miles further up the river, which as Deputy The O'Mahony has pointed out, would mean £1,800 extra on the board of health. That is a very serious matter for the ratepayers of the area concerned. The septic tank erected was quite sufficient for the requirements of Blessington, but, on account of the acquiring of the Poulaphouca river, the Corporation engineer suggests that a separate tank must be put up near Poulaphouca bridge. That involves a further four miles without any promise of compensation to the board of health. We want some assurance from the Minister that if the board of health agees with the Dublin Corporation and extends the system four miles, some compensation will be provided for the extra cost incurred. Otherwise, I do not see how they can proceed with it.
I take it that the reference is to the diversion of the Blessington sewerage. Under the Bill, that is a matter for the Dublin Corporation, and not for the Electricity Supply Board.
They have already served the board of health engineer with notice. The plans which were approved by the board of health are now held up because the Corporation insists that the system must be extended four miles without any promise of compensation to the Wicklow Board of Health. We want some assurance that if the board of health undertakes the additional work, the Corporation or some other body will compensate them.
These sewerage works are now in process of construction?
The plans were approved previous to the introduction of this Bill, but we have now received notice of a change in the plans which means this additional cost.
I should not like to deal with that matter now because I am not familiar with it, but I will look into the matter, and if the Deputy will raise it on the next Stage, I will see if there is anything we can do.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 4:—
Before Section 9 to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Wherever as a result of the operation of this Act the supply of water hitherto enjoyed or available in respect of any lands or premises is no longer available or is available only to an inadequate extent and where no alternative supply of water is available, it shall be the duty of the Board to provide an alternative supply either from the reservoir or from such other reasonable source as may be necessary.
(2) Whenever the Board is of opinion that the cost of providing an alternative supply of water under this section would be uneconomic or for any other reason inexpedient, the Board may acquire permanently such lands or premises affected, either compulsorily or by agreement, as if such lands were required for the purposes of this Act.
This amendment is designed to safeguard the interests of anyone who has at the moment an adequate water supply on his farm, but who, under this Bill, will lose the right of access to that water and whose farm will be left without any water at all. That would create a very serious problem for anyone who found himself in that position because land, unless it is watered, becomes practically valueless. The whole idea of the amendment is to provide water to replace water which was previously available for land and which may no longer be available under this Bill.
The Board, as advised by its experts, are of the opinion, judging from the surveys carried out and the contours of the land that will be affected, that there will, in fact, be no difficulty in providing an alternative supply of water for domestic and other purposes to the owners and occupiers of land whose existing supply may be interfered with by the Liffey works. If, however, it should not be possible to afford an alternative supply, compensation will be paid in accordance with the terms of the Bill.
A very large portion of the main supply to the residents of Blessington will be submerged. Where will the people of Blessington obtain their water supply if this takes place? Will it be given from the Corporation reservoir?
They will get an alternative supply.
From the Corporation?
It has to be arranged.
There is nothing about that in the Bill.
There is a section which requires the Corporation to supply alternative water—Section 10, I think. Section 10 is the section which empowers the Board, wherever anything arises for which the Board would have to pay compensation, such as the destruction of a water supply, to provide instead an alternative to that which has been destroyed, and it is intended to do that in every case, of course. An alternative supply will be made available, if possible, and if not, compensation will be payable.
But nothing will compensate people in the case I refer to.
The Deputy can be certain that in that case an alternative supply will be provided.
I should like to refer the Minister to sub-section (2) of the proposed new section. The object of that sub-section is to ensure that where it might be impossible to provide an alternative supply, full compensation will be given to the owner of the land.
I do not think that could be accepted. It certainly would not be proposed to undertake the acquisition of lands or premises in the very exceptional circumstances the Deputy contemplates, unless, of course, the amount of compensation which might be deemed reasonable would equal the value of the lands or premises, in which case the Board would adopt that course, I think.
Suppose, under Section 10, a person does not agree to accept the alternative works, what happens?
Section 10 provides that it is at the option of the Board to provide compensation or to construct the works.
It says: "The Board may execute such works as the Board may think proper and such person agrees to accept...." Suppose he does not agree?
Then he gets his compensation.
That is Deputy The O'Mahony's point.
I do not think that was quite his point.
Deputy The O'Mahony's point appears to be that if you give compensation for a water right, when you cannot provide an alternative supply, the land is no use, and that it would be better to acquire the land.
That is a question that would arise when the assessment of compensation is taking place. In fact, so far as it is possible to discover at present from surveys carried out, there will be no difficulty in supplying alternative water to any of the premises or lands likely to be affected, but we have to provide against that case that may arise. In such a case, compensation will be payable, but all these factors would have to be taken into account in assessing the compensation. I think the Board, if they find that the amount of compensation due in fact equalled the value of the land, might adopt the device suggested by Deputy The O'Mahony and acquire the land.
Have they got power to do it?
Yes.
Where?
Deputy Everett has raised the point that the Blessington people may be deprived of the source of their supply. It would be a funny thing if in order to provide water for the people of Dublin the Blessington people would be left without water.
I think Deputy Everett is talking about plans which may have to be altered in consequence of the scheme and not of works which will be destroyed. He has inquired who is going to meet the extra cost which may arise as a result of the alteration of the plans. That is a matter for the Corporation.
The present water supply of the people might be interfered with.
Where is there power in the Bill for the Board to acquire land permanently because the provision of an alternative supply would be uneconomic?
They have power to acquire land for any purpose connected with this scheme.
This is the point raised by the Deputy. There might be a situation arising which would not be met under Section 10. Where have the Board power, say, to say: "We are going to acquire permanently certain lands and we are going to do it because the alternative would be uneconomic?"
If the Board is in a position to buy land for £100, and that the alternative would cost £110, they will acquire the land.
Where is the section that would enable them to acquire the land?
Section 8.
The preamble to that says:
"For the purposes of the Liffey undertaking and of the performance by the Board of the obligations imposed on it by the scheduled agreements"
the Board may acquire land; but supposing there is land interfered with that they do not want for the purposes of the undertaking or of the agreement. They may say to the individual who owns it: "We have interfered with a bit of your land. We have taken part of it; we would offer you a new water supply but we do not think it economic, so we shall acquire the land." Have they power to make that offer, even under Section 10?
There is no question of compulsory acquisition in this case. They have a general power.
Where have the board power to acquire land, either by agreement or under compulsion, except for the purposes of the scheme? Would the Minister look at sub-section (5) of Section 8? Would it be necessary for the board to have the power given by that section if a general power were given in the Bill? Sub-section (5) says:
"Whenever the board is of opinion that the payment of compensation for the flooding of, or other interference with, any land or premises under this section would be uneconomic, or for any other reason inexpedient, the board may acquire permanently such lands or premises under this section either compulsorily or by agreement."
What is the necessity for putting in that if they have the power already? Where the payment of compensation for flooding or other interference would be uneconomic, they may acquire. Deputy The O'Mahony has raised a similar point.
It is still a case of compensation.
The Minister has asserted that the Board have power to acquire any land by agreement. Is that so? I suggest it is not so. If not, the only power they have under this Bill, whether they are acting in a compulsory way or by agreement, to acquire land is for the purpose of the Liffey undertaking or for the purposes of the scheduled agreement. They may come to a particular area of land and take part of it, or they may interfere with a man's property by destroying the water supply. They approach that man, under Section 10, and say: "We will give you another supply," and the man says: "I do not want that." Deputy The O'Mahony proposes that where the provisions of an alternative supply would be considered uneconomic, the Board should have power to acquire the land. The Minister says that they do not want that amendment, because they have power to do it already. Where is it?
The Board would offer to pay compensation in lieu of the alternative supply if the Board considered that it was uneconomic to do that.
Do what?
To provide an alternative supply. Then it proceeds with that power.
In accordance with sub-section (5).
Yes.
No. It is quite clear that they have not the general power that the Minister said.
We shall argue that at another time. They have power to do what Deputy the O'Mahony suggests.
If they had that power, sub-section (5) of Section 8 would not be there. Apart from that it is clear from the preamble in sub-section (1) that they have not that precise power which Deputy The O'Mahony suggests the Board might want.
It is unnecessary. The Board is in this position as the Bill stands: It provides an alternative supply if the owner so agrees. If he does not agree they provide him with compensation. If the amount of compensation payable would make it uneconomic to provide an alternative, and that it is cheaper to acquire the land, then they can acquire it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 5:—
Before Section 9 to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Whenever as a result of the acquisition of lands or premises for the purposes of this Act any person is deprived of employment, such person shall be entitled to compensation.
(2) Such compensation shall be awarded in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1919, as if the person so deprived of employment had been an officer of a local authority under the said section of the said Act and as if the Board had been a local authority employing such person.
The object of this amendment is to safeguard anyone who may lose his or her employment by the operation of this scheme. For instance, there are certain school teachers in that area and they might be very seriously affected by this Bill. Roughly there might be about 60 children interfered with and the consequence would be that the average attendance would fall. This might be a very serious matter for the teachers in that area.
They will not be drowned I hope.
The children will be cut off from their school. The amendment also applies to net fishermen at Ringsend whose livelihood very largely depends on the salmon fishing for about eight months of the year. It also provides for anyone who might lose his employment as a result of this scheme. I think some provision should be made for anyone who is unfortunate enough to be thrown out of employment as a result of the scheme.
In the case of the Shannon scheme, it was suggested that we should pay compensation to persons who were engaged in stoking boilers where these boilers went out of use because electrical power was used instead. Once you decide upon the principle of paying compensation, otherwise than for the destruction of property, there is no limit to where you may stop. You will find that in some way almost any person in the country can claim to have been affected by the construction works. Certainly that was the case in the Shannon scheme and no provision whatever was made in the Shannon Electricity Supply Act for the purposes of paying compensation in such cases. We did to a slight extent depart from that principle when we introduced here in 1933, I think, a Bill to provide compensation for certain ex-employees of the Cork Tramway Company, but that, I think, was a very special case. The measure was decided and accepted by the House as a very special measure to meet a very special case.
I do not think it is possible to embody in this Bill the principle which the Deputy has enshrined in his amendment. It has never been done in any similar Bill, and would involve widespread difficulties if adopted now. Construction of this dam at Poulaphouca and of the generating station there is in fact going to increase the opportunities of employment in the area for ordinary workers. I do not think the fishermen at Ringsend will be affected in any way by the measure, and in the case of school-teachers it is not clear that they will in fact be affected. Of course it is possible to adduce individual cases of hardship resulting from any such scheme as this, but I think it would be unwise on the basis of such individual cases to adopt a principle which has not heretofore been adopted. Similar cases arose in connection with the Shannon scheme, and were in fact debated here. There was the case of the employees in a mill which was destroyed for the purposes of the Shannon scheme. The owner of the mill got compensation, but those who were employed in the mill and lost that employment got no compensation. You had almost similar cases to that arising in other parts of the Shannon area, where the construction or operation of the Shannon scheme had resulted in loss of employment.
We admitted in relation to the Shannon that there was a special case in connection with the fishermen who were employed there, because, of course, their circumstances were entirely different to those of ordinary workmen. The ordinary workmen, say, in the Poulaphouca area, will continue to be available for employment; in fact their opportunities of employment will not be disimproved, and if they were compensated in the manner suggested by the Deputy they would, in fact, be in a more favourable position than similar workmen in adjacent areas. In the case of the fishermen on the Shannon the opportunity of carrying on the only work they were skilled to do was taken away from them, and there was little or no possibility that they would ever again get a livelihood as fishermen. Consequently, provision was made for them, but I submit that that was a special case, and not analagous to the case of the workers— who are, I think, almost entirely agricultural workers—who may become disemployed in consequence of the construction of this reservoir at Poulaphouca. In their case I do not think we can agree to provide a statutory right to compensation. I think we would be able to ensure that they would get employment, although I cannot enter into any binding commitment in that respect but, in fact, there is going to be a very large number of people employed in that area for many years to come, and the prospect of those people getting employment will, on that account, be considerably enhanced. I think we can leave the matter at that. I am prepared to discuss with the Minister for Education the position of the national teachers to whom the Deputy has referred, and I am sure that we can rely generally upon the co-operation of other Government Departments in reducing to a minimum any hardship that may arise in consequence of the construction of this reservoir.
With regard to what the Minister has said, I quite realise that there will be a great deal of employment given in that area, but in framing this particular amendment I really had in mind people who may not be able to get employment; they may not be physically strong enough to do the work that would be required under this particular scheme, while they were able to perform the work which they were previously doing. I was thinking also of the national school teachers to whom the Minister has referred. However, I am quite satisfied with what the Minister has said, and I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 8 seem to be interdependent, and the Deputy might discuss the two together.
The following amendments were on the Order Paper:—
6. In sub-section (1), after the word "fixed", line 17, to insert the words "subject to sub-section (7) of this section" and in sub-section (2) after the word "fixed", line 29, to insert the words "subject to sub-section (7) of this section."
8. At the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:—
(7) In default of agreement the amount or price of compensation shall, notwithstanding anything in the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, be fixed in accordance with the following provisions:—
(a) allowance shall be made on account of the acquisition being compulsory;
(b) in assessing the amount of compensation to be paid the basis of value shall be the amount which the land or premises, if sold in the open market by a willing seller, might have been expected to realise on an average during the years 1928-1930, together with an amount of 50 per cent. of such estimated purchase value as compensation for disturbance.
The object of the amendments is to make more definite what is to be the basis of compensation for those who are going to lose their property. I have here the Official Report, and on the Second Stage of the Liffey Reservoir Bill the Minister, in summing up the debate, said:—
"I can assure Deputies who addressed themselves to the question of compensating those whose lands and houses are likely to be submerged by the proposed reservoir at Poulaphouca that the members of the Government are just as deeply concerned as they are with payment of compensation to these people. We are anxious to ensure that no undue hardship will be occasioned to these people because of the inauguration of this scheme."
That, so far is all right, but later on he rather spoiled it, because he said:—
"I do not think it is necessary, as one Deputy suggested, to take into account the variations that have arisen in recent years in the value of land."
I submit that by saying that, he does admit that there have been variations. The variations have been rather considerable. The Minister then goes on to say:—
"The basis of compensation will be the present value of the holding.
It is on that basis that compensation will be fixed."
I hold very strongly that if compensation is fixed on the present value of land it is not a fair basis under the present circumstances. As I said on the Second Reading, we all know that, if the present dispute between ourselves and our neighbour across the water were settled, the price of land would go up, and because this unhappy situation exists at the present time why should the people who are going to be deprived of their property be mulcted through this unfortunate dispute between this country and Great Britain? I think we should get away from this period, and go back to a period when there was not this dispute. That is what is really behind my amendment. The Minister in his own speech on the Second Reading admitted that he wanted to see those people properly compensated, but, as I say, unfortunately, later on he definitely said that the basis of compensation must be the present value of land. I say that is not fair, and I would ask the Minister to reconsider the matter, and see whether on the Report Stage something could not be done to give some assurance that fair treatment would be given in the matter of compensation.
I wish to support Deputy The O'Mahony and I should like to point out to the Minister the case of labourers' cottages that may be submerged or acquired under this scheme. If the board of health were only to receive the present value of these cottages, they would be unable to rebuild a new house of a similar type to the former cottages which were built 20 or 30 years ago. Houses that were built for £100 or £120 about 30 years ago could not be built at the present value.
Is it the Deputy's point that these houses have appreciated in value?
No. The Minister says that he is going to give the market value of to-day for a house that was built 30 years ago. I say that, if that is the case, we would be unable to build a new house for that price or to purchase land in that locality where land will be much dearer now. Will the Minister guarantee to give the board of health the cost of providing these tenants with cottages, plus the repayment of the unpaid loan on the old houses? That is only fair.
We are told that the value of the cottages has appreciated and that the value of land has depreciated. The Deputy from Wicklow wants it both ways. I will admit that, due to various causes, the value of land has varied from time to time, but I deny that everything has operated to depreciate the value. Take, for instance, the reduction in the land annuities. That must have had the effect of increasing the value of land.
Does the Minister believe that?
I do.
There is no such thing. The Minister knows that there is no such thing as a reduction in the annuities.
I admit that there may have been things in the last few years to prevent that reduction operating to its full effect, but in any event, in the last few years there have been events that operated both ways with regard to the value of land. In any case, however, I think I can justify without question the payment of compensation for land acquired now on the basis of present value. Surely, if we go to a man whose farm is required for the purpose of this scheme, and if we give him as the price of the land acquired an amount of money that will enable him to buy another farm of equal value, and if we are also compensating him in respect of the disturbance to which he has been subjected, he is getting sufficient compensation? In any event, he gets, in addition to the value of the land, a sum in respect of the disturbance. I think that is a fair basis of compensation. It is the basis which was embodied in the Shannon Acts and it operated, I think, in a manner which gave reasonable satisfaction in respect of land acquired for the purposes of the Shannon scheme—a fact which is borne out by the figures which I gave here on the Second Reading, which showed that in over 90 per cent. of the cases there was, in fact, no reference to the arbitrator at all. There was agreement between the persons, whose lands had been flooded or acquired, and the Electricity Supply Board, in that case, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, as to the compensation that should be awarded. I am quite certain too, that in the Poulaphouca area, when we come to acquire the lands there also, in the great majority, if not all of the cases, it will be possible to reach agreement as to the compensation to be paid—perhaps, after a test case has gone before the arbitrator—or, if that agreement cannot be secured, then we will arrange for the settlement of disputes on the basis of the Land Assessment of Compensation Act of 1919. That Act provides for the payment of market value, plus allowance for disturbance, and I think that is reasonable. The majority of the persons who are occupiers of agricultural land in that area will desire, I am sure, to continue in the occupation of agriculture, and they will be able to acquire other lands which will have the same value as the lands which they have lost. I am sure that, in that connection, we will be able to enlist the co-operation of the Land Commission, and I hope to do that so that, not merely will these people get other farms of similar value and compensation for the disturbance, but that in their new areas they may have, perhaps, the same neighbours as they have in the areas in which they are now living. As regards the labourers' cottages, the board of health will get paid compensation upon the present value of these cottages. Now, it is possible that the present value may be higher than the amount of money spent upon their construction 30 years ago. I do not think it will, but if that should be so, they will get the amount of the present value.
I think, Sir, the Minister has missed Deputy Everett's point. He has stated that, in so far as land is concerned, the amount of money given will enable a person whose lands have been taken to get a farm of equal value, but the point about the labourers' cottages is that, as the Minister said, the cottages have depreciated in value. Naturally, they have. My suggestion is that the Minister ought to give the board of health sufficient money to enable the man to be reinstated in a cottage. It is possible now, on the basis of present value, that the amount of money will not be half sufficient to enable a new cottage to be built. It it not too bad to have the community suffer a small loss like this, but the Minister must remember that in recent months a Bill has been passed here, the Labourers' Bill, to enable tenants to take over their own cottages. The compensation for these cottages may be at a reduced rate and that will mean that these people will suffer a severe hardship if the Minister does not give compensation sufficient to enable the board of health to reinstate these people. I think that the fact that they have bought recently will mean that they will suffer hardships in consequence of their cottages being taken from them.
The present price is about 1/- a week, and the new cottages would be 2/10. Would it not be a great hardship on these tenants to be deprived, through no fault of their own, of their homes and put into a new cottage at 100 or 150 per cent. of an increase?
I will admit that I am not quite clear as to the basis upon which compensation is fixed by the valuer in respect of houses, and I think that under the 1919 Act he must take into account the cost of providing alternative residential accommodation. I shall look into that point again.
There is also the point about the Labourers' Bill.
The Deputy must remember that the State is providing substantial financial assistance towards the cost of these cottages.
They have to pay 2/10.
Not necessarily. They pay 2/10 if the Board has to pay the whole cost of the cottage, less the State grant; but, in fact, they will not have to pay 2/10.
The board of health will have to consider completing the loan still to be charged on these houses.
The board of health will have to claim compensation on that ground also.
The Minister made a rather plausible case when answering Deputy The O'Mahony's point. The main thing on which he relied was this that if there was depreciation in the value of land in Wicklow that that depreciation applies all round and that therefore if a man is deprived of his farm in Wicklow he gets sufficient compensation to buy a farm elsewhere, he gets a farm of equal value. The point the Minister made was that if the land in Wicklow has gone down in value the land in Kildare has gone down too. That is the Minister's argument. But supposing a man with 40 acres in Wicklow lost 15 acres by the Liffey waterworks does not the Minister know that his argument will not apply in such a case? That man wants to keep the 25 acres of land that is left to him. He wants to stay where he has always lived. In a case such as that, and there would be numbers of such cases, I suggest it would not be fair compensation to give such a man the present value of the land that was taken from him. I am sure the Minister will admit that whatever factors are operating at present causing the value of land to have a downward tendency—according to the Minister the tendency is upwards—at all events the value of land at the moment is not the value of land in normal circumstances. There are factors operating at present that will not be permanent.
What does the Deputy regard as normal circumstances— circumstances in 1929 or in 1919?
In none of those years did you have an economic war on.
When had we not?
Taking it that the Minister was serious in his statement on the Second Reading that he was anxious to meet these cases I want to point out that the arguments he put up do not at all meet the instance I have given where a man has 15 acres taken out of a farm of 40 acres. Such a man will not get adequate compensation under the Bill as it stands. He will not get adequate compensation if you merely pay him on the present value of the land. No matter how the Minister may try to smile or jump the matter, I must say that it is not fair to the farmer if he is only paid what is the present value of the land. He should be paid the normal value of the land.
What does the Deputy take as the normal value—what year would he say?
We suggest 1929—take that year if you like.
I do not regard that year as normal.
The Minister will not at the moment regard any year as normal. I am anxious that the Minister should look at this from the point of view of the Legislature and not from the point of view of the Electricity Supply Board or the Department. He should not look at it from the point of view of a very efficient Board or a strong Board. I would ask him to step down and look at it rather in favour of the farmer whose land is going to be interfered with. There is not such a very large sum involved. I think the Minister would be very well advised if he would consider the principle contained in Deputy The O'Mahony's amendment.
I would like to support the amendment. I agree with the Minister that the present value of land that is being subsidised for the growing of beet and wheat may be the normal value. But I ask the House to take the generous view that there are approximately 50 farmers involved. Now if the farmers whose lands are taken in Wicklow try to buy a similar farm elsewhere—say in Kildare or one of the adjoining counties—they will not get it at the present price of land in Wicklow. There is no doubt about that. They will not be able to buy a farm of equal value to their own farm in one of the adjoining counties. The Minister should make up his mind about that matter. He has missed that point in the case of these 50 farmers in Wicklow. Most of them will have to go to another county and buy farms of a different type there. The Minister must remember that the present value of a farm in Wicklow is, undoubtedly, affected by the economic war. That is because of the fact that in Wicklow they produce only sheep, pigs, cattle and poultry. The farmers there are affected to the extent of at least 40 per cent. For that reason, the Minister should draft an amendment to give to the farmers whose lands will be taken the present value of their land plus 33 to 40 per cent. It is a very small sum. About 50 farmers are involved and these men are not going to get farms of equal value in the County Wicklow. They will have to go elsewhere to get the farms. To get land similar to what they have they will have to go to Donegal, Mayo and Sligo. The Minister, I am sure, will agree with me that they should be placed in the position where it would be possible for them from the compensation paid to get land of equal value.
Is it the Deputy's point that land is so valuable at present that nobody will sell it?
That is not my point. My point is that the value of the farm they now hold in Wicklow will not buy them a farm of equal earning capacity in an adjoining county.
It would buy a farm of similar value.
That farm would not be equal in value to the farm they have.
It might be better.
It will be a similar farm. Take the case of a man with a farm running up into the mountains. There are 100 acres of mountain attached to it on which the farmer raises a lot of sheep and makes his living in that way. He is not going to get that class of rough land in Kildare. He would not get that much land, and if he gets a farm in Kildare he will be forced to carry on a different class of farming on it. The compensation that he will get under the Bill will not buy him in Kildare a farm of similar usefulness at all. It is only in one of the western counties or in Donegal that he would get a farm like the one that is taken from him and he may not care to go to the West. The Minister should act quite fairly by these farmers and at least 33 per cent. should be added in compensation to the value of their present holdings.
There is one small point that I wish to bring to the notice of Deputies. I wonder in how many cases of these 50 farmers will the whole farm be taken? There will not be very many such. In most cases part of the land will be left with them. That will happen to a number of them. These cases make the argument for Deputy The O'Mahony's amendment still stronger. It would be quite feasible where a man's whole farm has been taken to find him a similar farm but, where you take ten or 20 or 30 acres from him, what is left will be of very much less value to the farmer per acre than the value per acre when he had the whole farm. I do not know how many farms will be taken over in their entirety. The number where the land would be taken over, leaving part in the hands of the owner are the cases in which Deputy The O'Mahony is most interested.
It is all very fine to say that these farmers will get alternative holdings. Deputies should remember that these men have been brought up on these farms. They have lived on them all their lives and they know how the farms should be run. They probably make their land pay. When these people are taken out and put into a farm in another part of the country they will be new to the land and they probably will lose money for the first few years until they get into the way of working the land. Take the case of a man who had 100 acres of turbary. Such a man would agree at present that he had a gold mine. Look at the position in which you are placing him when you transfer him to another part of the country. He would not be in the same advantageous position for his markets as he is where he now stands.
I agree with the last speaker. It is not a question so much of finding another farm, say, in County Kildare, to replace the one from which a man has been moved. I am supposing that a man has lost his whole farm and that if he goes to Kildare and gets land there he will get less than he had previously. With the compensation he will buy the other farm, and he will have to farm on totally different lines from those that he or his father or grandfather carried on. That is one of the biggest difficulties of the situation. In arguing about the price of land, the Minister mentioned that under the Shannon scheme very few cases went to arbitration. That is quite true. When prices were fixed for the Shannon scheme the price of land was very different from what it is now.
Prices were declining at the time.
Yes, but were they as low as they are to-day?
It is not the actual level counts. It is the fact that the value of land at that time was going down continously since 1919.
Yes, from peak prices.
That does not matter. There was no proposal then to go back over five years.
Because fair compensation was given.
Exactly the same Act prevails here.
Were the conditions the same in 1925 as now?
It is on the same basis compensation will be fixed.
On what value?
On the present value.
I think the Minister will admit that I met him in every possible way with regard to the amendments. I have no hesitation in saying that he also met me in every possible way. We are both anxious to try to simplify matters. I feel very strongly on this amendment. As people are going to lose their holdings, I am not satisfied yet with what the Minister has said. I would like to have further assurance.
This State adopted the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, and since then compensation in all cases where land was required for public purposes was assessed and paid for on the basis of that Act. `It is on the basis of that Act compensation will be assessed and paid in the cases the House is now discussing. I think it is a fair basis. The Act was framed in the full knowledge that from time to time the value of land would fluctuate, that factors would operate to depress or to enhance it. It was felt that a fair basis, at any time, was to assess compensation on the value at that time; and consequently the valuer, when called upon, gave an award in the first instance on the present value of the land, on the basis of a willing sale, and then proceeded to add whatever additional amount of compensation should be given for disturbance or other reasons. That procedure was adopted in the Shannon scheme. It may be that the actual value of land was higher then than it is now, but I want to emphasise that it was declining. Deputies contend that it has declined. I do not think it is declining now. I think the value of land is fairly stable at the moment. If the trend of agricultural prices is any guide, the value of land should be increasing now. There was no suggestion in 1925 to go back to 1919 to determine the basis on which compensation was to be paid. The market value then prevailing was the basis of the amount of compensation awarded, an amount which would enable a holder to buy another holding of equal value. That seems to be a fair basis. I admit that a difficulty at once arises in the case of farmers, part of whose holdings are acquired. In the case of land acquired for the Shannon scheme, the greatest difficulty arose in determining and settling the amount of compensation to be paid where a farm was being rendered uneconomic, or where a substantial portion had been taken and the part left was insufficient or was an uneconomic agricultural holding. In such cases the valuer always made allowance for the fact. I think it will give some assurance to those who may be apprehensive of possible developments at Poulaphouca that in all such cases in connection with the Shannon scheme it was possible to fix compensation by agreement and without reference to arbitration.
In reply to Deputy O'Leary's remark, allowance is also made by the valuer for the loss of turbary rights. All these factors can be brought into account and any considerations which the parties interested consider should have attention will have attention, both in the first instance, when the Electricity Supply Board's valuer is trying to secure a settlement by agreement, or, in the second instance, in default of agreement when the amount of compensation is being assessed by the arbitrator. It is our desire, and I know it is the desire of the Electricity Supply Board, that the 50 or 60 farmers in this area will be dealt with fairly. It is considered that they are being dealt with fairly when put in the position of acquiring property of equal value to that which they are losing, plus an allowance for the disturbance involved. The Deputy can be reasonably satisfied that it has been the policy of the Electricity Supply Board in the past, and that it will be their policy in the future, to err if they err at all, on the side of generosity. In any event, it would be unwise, in relation to these particular cases, to depart from the practice which has always operated, of quoting the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, as the basis for compensation to be paid where land or premises are required for public purposes. That, was done in very case up to the present. It was never seriously contended that it operated unfairly in any general sense. On the contrary, it has operated fairly, and I think we will seek the same basis in these cases.
While there is a lot of sound reason in what the Minister says, I am in this difficulty, that certain circumstances that have transpired here reduced the value of land. We cannot get away from that fact. On the other hand, I see that the Minister naturally does not wish to admit that. His difficulty is evident. He sees my difficulty in giving way to him there. I do not want to see the unfortunate people concerned suffering because of a dispute we may have with people on the other side of the water. Why should they? I realise the difficulty the Minister is in, and he realises the difficulty I am in when speaking for people who are not here to speak for themselves. I cannot agree that the present time is a normal one. If we were living under normal conditions, and if this dispute had not arisen, the position would be different. If this unfortunate dispute was settled we would probably get back to normal times rapidly, and this matter would be worked under exactly the same arrangement as existed when the Shannon scheme was passing through. The same conditions do not apply to-day with regard to the value of land as when the Shannon scheme was brought in and compensation awarded. Much as I would like to be satisfied with what has been said, I cannot say that I am.
I would like to refer briefly to the point already made, that farming in this particular area is somewhat different from what it is in other parts of the country. The Minister realises, I am sure, that in the case of the Shannon scheme farmers accustomed to working land in that area could easily transfer to another district. It is not easy, however, for the men we are now considering to engage in another type of farming. Our case is not against the justice of the compensation basis. Our case is that this land is being taken at a time when, owing to circumstances for which those farmers are not responsible, its value is at a low ebb. Take two cases. One man who gets compensation for his farm and wants to buy another farm, will probably get the other farm cheaper. He may be all right, but is allowance going to be made for the cost of the acquisition of the other farm? He will be put to some expense in connection with the purchase of another farm. If, on the other hand, a man desires to put whatever he gets for his other farm into some securities, he gets the rockbottom price, with securities at soaring prices. He has no possible opportunity of investing his money to bring him in anything more than the amount of the old age pension.
That is our objection and I think there is some force in it. If one says that, on a given day, a man must sell certain of his securities, no matter how the market stands, he can buy others and the only expense he has is the amount of the stamp duty. If one assumes that he goes on the market for the type of farm he wants, one has to remember that his market is limited because it is only rarely that one sees these classes of holdings sold. There is that disadvantage in acquiring land that will be suitable to him. If, on the other hand, he is advanced in years and desires to invest his money, then he has to do so at a time when securities are at the highest price that, I suppose, they have ever stood at. These circumstances did not prevail at the time that this particular type of legislation, making this the basis of compensation, was framed, or at the time when land was being acquired for the Shannon scheme.
Amendment No. 6 put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 41; Níl, 59.
Tá
- Anthony, Richard.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Broderick, William Joseph.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Curran, Richard.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Davin, William.
- Desmond, William.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Lavery, Cecil.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Reidy, James.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Rowlette, Robert James.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corbett, Edmond.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred Hugh.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- Neilan, Martin.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Sean.
- O'Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Bennett; Níl: Deputies Little and Smith.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In sub-section (5), page 8, line 50, to delete the figures "60", and substitute the figures "69".
That is a drafting amendment to correct a misprint.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 9, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Minister has promised compensation to the owners and I should like to know will compensation be given to the tenant for disturbance. The board of health have been promised compensation for the loss of the cottage, but the Minister has not promised any compensation to the tenant for disturbance from his home and it is not provided for in the Bill.
We could not pay compensation for the termination of a weekly tenancy. We compensate the owner of the premises acquired.
There is no compensation whatever for the tenant.
It is a matter for the board of health.
The tenant has spent a lot of money in improving his plot and he will also be deprived of certain rights under the Act for the purchase of cottages.
That is a matter for the board of health.
The board of health will receive compensation, but the tenant will not receive any compensation from the board when he is deprived of the right he would be entitled to under the Act for the sale of cottages. He had this cottage for 1/- a week and he will not have those rights now in connection with any new cottage, the rent of which may be 2/10.
I should like to point out that that is a matter for the board of health. It is not good enough for the Deputy to say that this tenant has a cottage at 1/- per week, and that if the board of health builds a cottage now-a-days of a similar design it will have to be let at a rent of 2/10 per week, because the Board is getting towards the cost of building that new cottage the compensation which will be payable in respect of the old one and, consequently, the rent which the board of health can charge for the new cottage will be less than they ordinarily charge for a cottage of that design.
But the board of health will still be liable for the repayment of the loan on the old cottage and will, therefore, be unable to grant facilities to the tenant of the new cottage.
That is a factor which will be taken into account in assessing compensation.
Will the disturbance of the tenant be taken into consideration? It will not be possible to secure even half an acre in that particular area.
I am afraid a weekly tenant cannot make a case for compensation for disturbance on the termination of his tenancy.
It is quite a different case from any other one. He will be deprived of his rights under the Act for the sale of cottages.
Has the board of health brought that scheme into operation?
It is the Minister for Local Government who will put the scheme into operation. When he provides a copy of the scheme to the board of health they must act within six months and probably before the cottage is taken over that will be in operation.
I think the board of health can adjust that matter themselves in the interest of the tenant.
If they have already passed a scheme in compliance with the wishes of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health?
These are factors which will be taken into account in determining the amount of money which the board of health will get as compensation for the acquisition of the four cottages and the board of health, in making arrangements to house these four families again, will have to take into account that they got this money in compensation when determining the circumstances under which the new tenancies will be given.
If the arbitrator decides to allocate a certain amount for disturbance, I am satisfied.
The arbitrator cannot do that. He can only compensate the owner of the property—the board of health—but the board of health can make any arrangements they wish.
The Minister for Local Government will refuse to sanction the doing of anything which is not provided for in the Act.
The board of health will, I think, be in a position to make the arrangements I mention, because they will be getting not only the State grant in respect of the new cottages, but a certain sum in compensation.
That is not in the Bill. You are giving only the market value in the Bill.
No.
The Bill refers to "land or premises."
In the case of houses, I mentioned that I could not say precisely the terms upon which compensation would be assessed, but I should imagine that the cost of providing similar accommodation elsewhere would be taken into account.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
I move amendment No. 9:—
At the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) Where anything lawfully done or intended to be done by the Board under this Act is liable to cause injury to the fisheries of the River Liffey, the Board may execute such works as shall be agreed upon with the Board of Conservators of Fisheries for the Dublin District and approved by the Minister for Agriculture, with a view to preventing or remedying such injury.
This amendment is intended to make quite clear that the Minister has the power to order works necessary to preserve the fisheries under Section 10 to be carried out. I do not know how far the Minister has looked into the question as to the necessity for this amendment. Naturally, he himself is the best judge of the powers he requires.
Section 16 achieves the same purpose as the amendment, except that it provides that the consultation will be with the Minister for Agriculture only. I assume that the Minister for Agriculture will consult whomsoever he thinks fit in determining what works are necessary to preserve the fisheries. Under Section 16, the Board is required to carry out whatever works may be deemed to be necessary for the preservation of the fisheries, subject to the qualification set out in the end of the section.
Amendment 9, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Question proposed: "That Section 11 stand part of the Bill."
On the section, I should like to ask whether there is any place where engineers can be supplied with a copy of the plans. Public boards have great difficulty in finding out what lands or roads may be submerged or interfered with and engineers are unable to see a copy of the plans.
I do not think that that is correct. I had some inquiries made recently regarding that matter and I am informed that these plans are at present available at the head office of the Electricity Supply Board. Under the terms of this Bill, they will, of course, have to be displayed.
It will be too late, then.
They are available at present.
I was informed by an engineer that he applied to see the plans and could not see them.
Section 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
If the Board, for the purpose of or in connection with the construction of the Liffey works or the exercise of any of the powers conferred on the Board by this Act for the purpose of such construction, requires information from a rate book or other similar document, the local authority or other public body having custody of such book or document shall, at the request of the Board—
(a) permit any officer of the Board authorised in that behalf by the Board to inspect free of charge such book or document and to take free of charge a copy of the whole or any part of such book or document, and...
I move amendment No. 10:—
In page 10, line 1, to delete the word "public" and substitute the word "local."
We think it is desirable to substitute the word "local" for "public" in relation to bodies where rate books or documents may be inspected as, otherwise, the section might be held to apply to such bodies as the Revenue Commissioners. It is intended to apply only to the records of local bodies.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 13.
I move amendment No. 11:—
To delete sub-section (1) and substitute therefor the following new sub-section:—
(1) The Liffey works shall, while in the possession and control of the Board, be subject only to 50 per cent. of such rates or assessments as may be leviable on the agricultural land comprised in the said works and shall be exempt from all other assessments for any other rates made by a local authority.
This amendment is designed to lessen what would be a hardship if Section 13 remained as it is. The income derived from the rates for this area will be lost and increased charges will fall not only on that area but on the county as well. If my memory serves me, that area has already to bear a heavy burden in connection with the Poulaphouca tramway, which was discontinued. There is also a county charge for this tramway. Any additional burden, whether imposed on that locality or on the county, will be very heavy, indeed. This amendment makes a reasonably fair offer which, I think, might be accepted.
In this section, we are merely carrying forward a principle which has been accepted. The Shannon works, as such, were exempted from local rates and, when the Electricity Supply Board was established, that freedom from rates was transferred to the Board. Under the amending Act of 1930, exemption from local rates was granted in respect of all the property the Board used exclusively as a generating station or transmission system or part of a transmission system or as a distribution system or part of a distribution system. The arguments then used in favour of exempting these properties of the Board from local rates apply with equal force to the generating station proposed to be constructed at Poulaphouca. The system for supply of electricity is a national undertaking. The Poulaphouca station will be an integral part of the national system and it would be anomalous if that part of the national electricity generating system were to be subject to local rates and the rest of it exempt. From the point of view of the local authority, I think it can be stated that it is almost certain that the construction of the reservoir and station at Poulaphouca will result in the erection of new rateable property in that area and that, in the long run, the local authority is not likely to lose. There is another consideration—that there will be no reduction in the agricultural grant to the county. The amount of relief that can be given to individual occupiers of agricultural land will, therefore, be increased though there will be no increase in the aggregate amount of the agricultural grant. Taking all these factors into account, and having regard to the fact that the principle has already been accepted and applied in respect of the remaining portion of the property of the Electricity Supply Board, I think that exemption from rates must be provided in this case.
Are the present buildings exempt from poor rate?
All the Electricity Supply Board's buildings and premises used for the purpose of generation, transmission or distribution are exempt.
Is all the property exempt?
Not all the property. The showrooms, for example, are not exempt.
Is all the property that is exempt from ordinary rates also exempt from poor rate?
Yes.
I move to report progress.
Progress reported. Committee to sit again on Thursday.