Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 Nov 1941

Vol. 85 No. 6

Committee on Finance. - Water Supplies Bill, 1941—Committee Stage.

SECTION 1.

I move amendment No. 1:—

In sub-section (1), page 2, to insert the following definition before the definition of the word "proposal":—

"the expression ancillary operations' means any of the following operations, that is to say, the embanking, damming, dredging, deepening, widening, straightening, diverting, altering the level of, or otherwise affecting a source of water or any lake, pond, river, canal, or other water connected directly or indirectly with a source of water".

It is necessary to have power to carry out incidental works such as the laying of a weir in the bed of a stream or, in the case of a lake, raising the embankment or constructing a weir at the outlet of the lake so as to raise the general level of the lake. The amendment indicates the general types of work that may be necessary.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
(d) where part only of the water at a place is proposed to be taken, the estimated minimum amount of the water at such place and the maximum rate at which it is proposed to be taken, and

I move amendment No. 2:—

In sub-section (1), page 3, to delete paragraph (d), and substitute the following paragraphs:—

(d) where part only of the water at a place is proposed to be taken, the maximum rate at which it is proposed to be taken,

(e) where part only of the water at a place is proposed to be taken and the source of water is a lake, the estimated lowest summer level of the lake and sufficient particulars of the method by which it is proposed to take the water to enable a reasonable estimate to be made of the effect of such taking on the level of the lake,

(f) where part only of the water at a place is proposed to be taken and the source of water is not a lake, the estimated minimum quantity of water flowing past such place in the summer during any continuous period not exceeding one day, and

(g) where the proposal involves the carrying out of any ancillary operations, particulars of such operations, and

In every proposal formulated by a sanitary authority for taking a supply of water, the sanitary authority is required to include in the proposal definite particulars in regard to the source of the water, the place or places at which the supply is to be taken and the quantity of the water proposed to be taken. It is also necessary to indicate the minimum quantity of water at the source of supply, and the maximum rate at which it is proposed to be taken. Information of this kind is necessary in determining whether or not damage is likely to be caused by the taking of the water. These particulars will, likewise, afford information to riparian interests.

Paragraph (d) of the Bill as it stands is not sufficiently explicit in some respects. If the source of the water were a lake, it would not be practicable to determine the minimum flow. Where a lake is the source of supply, the quantity of water in the lake will be readily ascertainable, and it is considered that details should be furnished as to the lowest summer level of the lake, and particulars as to the method by which it is proposed to take the water. With this information available, and information as to the quantity proposed to be taken, the effect of the sanitary authority's proposal can be gauged. The amendment also sets out in greater detail the procedure to be followed where the source of supply is other than a lake. The amendment does not introduce any new principle into the original section. It merely sets out in greater detail information that a riparian owner or other interested party would require.

Mr. Brennan

Is it the contention of the Parliamentary Secretary that this amendment meets my objection in part?

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Brennan

I do not propose to move amendment No. 3.

The amendment the Minister has given notice of, dealing with the Grand Canal Company, has a bearing on this amendment. Various businesses throughout the country depend for their existence on a supply of water. The Grand Canal Company is, perhaps, the biggest of these. There are, then, streams which supply essential water for mills, and which are useful for giving power in certain places throughout the country. Now, it was with a view to affording some protection to these and to the effect that they would have on the properties concerned, that amendment No. 3 was drafted. I take it that the Parliamentary Secretary is endeavouring to meet that matter as far as he can in this section.

Quite. In various amendments throughout the Bill I have tried to meet all the points that were raised. Even if we did not reach complete agreement on all the points of difference, I am still open to persuasion. As far as this particular amendment is concerned, it is undoubtedly an improvement on Section 3 of the Bill.

You will have two paragraphs (e) in the section now.

No. We are deleting the existing paragraph (d), and paragraph (e) becomes paragraph (h). Paragraph (e) stands, but it becomes paragraph (h).

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 4.
(2) Every notice which is given or published by a sanitary authority in pursuance of the foregoing sub-section of this section shall contain—
(g) a statement that, in the event of the sanitary authority being empowered to take a supply of water in accordance with such proposal, compensation will be payable in respect of the damage (if any) caused to any person by the taking of such supply of water, and
(h) a statement that the grounds of an objection to such proposal must relate to a matter other than the amount of any such compensation as aforesaid.

I move amendment No. 4:—

In sub-section (2), page 4, to delete the word "and" in line 30 and to delete paragraph (h).

Deputies on the opposite benches who took part in the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill took exception to this proposal in paragraph (h). We are meeting them by deleting that paragraph, so that now an objection on compensation or other grounds will be valid.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 5:—

Before sub-section (3), page 4, to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(3) Where particulars of any ancillary operations are stated in a proposal, such particulars may be omitted from the notices under the first sub-section of this section of such proposal, but there shall be included in each of those notices which in pursuance of the said sub-section is given to any person a summary of such ancillary operations together with a statement that particulars of such ancillary operations are included in the copy of such proposal deposited for inspection with the book of reference.

This amendment is consequential on amendment No. 1.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
(4) An objection made solely on the ground that the person making such objection is dissatisfied with the amount of any compensation offered to him in respect of damage or because no compensation has been offered to him in respect of damage shall not be a valid objection for the purposes of this Act.
(5) Where the question arises whether an objection to a proposal is a valid objection for the purposes of this Act, such question shall be submitted to and decided by the Minister, and his decision shall be final.

Mr. Brennan

With regard to the amendment which appears on the Order Paper in my name to this section, it is quite possible that the deletion of paragraph (h) in Section 4 gives ample room for including any objection that may be made. The matter which I had intended to raise is, I think, included in that.

Amendment No. 6 not moved.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 5, to delete sub-sections (4) and (5).

This amendment is consequential on the principle that we have already adopted.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

I move amendment No. 8:—

Before Section 7 to insert a new section as follows:—

For the purposes of this Act, a proposal shall be deemed to have been agreed to if either no objection is duly made to such proposal or every objection duly made to such proposal is withdrawn.

This is merely a machinery section which is intended to provide for agreed proposals.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 7 deleted.
SECTION 8.
(1) Where one or more valid objection or objections to a proposal has or have been duly made, the sanitary authority making such proposal may (unless such objection or all such objections is or are withdrawn) apply to the Minister for a provisional order declaring that such proposal may come into force.
(2) Every application under this section by a sanitary authority for a provisional order shall be accompanied by:—
(d) a statement showing the valid objections which have been duly made to such proposal and have not been withdrawn, and

I move amendment No. 9:—

In sub-section (1), page 5, to delete in line 42 the word "valid".

This amendment is consequential, since all objections are valid now.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 10:—

In sub-section (2), pages 5 and 6, to delete paragraph (d) and to insert before paragraph (c) a new paragraph as follows:—

(c) one copy of each of the objections which have been duly made to such proposal and have not been withdrawn, and.

In this amendment we are deleting paragraph (d), which had reference to a statement showing valid objections which had been duly made. The valid objections have now become obsolete by reason of the other provisions that we have made. We are providing now that a copy of every objection duly made will be forwarded for the Minister's information before he determines whether it will be necessary to hold an inquiry or not.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Whenever an application for a provisional order is made under this Act, the Minister shall consider such application and shall do such one of the following things as he shall think proper, that is to say:—
(c) alter the proposal which is the subject of such application in such or more of the following ways as he shall think proper, that is to say, by reducing, as he shall think proper, any maximum rate stated in such proposal or by inserting such restrictions or conditions as he shall think proper on or in respect of the proposed taking of a supply of water and then make a provisional order in respect of such proposal as so altered.

I move amendment No. 11:—

In page 6, to insert in line 13 before the word "or" the word "one".

This is merely a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 12:—

In page 6, to insert in line 18, before the word "and" the words "or on or in respect of the ancillary operations specified in such proposal".

This is consequential on the introduction of the ancillary operations.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
(1) Whenever a sanitary authority has made a proposal and either such proposal has been agreed to or a provisional order in respect of such proposal, has been confirmed, such sanitary authority may publish in a newspaper circulating in any sanitary district in which is situate any place at which a supply of water is to be taken under such proposal a notice specifying the date (not being earlier than one week after the publication of such notice) on which such proposal will come into force and stating that any person (not being a person whose name appears in the book of reference relating to such proposal) who claims that damage has been or will be caused to him by the taking of a supply of water under such proposal may, at any time before, but not after, the expiration of one year from the said date specified in such notice for the coming into force of such proposal, apply in writing to the said sanitary authority for compensation in respect of such damage.

I move amendment No. 13:—

In sub-section (1), page 7, lines 2 and 3, to delete the words "one year" and substitute the words "two years"

This amendment is also in response to views expressed on the opposite side as to the period within which compensation may be claimed. In this amendment the period is being extended from one year to two years.

Mr. Brennan

I wonder is that extension wide enough. We can all recollect schemes that were in progress for a much longer period than two years. Possibly the persons affected by a scheme would not know the result of it until the scheme was in actual operation. If you tie yourself to a period of two years, you may be doing an injustice to somebody. The Parliamentary Secretary must be aware that there are many schemes which, for one cause or another, were not completed within two years or even three years. I do not say that you should make provision for an unlimited period, but I do not think it would be wise to tie yourself down too tightly, so that you would be prevented from exercising a discretion if such a case as I have in mind arose.

Any persons affected directly or indirectly by a proposal will have one or two years after the scheme comes into force within which to make a claim. They will have that period of actual experience of the operation of the scheme. Deputy Brennan seems to have in mind that once a proposal is initiated that two years might elapse before the scheme becomes actually operative, but in the framework of the Bill, as interpreted by the draftsman and the legal advisers, there will be two years, after a scheme has actually come into effective operation, within which a claim for compensation can be made.

Mr. Brennan

The Parliamentary Secretary explained that on Second Reading. Possibly it is my fault, but I should like him to point out where we may read that into Section 11 or any other section of the Bill. The section says:

"Whenever a sanitary authority has made a proposal and either such proposal has been agreed to or a provisional order in respect of such proposal, has been confirmed..."

There is nothing whatever in that section——

If the Deputy reads on, he will see:

"...such sanitary authority may publish in a newspaper...a notice specifying the date..."

This section deals only with the method of notification. The same principle will arise on a later section, when, perhaps, it could be debated in a more orderly fashion.

Mr. Brennan

This is the section which provides the period and it is the section which will be relied upon in law and which will govern the period. The section does not set out that the scheme will be in operation at all. The proposal will be agreed upon, or a provisional order will have been confirmed, but there is nothing in the section which says that the scheme will actually be in operation.

It is necessary to read several sections together in order fully to understand it. If the Deputy will turn to Section 12, he will find that it has a further bearing on it. It sets out:

"As soon as may be after a sanitary authority has published a notice specifying the date on which a proposal made by such sanitary authority will come into force, such sanitary authority shall give to every person..."

A notice will be served on the people whose names appear in the book of reference telling them the date upon which the proposal will come into force. In Section 12, we are making an amendment similar to that which we are making in Section 11, that is, extending the periods of three months and 12 months to 12 months and two years, during which the persons affected can make their objections. That period will operate from the time the water is actually taken by the sanitary authority.

Mr. Brennan

The Parliamentary Secretary, as I say, explained that on the last occasion, but I cannot read that into it. I am afraid it is open to another interpretation. It speaks of "coming into force", but whether it means that the scheme is in fact in operation or that the proposal is in operation is not clear. It all turns on the interpretation of "coming into force".

I agree, and I was afraid it is open to the Deputy's interpretation. That is the layman's viewpoint. I argued that viewpoint with the technical advisers and they persuaded me that "coming into force" means coming into effective operation.

Mr. Brennan

If the Parliamentary Secretary has a legal assurance on the point, it is satisfactory, but, as a layman, it does not appear to me to be so.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 12.
As soon as may be after a sanitary authority has published a notice specifying the date on which a proposal made by such sanitary authority will come into force, such sanitary authority shall give to every person whose name appears in the book of reference relating to such proposal a notice in writing informing him of the said date on which such proposal will come into force and informing him that he may, at any time before, but not after, the expiration of three months from that date, apply in writing to such sanitary authority for compensation in respect of the damage which has been or will be caused to him by the taking of a supply of water under such proposal.

I move amendment No. 14:—

In line 18, to delete the words "three months" and substitute therefor the words "one year".

This also extends the period?

It is the same principle as that which we have been discussing.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 13.

I move amendment No. 15:—

Before Section 13, page 7, to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) When a proposal made by a sanitary authority has come into force, it shall be lawful for such sanitary authority—

(a) to take in accordance with such proposal a supply of water from the source of water to which such proposal relates, and

(b) to use such supply for the purpose of increasing, extending, or providing under the Public Health Acts, 1878 to 1931, a supply of water, and

(c) where particulars of any ancillary operations are stated in such proposal, to execute, on any land acquired by such sanitary authority either before or after such proposal comes into force or on any other land with the consent of the owner any works which are necessary for the purpose of such ancillary operations.

(2) The powers conferred on a sanitary authority by sub-section (1) of this section may be exercised—

(a) notwithstanding anything contained in Section 286 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, and

(b) notwithstanding any right of any person to prevent or restrict the exercise of such powers, and

(c) notwithstanding that such sanitary authority has not acquired the right of any person to the use of the water in the relevant source of water or to the uninterrupted flow of water from such source of water into or through any watercourse, whether natural or artificial.

This is really a recast of Section 13 as it appears in the Bill. The recast arises out of the provision adopted for carrying out ancillary operations. It looks fairly formidable, but no new principle is introduced in it. The redraft is consequential on the introduction of ancillary operations. Section 13 will not be moved, but there is an amendment to this amendment in the name of Deputy Brennan.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Brennan

I move amendment No. 16:—

At the end of paragraph (c) to add the words "and where such sanitary authority has not so acquired the right of any person to the use of such water the said, person may apply to the Circuit Court to fix the compensation to which he would be entitled or in extreme cases to exercise such legal rights as he may have".

This is an amendment of the previous amendment——

The only principle in this amendment which has not been met is the question of whether compensation should be determined by the court or by arbitration, and we shall meet that principle later on.

Is there not another point involved? I suppose we cannot discuss the section until we have disposed of the amendment, but I think that we are entitled to say that, so far as paragraph 2 (a) is concerned, the section there referred to is the section which secured the Grand Canal Company their rights over the water. We enter no objection to taking water from the Grand Canal Company, conditional upon this, that it will not interfere with the quantity of water they require for navigation purposes.

I think that point arises on the amendment to Section 14.

The same principle arises here.

There is a legal right involved and it arises on this section. There are periods of the year during which they have to reduce the loads of the boats, and then the company has to supply something like 300,000,000 or 400,000,000 gallons to the Dublin Corporation for brewers and distillers, so that it is not merely a matter of clinging on to various privileges which they got under charters or Acts of Parliament. It is a real case, and while there are periods in the year when huge quantities of water might be available, there are other periods when there are not. However, I suppose we had better deal with it when we come to it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 13 deleted.
Amendment No. 17 not moved.
SECTION 14.
(2) An application under this section for compensation by a person whose name appears in the book of reference relating to the proposal in respect of which the compensation is claimed shall not be made after the expiration of three months from the date on which such proposal comes into force.
(3) An application under this section for compensation by a person whose name does not appear in the book of reference relating to the proposal in respect of which the compensation is claimed shall not be made after the expiration of one year from the date on which such proposal comes into force.

I move amendment No. 18:—

In sub-section (2), page 7, to delete in line 48 the words "three months" and substitute the words "one year".

This amendment is consequential on the previous amendment, which extends the period during which compensation can be paid.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 19:—

In sub-section (3), page 7, to delete in line 53 the words "one year" and substitute the words "two years".

This is the same principle.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Brennan

I move amendment No. 20:—

At the end of sub-section (4) to add the words "Provided that any person making an application under this section who is dissatisfied with the compensation offered in respect of damage may apply to the Circuit Court and make good his case that the said compensation was insufficient or that the damage affected the value of his property".

Has the Parliamentary Secretary considered the implications of this section? First of all the State, or what appear to be officers of the State, nominate the arbitrator. If I am not mistaken the local authority has some kind of veto in respect of these appointments. Notwithstanding all the precautions taken in connection with particular nominations, there have been occasions when the person nominated has been against the local authority, and there are also cases where the person nominated has been against the individual. Many years ago a member of a local authority informed me that an arbitrator made awards very considerable in amount, but not sufficient to justify the local authority taking the case to appeal, because there was a limit in respect of the amount on which they could appeal. While the arbitrator is generally assumed to be a person of professional standing, it may happen that at some time an arbitrator is appointed whose work, however well intentioned, may not be just to the parties, and while we should endeavour to avoid putting unnecessary expense either on the person whose property is to be taken, or upon the local authority, it appears to be desirable to have some method of dealing with cases of that sort, because even the Supreme Court cannot interfere at present. Would the Parliamentary Secretary consider whether there could not be some kind of court of appeal?

I hope Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Brennan will not unduly press this amendment, because I am very much afraid that it would be anything but an improvement to the framework of the Bill. Deputy Cosgrave made the point, and no doubt in certain circumstances there would be certain substance in it, that an arbitrator might not always be fair. I am fairly sure that Deputy Cosgrave would agree with me that on occasions decisions in the courts do not always appear to be fair. Leaving that aside, the system of arbitration in the matter of the acquisition of land under the Housing Acts and various other enactments, for the purpose of arriving at the amount of compensation to be paid, has been set up by definite statutes and has, so far as I am aware, worked satisfactorily. If we depart from it in the matter of the damage that may be caused by proposed water schemes, I think we are heading for endless and expensive litigation in the courts. It may be said with a certain amount of reason that if people want to go to the expense of prolonged litigation, for the purpose of asserting what they consider to be their rights, they are quite entitled to do so. There is a good deal to be said for that but the method of arbitration will in general be found more satisfactory than the ordinary courts of law. I do not think Deputy Cosgrave was right in saying that local authorities have a veto on the person selected as arbitrator. I am not aware of that, but I will look into it. Certainly if the local authority could, by objecting to suggested arbitrators, and by a process of elimination confine the selection of arbitrators to those who would very likely be favourably disposed towards the interests of local authorities, it would be an objectionable position. If that is so, it would modify my views as between a system of arbitration and a system under the courts. I am not aware that it is so.

Deputy Cosgrave knows, as I am sure most Deputies interested in this matter know, that the personnel of the arbitration panel is selected by the courts. It is not true to say that they are selected by the State—that is a slight exaggeration of the actual position. I understand they are selected by the courts. They are not selected by the Government. I do not suppose Deputy Cosgrave meant to convey that his statement was open to that interpretation. It is one of those matters on which we could argue for a long time, and I suppose there would be people who could say that there is a certain amount of right on both sides. I feel very strongly that the weight of evidence and the weight of experience is all in favour of maintaining the system of arbitration for the purpose of arriving at the amount of compensation.

It is something like 30 years since I first came into close contact with the matter. I was then informed by a responsible officer of a local authority that an arbitrator had made an award of £900 odd in a particular case, and that nothing under £1,000 could be appealed from by the local authority. They had to pay the £900 odd for property which was not considered to be value for one-fourth of the amount, and by reason of that act of the arbitrator, the Local Government Board was informed by the local authority that they would not attend before that arbitrator any more. That appears to me to be a bad system. Whatever might be said for it, it was apparently open to very grave objection. It is some 20 years since I heard some criticism of another arbitrator, and the position then seemed to be the other way, that very little consideration was given to persons whose property was about to be taken. In respect of property about to be taken by a local authority the usual compensation is awarded for value plus approximately 10 per cent. where it has to be yielded up whether the owner wishes it or not. In this case the water that is about to be taken may leave property practically valueless. We are entitled to ensure, as far as we can, that the legislation we are passing will deal equitably between the citizens and the State, and that anyone who has any objection to the local authority getting what it wants, will be able to make a case. The objection is to getting it at a price that would penalise certain interests.

Mr. Brennan

The object of the amendment is simply to secure the position of people dissatisfied with arbitration. It does not at all suggest doing away with arbitration. It is only persons who would not be satisfied with the arbitration who would have the right to go to court. I think we should be very slow to take from persons the right to go to court if they so desire.

The Parliamentary Secretary is convinced, apparently, that this would not be an improvement inside the framework of the Bill but he has not gone on to tell us in what way it would not. Personally, I cannot see any prospect of endless litigation by giving people who are dissatisfied with an arbitration award the right to go to court. If, as the Parliamentary Secretary says, the arbitration is fair, equitable and just, you will have no litigation and no appeals to the court. If a man gets what is fair and just, he certainly will not risk his money in going further—and going to court is a very great risk. This House should be very slow indeed to take from any man the right to go to court. I do not see in what way it would interfere with the framework of the Bill, or how it would in any way encourage litigation, and I would not advocate the taking of that right away. I do not know exactly in what way the board of arbitrators is selected, but this is not a question—as the Parliamentary Secretary seemed to think at one period—of the Government versus someone else: it is really a question of a local authority versus some individual. Speaking on behalf of both, if you like, I think the right to go to court should remain, where people may be dissatisfied with the arbitrator. I do not see why we should take the right away and would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider the matter.

I wonder if Deputy Brennan appreciates—I presume he does—that an objector has the right to go to court and seek the assistance of the court to prevent the provisional order coming into operation. If there is an objection, the sanitary authority seeks the provisional order but, having got it, they cannot proceed to have it confirmed if the objector persists in his objection.

Mr. Brennan

It is a question of compensation only.

Mr. Brennan

I realise that all right.

If he is materially damaged in his business or trade to such an extent—as it is conceivable that a man might be so damaged—that no amount of money would compensate him, in such circumstances I think we can assume that the court would not confirm a provisional order, so that the scheme would not come into operation at all. Therefore, it is only the question now of the actual amount of compensation that we are withholding from the courts; and we are doing that because special machinery was set up by Act of Parliament for the purpose of assessing damage in circumstances such as these. That machinery has been found satisfactory. In actual fact, the panel of arbitrators would be more experienced in assessing the true values in such cases than even a High Court judge, as they are men of special training in that particular judicial function. They are judges in effect, with that limited scope that they are only called into action as judges in the matter of compensation when land or other such rights are being acquired.

I still think that the system is sound: in practice it has been found to work satisfactorily. Notwithstanding what Deputy Brennan says, I do feel that, if we leave the matter of compensation one that can be determined in the ordinary courts, we will have a spate of litigation. It is all right to say that the courts give satisfaction. They give satisfaction when you win your case and you are fully satisfied; but if you lose you are just as dissatisfied with the court as you would be with the arbitrator.

Mr. Brennan

I am not so concerned at all with the finding of the court— whether it is satisfactory or otherwise for the person who wants to go into court—as I am on the right of the individual to go to court. That is what I would like to maintain. The Parliamentary Secretary has endeavoured to draw a parallel in this with the right which a man has at the moment to go to court against a proposal. I do not think there is any comparison at all to be made there. After all, a man has a right to go to court against the proposal being carried out. That is a separate matter altogether. Then, when the proposal is carried out and in operation, and when damage can be seen and valued, I want him to have the right to go to court, if he is not satisfied with the value.

Does Deputy Brennan appreciate that he has not had that right since 1919?

It is a short period.

Mr. Brennan

If that right was taken away from him, we should take this opportunity to restore it.

He has the right to go to court against the Valuation Office.

But not against the compensation.

Mr. Brennan

I do not see how it is going to interfere with the framework or the spirit of the Bill to take that right from them. It is a question of compensation only, and I have much greater faith in the arbitration system than the Parliamentary Secretary has. It is my opinion that you will not have 1 per cent. appeal cases. The Parliamentary Secretary appears to think there will be litigation cases every day against the awards. I have greater faith than that. It is just a question of taking away the right they should have, and he would be wise to insert it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 15.
(3) In lieu of the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, the following provisions shall apply and have effect in relation to the costs of an arbitration held by virtue of this section to determine an application for compensation under this Act, that is to say:—
(a) if the arbitrator determines that no compensation is payable to a particular applicant for such compensation, such applicant shall bear his own costs and shall pay to the sanitary authority so much of their costs as relates to the application of such applicant;
(b) if the sanitary authority, when giving notice of the relevant proposal or at any other time, has made to any person an unconditional offer of a specified sum as compensation and such person does not accept such offer and applies under this Act for compensation in respect of the matter in respect of which such offer was made and the arbitrator does not award to such person in respect of such matter compensation exceeding the amount of compensation so offered, such person shall bear his own costs and shall pay to the sanitary authority so much of their costs as relates to the application of such person and was incurred after such offer was made.

I move amendment No. 21:—

In page 8, to delete sub-section (3).

Deputy Brennan will welcome this.

Mr. Brennan

Yes, certainly.

We were restricting the powers of the arbitrator in sub-section (3). We are removing that restriction.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
Section 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17.

I move:

Before Section 17, page 9, to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) Any officer or agent of a sanitary authority who is duly authorised in that behalf by such sanitary authority may, subject to the provisions of this section, enter on any land at all reasonable times between the hours of nine o'clock in the forenoon and six o'clock in the after noon for either of the following purposes, that is to say:—

(a) ascertaining whether an adequate supply of water can conveniently be taken from a particular source of water;

(b) repairing or maintaining any pipes, conduits or other works on such land which are used by such sanitary authority for the purposes of a supply of water.

(2) A person entering on land under the foregoing sub-section of this section may do on such land all such things as are reasonably necessary for the purpose for which such entry was made and, in particular, may survey, make plans, take levels, set up gauges to record the flow of water, make excavations, and examine the depth and nature of the subsoil.

(3) Before any person enters on any land under this section, the sanitary authority on whose authority such entry is proposed to be made shall either obtain the consent (in the case of occupied land) of the occupier or (in the case of unoccupied land) the owner or shall cause not less than fourteen days' notice in writing of the intention to make such entry to be given to such occupier or such owner (as the case may be).

(4) Any person to whom a notice of intention to enter on land has been given under the next preceding sub-section of this section may, not later than fourteen days after the giving of such notice, apply to the justice of the District Court having jurisdiction in the district in which such land is situate, on notice to the sanitary authority by whom or on whose behalf such notice was given, for an order prohibiting the said entry on such land, and, upon the hearing of such application, such justice may, if he so thinks proper, either wholly prohibit such entry on such land or specify conditions to be observed by the person making such entry.

(5) Where a justice of the District Court prohibits under the next preceding sub-section of this section a proposed entry on land, it shall not be lawful for any person to enter on such land under this section, and where a justice of the District Court specifies under the said next preceding sub-section of this section conditions to be observed by persons entering on land under this section, every person who so enters on such land shall observe the conditions so specified.

(6) Any person who suffers damage by anything done on any land under this section and, within one month after such thing is done, makes to the sanitary authority on whose authority such land was entered under this section a claim for compensation in respect of such damage, shall be entitled to be paid by such sanitary authority reasonable compensation for such damage and to recover such compensation (when the amount thereof has been agreed upon or has been determined under the next following sub-section of this section) from such sanitary authority in any court of competent jurisdiction as a simple contract debt.

(7) In default of agreement, the amount of any compensation payable by a sanitary authority under the next preceding sub-section of this section shall, if the amount claimed in respect thereof does not exceed twenty pounds, be determined by the District Court or, in any other case, be determined by arbitration under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919 (as amended by subsequent enactments) as if such compensation were the price of land compulsorily acquired.

(8) Every person who shall, by act or omission, obstruct an officer or agent of a sanitary authority in the lawful exercise of the powers conferred by this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding five pounds together with, in the case of a continuing offence, a further fine not exceeding one pound for every day on which the offence is continued.

It is a formidable-looking amendment, but it is really a machinery amendment.

If I have read this amendment correctly, it seems a most amazing proposal. Sub-section (1) starts off by saying that a sanitary authority may enter land between the hours of 9 and 6 for doing two things. One of these is simple—to ascertain whether a supply of water can conveniently be taken from a particular source of water. I think that is reasonable. But (b) states:

"...repairing or maintaining any pipes, conduits or other works on such land which are used by such sanitary authority for the purposes of a supply of water."

As I read that sub-section, if a water main crosses certain land and bursts at 6.10 p.m., it cannot be touched until after 9 o'clock in the morning. The position is made even worse by sub-section (3) because, if the owner or the occupier of the land refuses permission to enter, entry on the land can only be made on 14 days' notice, so that for 14 days the fountain may go on, and the sanitary authority may look at it from the roadside and think what a wonderful waste of water is proceeding. I hope I have misread the amendment, but, if I have read it correctly, I am quite sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that it is a preposterous situation to have.

That is one of the points. The other refers to the hours of 9 o'clock in the forenoon and 6 o'clock in the afternoon, as set out in sub-section (1). They are unreasonable. There ought to be the full 24 hours for (b), but in the other case I think it should be 10 o'clock in the forenoon and 4 o'clock in the afternoon. I would not mind a later hour in the summer, but in winter 4 o'clock is more reasonable.

Quite. There is no point of difference between us in this matter. It is merely a question whether the section can be improved. It is copied verbatim from the Public Assistance Act. Whatever flaws are in it are in the corresponding section in that Act. I shall have this matter examined in order to see if we can improve it.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 18.
(1) Where a sanitary authority is, immediately before the passing of this Act, taking water from a source of water for the purposes of a water supply provided by them under the Public Health Acts, 1878 to 1931, no court shall grant or issue any injunction or order to restrain or having the effect of restraining such sanitary authority from continuing to take water from such source of water at the place, by the method, or in the quantity at, by, and in which they are so taking water immediately before the passing of this Act.
(2) Nothing in this section shall prejudice or affect the right of any person to recover from a sanitary authority damages for any wrongful interference by such sanitary authority with the property of such person.

On behalf of Deputy Doyle, I move amendment No. 23:—

In sub-section (1), page 9, in lines 25 and 26, to delete the words "Where a sanitary authority is immediately before the passing of this Act, taking water" and substitute therefor the words "Where a sanitary authority has been, during the whole of the period of six months immediately preceding the passing of this Act, taking water".

This amendment is merely putting a period in respect of the taking of water. For example, a local authority might come in and say: "We will inspect that place next week, but in the meantime, for three or four days, we will take water from it." We think there ought to be a period and we think six months is short enough. It establishes a bona fide taking the water over a period and it does not give any loophole. It is unlikely a local authority would do anything so shady as that. We ought to have a period which gives them some standing and six months could not be considered unreasonable. If the Parliamentary Secretary would like to consider the matter, we can leave it over.

Could we have a little enlightenment on this section? I know we are not on the section, but I think it is relevant at this stage to have some enlightenment as to what is the purpose of the section. The suggestion behind it, as it stands and as it would be if it is amended, is that there is a certain right which exists and this Bill is going to take that right away. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would explain to us what exactly is that right and why it is going to be taken away and, if there is no such right in existence, why is this section in the Bill at all?

I do not know that I can give an explanation that will fully satisfy Deputy Benson. In fact, what I feel about this section is that it could be over-explained.

Leaving the amendment aside for the moment, with the permission of the Chair, and turning to the section, we find that where a sanitary authority is, immediately before the passing of this Act, taking water from a source of water for the purposes of a water supply provided by them under the Public Health Acts, no court shall grant or issue any injunction or order to restrain them. As Deputies, I am sure, appreciate, the section applies to existing schemes, schemes that are at present operating or that will be in full operation at the time this Act was passed. The section merely ensures that, regardless of any doubt that might exist as to whether the law had been fully and completely complied with and understood in the past, if an objection has not been taken heretofore, when this Bill becomes law all litigation and the seeking of injunctions regarding existing water supplies shall cease. It may appear drastic, if you like but, at the same time, unless the law were found defective, this Bill would not be before the House at all. It has been found, in the case of people who complained of damage, that, so far as the application of common sense and reason could estimate any damage to them, the damage would be nil. But people who, perhaps, live 10, 15 or 20 miles from the source of a water supply are beginning to wake up to the legal possibilities of securing damages from the local authority. Perhaps this very debate will inspire them to increased activity, but at any rate the section is undoubtedly necessary in order to ensure that existing water supplies will not be interfered with by the courts or by anybody else in the future. Since 1878 they have had ample time to seek redress or secure compensation if they were adversely affected by the water schemes.

I will draw the attention of the House to Section 18 (2):—

"Nothing in this section shall prejudice or affect the right of any person to recover from a sanitary authority damages for any wrongful interference by such sanitary authority with the property of such person."

If the sanitary authority in any way exceed their statutory rights, the person affected has still full legal right to go to court and secure damages against them. The sanitary authority are bound under Section 18 not to take more water, not to vary the method or to increase the quantity that they have been taking in the past, before the passing of this legislation. The section sets out that no court shall grant or issue any injunction or order

"to restrain a sanitary authority from continuing to take water from such source of water at the place, by the method or in the quantity at, by, and in which they are so taking water immediately before the passing of this Act."

Now they must continue to take it by the same method, in the same quantity, and at the same place, and I think they are fairly completely bound up in that and that, in return, having been so tied up by Section 18, they are entitled to protection from any injunction or any effort to restrain them from continuing to take the water they were entitled to take under the Public Health Act before this Bill becomes law.

What is the objection that the Parliamentary Secretary has to this amendment, or has he any objection to it? It is perfectly reasonable. It puts a date. It gives a period of six months, whereas, if the present Bill is passed, are they not clear if they take water on the day immediately before the Act is passed? Perhaps I might be permitted to put a particular case to the Parliamentary Secretary. Some 30 years ago it was found that the water from the city watercourse was not getting into the Basin in Basin Lane, and the corporation started work pumping out mud, and so on. Then, later, it was discovered that the water from the canal was getting into the Basin and that that had been going on for a long time. Now, supposing that had happened yesterday, and that this Bill passes into law to-day, the corporation could claim that they could leave that stand and be perfectly entitled to take the water. I do not think that is the Parliamentary Secretary's intention, but as the clause stands now, if passed, the very fact that the water was going in entitles the corporation to take it.

No. The corporation would not be taking that water.

It would not be taking it?

It appears to me that it would. In any case, the Parliamentary Secretary has not dealt with the amendment or told us what case he has against putting in a period of six months.

Mr. Brennan

When this Bill was before the House on Second Reading I was rather suspicious of the reason for its introduction, and I was afraid that there was something behind Section 18, something specific in the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary. I am still suspicious because the Parliamentary Secretary has been unearthing a lot of bogeys here to-night, feeble bogeys, in regard to people asserting rights which they never thought they had. He even said that it was possible that the discussion here now in the House would bring these people to a realisation of their rights. I was rather afraid that the Bill was being introduced to meet some specific case, where some local authority, without, possibly, exercising the care and attention which they ought to have exercised, went ahead with a scheme and then found themselves in the position that there might be litigation over it, and felt this section was going to get them out. What I feel about this section is that we are going to let down somebody between two stools. The Parliamentary Secretary, apparently, says that this section is necessary. Very well, then, if it is necessary, we propose changing the existing situation by this section, but at the same time, in passing this Bill, we are making a certain provision here giving people the right to object. That right cannot be exercised until the Bill is passed, but we are taking the other right from this man by this section, the right which, apparently, he had, and now he is going to have no right whatever. He has not the right of objection until the Bill is passed, and we are going to take whatever right he has at the moment by Section 18. I am not at all convinced by the statement which the Parliamentary Secretary has made with regard to the possibility of a lot of litigation if we do not pass this. This sub-section (2), which gives a man a right to damages, is a different matter of course. Damages, compensation, and the right to go ahead with a scheme are three different matters altogether, and I think the Parliamentary Secretary would need to do a lot better than he has done in order to convince the House.

He could not do that.

Mr. Brennan

I am afraid he cannot. I am afraid the Parliamentary Secretary is taking away a right that somebody has, although that person has not the right which we propose to give him under the Bill. He has not the right of objection which we give him under the Bill. He has a right in law, but we are going to take damn good care that he will not exercise it. We need not go back as far as 1878, the year to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred, but a scheme may be in operation for six months, three months, or even a month, and that man ought to have some right, but the Minister proposes taking that from him. I do not agree with that at all.

I think the Parliamentary Secretary would do well to tell us exactly why this particular section is inserted at all. This section, Deputy Brennan thinks, is going to interfere with or prevent somebody from seeking a legal right where they have been damaged. As a matter of fact, the effect of this section is to stop a person, who has already taken legal action to protect his property against a local authority and who has already got an injunction from the High Court and has also got damages, from asserting his rights so long as an appeal is pending. The Department of Local Government and Public Health, of which the Parliamentary Secretary is the spokesman, hopes that by this section, when the Bill is passed, this man cannot proceed one inch further, although the High Court has already granted him an injunction.

Does the Deputy know of a particular case?

I do well, and so does the Parliamentary Secretary know the case, and when it is said that the person is 18 miles from the source of his supply you can put your finger on it.

Mr. Brennan

So there is a case.

Now, there are people in this country who have rights that are very important to themselves in particular, but that are equally important to their neighbours as a result of the services that these rights can render them. They are various, but I am not going to particularise. I am going to try to generalise from a particular case, because I am not an advocate for either the plaintiffs or the defendants in the case. Here is a man who has a water right to run his mill for the grinding of oats, wheat, and several other things, and a local authority, without consulting him or serving any notice on him, comes along and builds a concrete wall across the source of his supply. That having been done, he draws attention to the fact that they have encroached upon his rights. Then they offer him £50 damages, but he wants the water rights because no money could pay him for the loss of them. If you were to give him an engine you would have to supply him with coal or coke which, under present conditions, would be very little use to him, but this water supply is there and is useful to him. This local authority, as I say, builds a concrete wall across the source of his supply, which does happen to be a considerable number of miles away from him. He then takes an action in the High Court, gets an injunction, and is awarded damages, but an appeal is lodged and, while the appeal is pending, the local authority is proceeding to use that water supply and he cannot do anything. If we do pass this section I want the Dáil to know what they are doing, and on the reading of this section it would appear that he might as well withdraw his case from the Supreme Court as there is no use in his proceeding further. This section, in my opinion, is a dangerous section, and should not be allowed. A person has a right to get damages under sub-section (2), but he can only get damages if the local authority exceeds its statutory rights; therefore, he will get nothing, because no local authority will be allowed by the Department, I presume, to exceed its statutory rights. Therefore, I do not think the amendment exactly meets what I want, but I desire to protest in the strongest possible manner against the section.

Does not the section mean that, if there is a flagrantly wrongful interference by the sanitary authority with the owner, that person cannot obtain any injunction from the court? It seems to me to be contrary to all justice. There is in sub-section (2) definite recognition of the fact that a person is to be entitled to damages for wrongful interference. That must mean, as Deputy MacEoin pointed out, the exceeding by the sanitary authority of its statutory rights under this Act. Surely the two sections are a contradiction of each other? I take it that it is not the intention of the Parliamentary Secretary to give to the sanitary authority protection under sub-section (1) where there has been a wrongful interference. That, surely, is not the intention of the Parliamentary Secretary, but it is, I submit, the interpretation of sub-section (1). Surely, that is not the intention of the section or of the Bill?

Surely, the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that, if there are proceedings pending before a court, it would be inequitable and an abuse of our power to bring in an Act which would prohibit those actions from going on?

Deputy Esmonde suggests —taking Section 18, without much regard to the amendment under discussion, but we have to relate the two—that there could be a flagrantly wrongful interference under Section 18, and that the person interfered with would have no redress. On the face of it, that could not happen.

He has the right to recover damages?

There is more than that in it. They can only "take water from such source of water at the place, by the method, or in the quantity at, by, and in which they are so taking water immediately before the passing of this Act". The section does nothing more than protect existing schemes.

No matter how they got there?

So far as sub-section (2) is concerned "nothing in this section shall prejudice or affect the right of any person to recover from a sanitary authority damages for any wrongful interference by such sanitary authority"—any wrongful interference before the passing of the Act or subsequent to it for that matter. Deputy MacEoin, I am sure, did not deliberately try to mislead the House. He would not do that. I do not suggest that he would, but he is incompletely or inaccurately informed. The case he has in mind has been settled. An injunction has been refused. Damages have been awarded and there is no appeal to a higher court. There is no case pending at the present time that I am aware of.

Did the Parliamentary Secretary say that an injunction had been refused?

Yes. I will make this offer to Deputy MacEoin.

Very well. I will hear the offer first.

I will make this offer. If Deputy MacEoin can show me, between now and the Report Stage, that in fact there is an appeal to the High Court which this section is calculated to prevent, I will undertake to introduce an amendment to rectify that. We do want to protect existing schemes.

Now, what about the amendment?

You do not need the amendment now.

The Parliamentary Secretary will consider that point about the six months? I think it is a reasonable point. It would not affect the issue at all.

We had better have it clean-cut, so long as we are not cutting out anything that is before the courts.

My information is that the case is pending.

Well, we can clear that up.

Amendment No. 23, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 24 not moved.
Section 18 put and agreed to.
SECTION 19.

I move amendment No. 25:—

Before Section 19, to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) In this section—

the expression "navigable water" means any river or canal on which any person is, by virtue of any enactment, entitled to navigate or in respect of the navigation on which any person is, by virtue of any enactment, entitled to receive tolls or dues, and the expression "navigation authority" means, in relation to any navigable water, the person entitled to navigate thereon or to receive tolls or dues in respect of navigation thereon.

(2) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as entitling a sanitary authority to take water in such manner, or from such source of water, or of such amount as to make the navigation of any navigable water impossible or unreasonably difficult.

(3) Where a sanitary authority make a proposal, they may at any time, whether before or after such proposal comes into force, give to the navigation authority of any navigable water written notice of such proposal.

(4) Where the navigation authority of any navigable water is given by a sanitary authority notice under sub-section (3) of this section in relation to any proposal, such navigation authority may, before (but not after) the expiration of 21 days from the giving of such notice, give written notice (in this section referred to as an interference notice) to such sanitary authority that the taking of water in accordance with such proposal makes or will make the navigation of such navigable water impossible or unreasonably difficult.

(5) Where a navigation authority has given an interference notice to a sanitary authority in relation to any proposal, such sanitary authority may alter such proposal by reducing the amount of water to be taken thereunder and—

(a) if such proposal had come into force before such notice was given, it shall continue in force as so altered and this Act shall apply accordingly, and

(b) if such proposal had not come into force before such notice was given, anything done in relation to such proposal in compliance with this Act by such sanitary authority before the giving of such notice shall be deemed to have been so done in respect of such proposal as so altered and this Act shall apply accordingly.

(6) Where a navigation authority gives an interference notice, such navigation authority may at any time withdraw such notice by giving written notice in that behalf to the relevant sanitary authority.

(7) A sanitary authority to whom an interference notice relating to any proposal has been given may apply to the High Court for the annulment of such notice and, if the High Court on such application is of opinion that the taking of water in accordance with such proposal does not make or will not make the navigation of the relevant navigable water impossible or unreasonably difficult, the High Court shall annul such notice.

(8) Where notice of a proposal has been given under sub-section (3) of this section to a navigation authority and either such navigation authority has not within 21 days after the giving of such notice given an interference notice in relation to such proposal or any such notice so made has been annulled by the High Court or withdrawn, it shall not be open to such navigation authority to contend in any court that the taking of water in accordance with such proposal makes or will make the navigation of the relevant navigable water impossible or unreasonably difficult.

The existing provisions of the Public Health Acts do not permit a sanitary authority to interfere with a canal, and it is proposed to protect, similarly, navigable water as regards the taking of water under this Bill. It is not a case for prohibiting altogether the taking of water, and, if there is more water flowing than is required for the needs of the navigation authority, the surplus should be capable of being taken for a water supply. The reasonable requirements of the navigation authority are met and the sanitary authority are prevented from taking water to such an extent as to make navigation impossible or unreasonably difficult. The amendment proposed will afford an opportunity for agreement between the sanitary authority and the navigation authority, if ever the question arises. Should it appear to the sanitary authority that their proposals, for example, may possibly involve taking water from a river from which water is taken for a canal, they will give the navigation authority notice. If the navigation authority consider that navigation will be affected, they will serve an interference notice. The sanitary authority may amend the proposal, or may appeal to the courts against the interference notice, and the court can come to a conclusion in the case having regard to any amendments made by the sanitary authority in its original proposals. An amendment on those lines was referred to on Second Reading. I undertook, on the Second Reading, to introduce an amendment protecting navigation rights. I have tried, in this amendment, to protect navigation rights, and at the same time to permit of the possibility of taking from a canal surplus water that may be necessary for a water scheme and may not be necessary for navigation purposes.

It appeared to me, when I saw this amendment, that the Parliamentary Secretary went a good deal of the way towards meeting the case that was put up on behalf of the Grand Canal Company by Deputy Alderman Doyle, the Lord Mayor. Now, my opinion is that the company is not quite satisfied. Apart altogether from the navigation which is undertaken by the company, and which is rather difficult at the present moment, during the summer—particularly during a period of drought—the company has to take smaller loads on their boats in the higher levels of the canal. The canal's highest level is between the 18th and the 19th lock, and then from the 18th lock it comes down to Dublin very steeply. In that 17 or 18 miles there is an average of a lock a mile. From the 19th lock, which is somewhere beyond Robertstown, it falls down to Shannon harbour. In addition to its ordinary navigation, the company sells water to the Dublin Corporation for brewers and distillers and to the railroads at four different points— Inchicore, Harcourt Street, Sallins and Portarlington; to a factory at Kilmainham, to a factory at Dolphin's Barn, to the Alliance and Dublin Consumers' Gas Company, to builders in Grand Canal Street, to the Glass Bottle Company in Ringsend and five other bodies or factories of one kind or another. Whether a supply is going to constitute a drain on the resources of the company depends very much where the supply will be taken from. The Dublin Corporation takes, I think, over 3,000,000 gallons annually and considerable expense was incurred in putting up filter beds somewhere between the 4th lock and the 7th or 8th lock. I am not sure of the exact location but I have seen them.

There is a feeling that while the amendment is designed to deal entirely with navigation, the fact of the existence of these supplies might be taken as a reason why they should be transferred to the local authority. I do not think the Minister intends that but at any rate, between now and the Report Stage, I should be very glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would look into that point and see whether or not they are covered with regard to those supplies. I think that they supply under statute to the Dublin Corporation. Possibly they are not under statute with regard to the other supplies. As I say, I make no case whatever here—and I think the company would not make a case either—for refusing to supply water if it were there. The objection is that in recent times, by reason of drought, they have not got a sufficiency of water for navigation purposes. I think that we should hesitate before imposing any greater handicaps on a company which is performing a useful function, giving employment, and which is a source of very great convenience to traders, turf producers and industrialists generally. It would be a pity if, in a case of this sort, by reason of legislation we passed here, we were to make it difficult or impossible for the company to fulfil functions they had fulfilled in the commercial life of the country up to date. I shall be quite satisfied if the Minister would undertake between now and the Report Stage to look into this matter and ensure that they will remain unhampered in their normal sources of supply to those concerns I have mentioned. I think that would be as important to them as their navigation.

In drafting this amendment, as the amendment indicates on the face of it, I had in mind, primarily and mainly, the question of safeguarding the navigation rights of a navigation company in navigable waters. In so far as it has been possible, within the framework of the Bill, to protect and safeguard these rights I think the amendment does so. Deputy Cosgrave has now raised other matters which I have no doubt are matters of very serious concern to the Canal Company and perhaps to other navigation companies, and I shall readily undertake very carefully to examine the points and the representations he has made in the matter. At the same time, I want to say that the Canal Company to which Deputy Cosgrave has referred, is clearly deriving a considerable source of its income and revenue from the sale of water. It has become a commercial business with the company, which is getting the water for nothing. It has been very useful to have that water supply available, and it may be very desirable that it should continue, but what we have to bear in mind in relation to these matters is that we have to endeavour to try to strike a balance between the commercial rights of such concerns and the rights of the community as a whole, who may require a pure and wholesome water supply. I felt that if I secured that the navigation rights would not be curtailed or interfered with, or that the navigation would not be made more difficult, that would be meeting all that the Canal Company could reasonably ask me to meet.

I feel now from what Deputy Cosgrave said that I am asked to go a considerable distance further. If Deputy Brennan had not left the House, he would not like, I am sure, to make this type of speech, but if Deputy Cosgrave were not here possibly he would—that we were quite prepared to interfere with the riparian rights of a farmer or, as Deputy MacEoin said, with the rights of the mill owner, and the only redress he had was compensation. In logic and reason, it is hard to see why compensation should not be the only redress for the company, a commercial concern. There is a difference inasmuch as the canal company has certain statutory rights, but it has only statutory rights, as far as I understand the position, in relation to navigation. I do not think it has any statutory rights in relation to taking water or holding water for the purposes of sale. The magnitude of the interests involved is a consideration that one would have to bear in mind. I gather from Deputy Cosgrave that the commercial interests involved in the disposal of water by the Grand Canal Company are very extensive, much more extensive than I was aware of, and one would have to bear that in mind in coming to a decision.

The question is perhaps more important for the firms who get this water supply than it is for the canal company.

That aspect will also have to be kept in mind. Having said so much, I only want to indicate to the interested parties that I thought I had gone as far to meet them as I would be asked to go and that it will be with considerable reluctance I shall place them in a privileged position. Other considerations, however, may be sufficient to weigh the balance on their side.

Amendment agreed to.
Sections 19 to 22, inclusive, agreed to.
SCHEDULE
A copy of the provisional order shall, with all convenient speed, be given by the sanitary authority making the relevant proposals to every person who duly made a valid objection to proposal,....

I move amendment No. 26:—

In page 10, line 6, to delete the words "a valid" and substitute the word "an".

This is merely a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Schedule as amended and Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage ordered for Thursday, 4th December.
Top
Share