Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 Dec 1941

Vol. 85 No. 8

Committee on Finance. - Water Supplies Bill, 1941—Report and Final Stages.

I move amendments Nos. 1 to 4 inclusive:—

1. In page 8, lines 56 and 57, Section 17 (1), to delete the words "between the hours of nine o'clock in the forenoon and six o'clock in the afternoon" and to delete in page 9, line 2, the words "on such land".

2. In page 9, Section 17, to insert before sub-section (3) a new sub-section as follows:—

Save for the purpose of carrying out urgent repairs, no person shall enter on any land under this section between the hours of 6 p.m. on any day and the hour of 9 a.m. on the following day.

3. In page 9, line 10, Section 17 (3), to insert before the word "the" the words "for a purpose other than the carrying out of urgent repairs".

4. In page 9, to add at the end of Section 17, a new sub-section as follows:—

In this section, the expression "urgent repairs" means repairs the immediate carrying out of which is necessary to prevent a stoppage or diminution of the relevant supply of water or to prevent serious injury to persons or property.

Those four amendments hang together. They are introduced to meet points raised by Deputy Benson on the Committee Stage. The effect of the amendments is that if the sanitary authority require to execute urgent repairs, that is repairs which are necessary to prevent a stoppage or diminution of the relevent supply of water or to prevent serious injury to persons or property, they may enter on the land at any hour. Under the Bill they could not enter between the hours of 9 o'clock in the forenoon and 6 o'clock in the afternoon.

Amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, put and agreed to.

In regard to amendment No. 4, it seems to me that the Minister is not going quite far enough there. He is defining urgent repairs as repairs

"the immediate carrying out of which is necessary to prevent a stoppage or diminution of the relevent supply of water or to prevent serious injury to persons or property".

It appears to me that you might in a very large main have quite a considerable burst which would not necessarily have any of these effects. It might not diminish the water supply or it might not creat serious injury to persons or property. I would suggest that when the Bill is in the Seanad the Parliamentary Secretary might add some such words as "the prevention of a waste of water".

I cannot conceive of a burst that would not create a diminution in the water supply. However, I shall look into the matter as the Deputy suggests.

It might be a 2-inch burst in a 24-inch main and it would not seriously diminish the supply.

I would say that even if there is only a 2-inch hole in a 24-inch main it would involve a diminution in the supply. However, I shall look into the matter.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendments Nos. 5 and 6, which hang together:—

5. In page 10, Section 20 (4), to insert in line 47 before the word "the" the words "such navigation authority are of opinion that" and to add to line 50 after the word "difficult" the words "and shall include in the interference notice a statement of their reasons for being of that opinion".

6. In page 11, Section 20, before sub-section (6), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

A sanitary authority to whom an interference notice relating to any proposal has been given by a navigation authority shall consider the objections of such navigation authority to such proposal and shall negotiate with such navigation authority for the withdrawal of the interference notice.

The navigation authority will tell the sanitary authority its reasons for thinking that the proposals would affect navigation. The sanitary authority must consider the objections of the navigation authority and negotiate with the navigation authority. In these circumstances, it is reasonable to anticipate that the necessity to resort to litigation in the courts will not arise.

We are not so clear about the terms of amendment No. 6 which seem to be rather odd. I cannot recall any precedent for placing a statutory obligation upon a public authority to negotiate. What exactly does the Parliamentary Secretary mean when he says:

"A sanitary authority to whom an interference notice relating to any proposal has been given by a navigation authority shall consider the objections of such navigation authority to such proposal and shall negotiate with such navigation authority for the withdrawal of the interference notice."?

Does that mean that they can go through the form of negotiating, then break off the negotiations and revert to the status quo ante?

Quite. The intention is to put a statutory obligation on the sanitary authority at least to establish contact with the navigation authority. The anticipation is that when the parties get round the table to discuss the matter, they will probably adjust their difficulties without having to resort to litigation. Should they not resolve their differences the sanitary authority will presumably bring the navigation authority to court to have the interference notice annulled. There is probably not a lot in the amendment, but I have put it forward following discussions with a navigation authority. They seemed to base a good deal of hope as to the outcome if we provide them with an opportunity of getting into actual contact with the sanitary authority, if difficulties should arise.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill as now amended be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

I should like, if the House has no objection, to take the Final Stage now.

Agreed.

Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.
Top
Share