Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 10 May 1927

Vol. 8 No. 25

DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS (BRIDGE) BILL, 1927. - BARROW DRAINAGE BILL, 1927—REPORT.

Mr. BROWN

The following amendment stands in my name:—

"Section 8. Before sub-section (5) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

"(5) (a). The foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply to the compensation (if any) to be paid to the Grand Canal Company in respect of permanent injury to the navigation of the River Barrow and the Canals connected therewith by the execution of the said works.

"(b). On the expiration of five years after the works to be executed under the scheme shall have been completed, the Grand Canal Company may require that the questions whether any permanent injury has been occasioned to the said navigation by the execution of the said works and whether any permanent benefit has been occasioned to the said navigation by the execution of the said works shall be referred to the arbitration of a competent engineer appointed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and such engineer shall also determine whether any and, if any, how much compensation is payable to the Grand Canal Company in respect of such permanent injury (if any) after taking into consideration such permanent benefit (if any). The costs of both parties of such arbitration shall be in the discretion of the said arbitrator."

The House will recollect that the object I had in putting down this amendment in Committee was to give the Canal Company five years after the completion of the work, for the purpose of ascertaining exactly what damage had been done to their navigation. If the term ran for five years from the draft award they might not discover in the meantime what damage had been done, because the real damage they feared was the damage from an extremely wet year. I proposed that the arbitration should not take place for five years after the completion of the work. On the Committee Stage the Minister raised the objection that there were financial difficulties in the way which would practically make that impossible. I have discussed the matter with the Minister since, and I am satisfied that the objection is a sound one. I am also relieved to know that the work will not be finished for something like 2 or 3 years. In the meantime a good deal of the damage—perhaps all if there happens to be a wet year—that the Canal Company will suffer in that time will have been done. It is not practicable to carry this amendment, and I do not move it.

Amendment not moved.

The following Government amendment was agreed to:—

Section 8. Before sub-section (5) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

"(5) When all the works to be executed under the scheme have been completed and before the draft award is published the Grand Canal Company may require that the compensation payable to them in respect of permanent injury to the navigation of the River Barrow and the canals connected therewith by the execution of the said works shall be assessed under this sub-section and if such requisition is so made the foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply to the assessment of such compensation and in lieu thereof the questions whether any permanent injury has been occasioned to the said navigation by the execution of the said works and whether any permanent benefit has been occasioned to the said navigation by the execution of the said works shall be referred to the arbitration of a competent engineer appointed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and such engineer shall also determine whether any and, if any, how much compensation is payable to the Grand Canal Company in respect of such permanent injury (if any) after taking into consideration such permanent benefit (if any). The costs of both parties of such arbitration shall be in the discretion of the said arbitrator."

Mr. DUGGAN

This amendment was put down to meet the point raised by Senator Brown and covers what he was anxious to get in under his amendment.

CATHAOIRLEACH

There are a number of amendments standing in the name of Senator Brown all to the same effect.

Mr. BROWN

The following are the amendments.

Section 27, sub-section (1). After the word "bridge" in line 54 to insert the words "or any canal bridge or canal works."

Section 27, sub-section (1). Before the word "bridge" in line 57 to insert the words "or canal."

Section 27, sub-section (1). Before the word "bridge" in line 59 to insert the words "or canal."

Section 27, sub-section (1). Before the word "bridge" in line 60 to insert the words "or canal."

Section 27, sub-section (1). Before the word "bridge" in line 62 to insert the words "or canal."

Section 27, sub-section (1). Before the word "bridge" in line 65 to insert the words "or canal."

Section 27, sub-section (1). Before the word "bridge" in line 66 to insert the words "or canal."

Section 27, sub-section (1). Before the word "bridge" in line 3 to insert the words "or canal."

Section 27, sub-section (1). Before the word "bridge" in line 5 to insert the words "or canal."

The object of these amendments was to give the same kind of protection to the canal company as the railway got under the section as it stood in the Bill. I have since ascertained that the only real work on the canal which is likely to be interfered with is an aqueduct which is going to be underpinned. None of the bridges which are road bridges over the canal are likely to be affected. I do not move the amendments as the Minister has put a provision in the next amendment to meet me.

Amendments not moved.

The following Government amendment was agreed to:—

New section. Before Section 28 to insert a new section as follows:—

28—If and in so far as the scheme provides for the diversion, removal, or other interference with any aqueduct carrying a canal or other navigable waterway the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say—

(a) the Commissioners shall at or before the completion of the work specified in the scheme either restore the aqueduct to its former condition or construct a new permanent aqueduct sufficient to carry the like amount (in quantity and character) of navigating traffic as the original aqueduct was able to carry and not substantially less convenient in gradient, curve, and depth than such original aqueduct;

(b) if any doubt, dispute, or question shall arise as to whether the Commissioners in the restoration or construction of an aqueduct pursuant to this section have complied with the provisions of this section, such doubt, dispute, or question shall be decided by the Minister for Industry and Commerce whose decision shall be final and conclusive.

Mr. DUGGAN

I put down this amendment to cover the point that was mentioned by Senator Brown. I think the Senator is satisfied that the amendment meets his point.

Mr. BROWN

I am.

CATHAOIRLEACH

That concludes the Report Stage of this Bill but the House may recollect that Senator Barrington stated he had an amendment that he considered was an important one, and which he was anxious to move. I did not like to deprive him of the opportunity of doing so, so, with the indulgence of the House I shall hold over the Report Stage until to-morrow for the purpose of receiving Senator Barrington's amendment.