Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy debate -
Tuesday, 25 Jun 1996

SECTION 14.

Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. S. Brennan

Section 14 gives CIÉ the power to enter upon land for the purposes of carrying out works authorised under the light railway order and makes provision for the serving of notice on the owner of such land. The Minister will remember that when we dealt with section 2, which authorised CIÉ to enter property for the purposes of making inspections, I put down an amendment to make specifically clear that, while CIÉ officials could enter the curtilage of property, they could not enter dwellings. The Minister, who showed some sympathy with that point, made a technical argument about whether I could reintroduce the amendment. I am waiting patiently for Report Stage to see whether the Minister introduces anything. I am somewhat sceptical, but we shall see what happens.

However, this section allows CIÉ officials to enter and occupy land for the purposes of constructing the railway. The previous argument on section 2 is relevant to this section also. Is it the Minister's intention that CIÉ officials would not enter dwellings because there is no need for them to do so? Will she introduce an amendment on Report Stage to ensure that does not happen? Will she bring forward an amendment on Report Stage to amend section 14 or section 2 to render it illegal for CIÉ officials to enter property without proper High Court procedures?

Chairman

We have already discussed that matter.

Mr. S. Brennan

It applies to section 14 which deals with entering land.

Mrs. Doyle

This section gives CIÉ power to enter land to carry out works authorised by a light railway order. As we know, the concept of land includes a dwelling house. In his contribution on Second Stage of the original Bill, Deputy Brennan pointed out that the precedent in the Bord Gáis legislation could usefully be employed in this Bill. That has now been done in this section, although the Deputy would like to give the impression that we did not take on board any of the points made by the Opposition.

Section 14(b) has been changed to provide specifically for entry on land by consent. Where such consent is not forthcoming for whatever reason, the Board will have power of entry after serving 14 days notice on the owner or occupier. However, except for cases involving risk to life or property, the owner or occupier of the land may apply to the District Court for an order prohibiting entry. The District Court may prohibit entry to impose conditions on CIÉ. I will not be amending that to read "High Court" on Report Stage because I am satisfied the District Court is the suitable jurisdiction. Where any loss or damage results from the exercise of CIÉ's powers to enter on land to carry out works, there is provision for the payment of compensation to the owner or occupier and for arbitration where there is no agreement on the amount of compensation. The compensation provisions do not extend to persons indirectly affected by the works.

Mr. S. Brennan

In this legislation the Minister is allowing officers of the Board of CIÉ to enter dwellings for the purposes of carrying out surveys or to construct the line without the consent of the owner of the property. Has the Minister taken constitutional advice on this matter?

Mrs. Doyle

The owners can go to the District Court if they do not reach agreement with the officers to enter their premises. The decision of the District Court will then apply.

Mr. S. Brennan

Should the onus not be on CIÉ to go to the District Court to get permission to enter the house? If CIÉ officials are in a person's living room, there is no point going to the District Court.

Mrs. Doyle

They will not push the door in. If consent is not forthcoming, having served 14 days notice on the person, it will be taken to the District Court.

Mr. S. Brennan

The Bill does not state that. It states that an individual may go to the District Court.

Mrs. Doyle

Yes.

Mr. S. Brennan

CIÉ should go to the District Court.

Chairman

We discussed that point at length during our discussion of the Deputy's amendment.

Mr. S. Brennan

It is loaded against the individual.

Mrs. Doyle

It is a question of the common good.

Mr. S. Brennan

The national interest?

Mrs. Doyle

Yes.

Chairman

We have already discussed that point.

Mr. S. Brennan

They are two different sections.

Chairman

I understand that parliamentarians will use every means possible to make their point. However, when the point has been made at least six times, it is time for me to draw the line.

Mr. Gregory

Section 14(3)(a) states:

Where an owner or occupier of land (other than a person whose land is acquired under section 13) suffers loss, injury or damage or incurs expenditure in consequence of the exercise by the Board . . .

If the board enters on to land adjacent to a property owner with the result that access to business is restricted or permanently impaired which causes that person to lose their business, does this section provide for compensation? If not, why not?

Chairman

That is another point we have already discussed.

Mrs. Doyle

I have answered that already.

Mr. M. McDowell

The answer to Deputy Gregory's point is that it is only for the purpose of this section which deals with carrying out the works. However, a person might argue they had suffered loss as a result of this. It should be left to somebody who wants to make a claim.

Mr. Gregory

It may be for the purposes of carrying out the works. However, when the works are complete, access to businesses in some circumstances will be so restricted there may be an opportunity for the business person to make a claim.

Mr. M. McDowell

I agree with Deputy Gregory. If the works close down a street for a year and the occupier of land beside that street wants to make a claim, subsection (3) seems to allow them to do that. I am not against that and I am glad the Minister is being generous. However, he indicated he would not offer compensation to anybody, so it is interesting that the Bill proposes it.

Section 14(1)(a)(iv) seems to suggest that if a person owns a property in Harcourt Street, the Board can attach cables to the front of their house rather than using posts. It worries me that there is no control over what can be done. The section also states: "and do on any such land all such other things as are, in its opinion, ancillary to, or reasonably necessary for, the purposes aforesaid". This suggests the Board could decide to use the person's house to hold the brackets and it will modify it to ensure the front wall does not fall down. That provision is heavy handed, especially when it is not stated in Statute that standards, rather than people's houses, should be used. I accept that standards with wires between them look more ugly than neat brackets attached to the front of people's houses but there are other implications.

Mrs. Doyle

I am advised this is an option during the construction phase of the light rail but that common sense will apply. The board will not reconstruct the front of certain houses just to attach cables to them. If it wanted to do that, it would erect a pole and attach the cable to it.

Mr. M. McDowell

The Board will do whatever is cheapest.

Question put and agreed to.