I move that the Railway Fires (Amendment) Bill be read a Second Time. As compared with the Principal Act, this Bill proposes to give improved conditions to the owner of land whose property has been damaged. It proposes to increase the amount that may be claimed from £100 to £200, and it is not necessary to prove negligence on the part of the railway companies. It also makes another minor change. It gives additional time for the preparation of a claim; it increases the time from fourteen to twenty-one days during which the detailed claim may be served on the company.
Railway Fires (Amendment) Bill, 1931—Second Stage.
Since this Bill was circulated, I have had time to look up only the Principal Act. I am not clear as to the purpose why there should be any limit to the amount that may be claimed from a railway company as to the damage done by fires or sparks from the locomotives. Presumably, there was some reason for the limit in the Principal Act. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will explain it. The Parliamentary Secretary stated that one of the purposes was to remove the necessity for proving negligence. What section of this Bill is designed to that effect, to the proving of negligence against the railway company? Was it necessary under the Principal Act to prove negligence, and if so which section of this Bill removes that obligation?
Under the Principal Act, the claim can be made up to £100 without proof of negligence. If the owner of land can prove negligence against the railway company he can claim up to any amount of damage. There is no limit to the amount of damage that can be claimed. The ordinary claim for damage could be made under the Principal Act of 1905, and it could be made up to £100. Having examined the position as it is to-day, the Department of Agriculture have come to the conclusion that, particularly, in view of the re-afforestation that has taken place, and the fact that a large number of plantations have been planted along the railway lines, this figure of £100 should be increased. So we are giving more favourable conditions now to the owners of land. A claim can be made now for £200 without proving negligence, but the same condition that is in the Principal Act, the same terms are continued that you can claim for any amount if negligence is proved.
Are there many of these cases arising? How many claims of the kind have been dealt with during the past few years?
There have been certain claims. Of course, the principal matters that concern the Department are the afforestation plots in Counties Wicklow, Leix, Tipperary, and Galway. The railway line passes along by these plantations. I have not particulars of the number of claims. They are not very considerable, but are of sufficient importance to induce us to introduce this legislation, increasing the amount from £100 to £200.
Has the railway company been notified of the intention to bring in this Bill, and have they made any representations against it?
We have been in consultation with the railway company. They have been notified that the Bill has been introduced, and are agreeable to its terms. As a matter of fact, similar legislation is in operation in England for some time.
Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 25th June.