On Second Reading, certain points were raised about the liabilities of C.I.E. in relation to the Royal Canal and while the Minister indicated that he believed they were covered, he arranged to look into them. The point about which I am most concerned is one which is not mentioned at all in Section 1. The practice has grown up over the years to supply water from the Royal Canal to farmers out as far as Maynooth under a terminable agreement.
The agreement is, without question, terminable in theory. In practice, so long as the canal remained a navigable waterway, it is quite clear the owners would have been delighted to get the extra revenue from supplying water. So long as it remained navigable, they would be naturally anxious to get any additional profits they could. But once it is closed to navigation, as this Bill authorises it to be closed, there may not be the same anxiety to retain water in the canal and the position may well arise that C.I.E. would terminate the existing agreements for the supplies of water to the neighbouring farmers.
If they did that—and they may possibly have the right to do it legally—I know certain farmers who would be ruined overnight because there is no other method of their getting water supplies and they have got them in this way not merely for decades but for fifty years and upwards in many cases. I think the Minister will find that virtually all the accommodation land on which cattle are kept on nights before the Dublin cattle market takes water from the Royal Canal under these agreements with C.I.E.
I want to be assured by the Minister that in closing the canal to navigation, not merely will the existing rights in respect of flooding and of road authorities—which are provided for in this Bill—be retained, but that there will not be any termination of the agreements by which water is supplied, at fees, of course, to the persons mentioned. I think it is significant that although C.I.E. are aware of the existence of those rights, there is no mention of them whatever in this section, though there is reference to our obligations in respect of flooding and of drainage. Why if this is so, why if the Minister's view as expressed during the Second Reading is correct, is there no mention of the legal obligations entered into for years and years to supply water to those people, and why is there not a saving section in the Bill?
