I move amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (3), line 38, to delete the word "may" and substitute the word "shall".
I think it might be convenient if I were to take amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together as they really deal with the same subject. Amendment No. 2 reads:
In sub-section (3), lines 38-39, to delete the words "with such modifications as the commissioners think proper any of the" and substitute the words "all the relevant".
This whole matter was dealt with on the Second Stage and the position was left, to my mind, very unsatisfactory and anything but clear. The real matter of importance is to provide that if the commissioners exercise the rights of acquiring sites under Section 2, they shall be obliged to provide for compensation on the same lines as have been previously provided under the Acquisition of Land Act, 1919, and the Land Clauses Acts. Sub-section (3) provides that an order—that is, not an order made by the Government but an order made by the commissioners—for the purpose of acquiring a site may incorporate, with such modifications as the commissioners think proper, any of the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Act and the Land Clauses Act. It seemed to me, and I am still of the opinion, that the word "may" means "may" there and that it could not mean "shall". But whether that be correct or not, if it is intended to mean "shall", I can see no objection to saying "shall". The really important thing is to provide that it will not be possible for the commissioners to cut out of these Acts things that would prevent compensation on the old lines. If they want to change the method of compensation, that should be done in a Bill and not by an order of the commissioners in each particular case.
If I understand this correctly when a site is being acquired, after negotiations, etc., under this Bill the commissioners will make an order for each particular case. I am not objecting to their having these powers because I recognise that compulsory powers are necessary in the case of public services such as the Garda. In this case it might be to provide houses for Gardaí. Both matters are covered under the section but it is of the greatest importance that any provisions for compensation should be statutory and should not be left to be modified by the commissioners in the particular order in each case. That is the general understanding. I consulted several people outside and I have been approached by some people in connection with the matter. The general impression is that the Bill as it stands would enable the provisions in relation to compensation to be left out. I am not pressing that view because I am assuming that there is no intention to leave them out but these provisions should not be liable to be changed and modified in each particular case. What the Act should do is to give the commissioners power to make an order to acquire sites and to set up a system by which compensation will be settled and which they will have no right to change. The object of the amendment is to ensure that the relevant provisions of the Acts to which I refer shall be included in any order made by the commissioners.