There are several provisions here which bring in County Mayo as a contributing factor and on this section I would like to put the views of the Mayo County Council before the Minister. We object to having to pay anything under this Bill, as we derive no benefit whatever from it. We say that no proper inquiry was held to ascertain who should be responsible for the costs, before the Bill was introduced. The only inquiry that was made by the Department, so far as we are aware, was a letter addressed to the Mayo County Council in 1941, in which the Minister stated that Galway County Council and Galway Corporation did not want to let County Mayo out of its liability under the former legislation.
There is no navigation carried on in County Mayo under this Bill, yet we are asked to pay for something from which we derive no benefit whatsoever. I would ask the Minister to introduce a section, on the Report Stage, or to amend the existing measure, to cut out the liability of County Mayo to contribute anything under this Bill. County Galway derives some benefit from it, as the canal in County Galway serves some purpose to the Galway people, but we are asked to pay money for works being carried on in County Galway and, naturally, we in Mayo object to contributing under those conditions.
There might be some sense in handing over this scheme, or in handing over the rivers affected, to the Drainage Board, as far as the County Mayo is concerned. It might serve some useful purpose to the people of Mayo, but the handing of it over to these trustees under a navigation scheme runs directly contrary to the interests of people concerned regarding drainage in County Mayo, as the water will have to be maintained at a certain level in this navigation scheme. I am sure it is 20 years since the part of Mayo affected by this particular scheme was used for navigation. Some kind of a pleasure steamer used to go up there about once a year, some 15 or 20 years ago, but that has been discontinued for very many years past and Mayo County now has no interest whatever in this particular scheme, though we are being saddled with the cost of it to the extent of one-tenth, under this particular Bill.
We are also left in doubt as to the position regarding the arrears under the old trustees. When we were deriving no benefit under the Bill in the County Mayo, we had no representatives from the County Mayo on the former board of trustees. I understand a considerable amount of arrears is due by the County Mayo under the old legislation and this Bill does not say what is to happen to those arrears. As far as I understand the Bill, it simply transfers to the new trustees all the rights and liabilities of the old trustees, with the exception of their qualifications.
There is another question which might well arise so far as the former trustees are concerned, that is, whether they were proper trustees, whether they had the qualifications under the 1856 Act and whether anything they purported to do was in fact ultra vires their powers under that Act. At all events, if this Bill is passed with this section in it as it now stands, being silent as to the position regarding the arrears, it simply is passing on a burden of litigation between the Counties of Mayo and Galway, without defining the position between them.
The provisions of the Bill as a whole are in direct conflict with the Report of the Drainage Commission. The Drainage Commission, in dealing with this very problem, stated in paragraph 302 of their report:—
"Several of the existing navigations are still nominally maintained, although traffic is negligible and there are no prospects of increased trade as the traffic formerly carried is now more expeditiously dealt with on the roads. To bring some of these navigations to an efficient state would now require a considerable outlay without any compensatory increase in business. The abandonment, however, of these canals or canalised rivers might in some cases leave them available for river discharge and give an increased outlet for floods; in other cases, where interference with existing water rights would not prevent it, the drying out of canals might improve adjacent lands subject to waterlogging."
Under this Bill, it is proposed to keep the canals from the navigation point of view, whereas the drainage report suggested that the canals in this particular area should be dried out, from a drainage point of view. The same report refers to the very canal dealt with under this particular Bill:—
"303. The short canal, 5/8ths of a mile in length, connecting Lough Corrib and the River Corrib with the sea, is a case in point. Over it are five swing bridges built in 1859. Two were renewed last year and the renewal of three more and of the lock gates is contemplated. The total cost of these works is from £40,000 to £50,000, although the only traffic consists of one or two pleasure boats making one passage up or down the canal each year and these boats could easily be lorried to or from the docks at very little expense. If abandoned, the canal will form a very useful drainage channel for dealing with flood discharge."
The Drainage Commission, in respect of the very canal this Bill deals with, suggests abandonment. It suggests that the canal, if used for anything, might be used for flood discharge. Although it is suggested in the Bill that some of the bridges over the canal will have to be taken over by the local authority, the canal will still have to be maintained as a canal. Certain water levels, which will affect drainage and flooding, will have to be maintained.
As far as the County Mayo is concerned, its only interest in this Bill would be on its drainage side. The navigation side of it does not affect the County Mayo at all. If the Bill goes through in its present form it will mean that it will be a hindrance, if anything, to drainage. I would suggest to the Minister that he should provide that the part of the County Mayo affected by the Bill should be transferred to the drainage authority. That, possibly, might meet the position in the County Mayo. As far as the County Mayo is concerned, there is no question of navigation there. There is an old canal that is dry. It was built in the famine times. It forms part of this canal between the Mask and the Corrib. It has been lying there, and there is no water in it. I understand that in those days they had no cement and that when the canal was opened the water disappeared through the fissures. The only time we ever hear about that canal is when somebody's cow falls into it and breaks its neck, and then there is a claim against the county council. That is part of the navigation works under this Bill in respect of which the County Mayo is being asked to make a contribution of 10 per cent. towards the cost. I understand that all the principles in the Bill affect the County Galway solely. If there is a fight between the Galway Corporation and the Galway County Council as to the cost, I do not see why that should affect the people in the County Mayo. There was never a penny spent by the former trustees of the navigation in connection with their functions in the County Mayo, and there never will be a penny spent in it under this Bill. The cost of the bridges that it is proposed to build over this canal is solely a matter for the people of Galway, and it would be absolutely unjust and inequitable if the people of the County Mayo were to be asked to make a contribution for the maintenance of bridges over a canal that is situated in the County Galway, or for the operation of that canal.
The Minister has suggested that, under the Bill, these canal bridges will be passed over to the local authority in Galway. That may be so, but the question of the maintenance of the canal will still be there. We in the County Mayo are being asked to bear 10 per cent. of the cost of the maintenance of the canal, so that if anything arises in connection with the maintenance of it, or if anything falls into it, we in the County Mayo will still be liable under the Bill for 10 per cent of the cost. So far as I know, the people to whom the canal may be of some use and who will derive any benefit from it, are not being asked to make any contribution under the Bill. I refer to the millers who use the canal. I understand there are five or six of them in Galway, and that they use the canal for power and water. There is no mention of them under the Bill. As I see it, the Bill is not wanted either by the Galway people or the Mayo people. If it is necessary to introduce this Bill for the purpose of getting rid of some legal tangle, well and good. The big objection we have to the Bill is that we cannot possibly derive any benefit from it. It does not serve any purpose as far as the County Mayo is concerned. Why, therefore, should we be asked to contribute something under this when we have absolutely no interest in it? Before the Report Stage is reached, I would ask the Minister to make further inquiries as to the old position and, on the justice of the matter, to exclude the County Mayo from the provisions of the Bill. There is no reason why we should have anything to do with it, or why we should be asked to pay anything under it.
