Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 6 Dec 1960

Vol. 185 No. 5

Transport Bill, 1960—Report and Final Stages.

I move amendment No. 1:—

In line 22, after "flooding" to insert "or the provision of water supplies."

I put this amendment down for the sole purpose of getting confirmation of what the Minister for Transport and Power said last week, that is, that C.I.E., as the present owners of the Royal Canal, could not, without further legislation, terminate water supplies to any farmer now receiving supplies from the company. The Minister said that under the earlier Acts, these water supplies were protected and that C.I.E. would not be able to terminate them. I have been unable myself to verify that anywhere, and I should like either confirmation from the Minister or the insertion of protection of the water rights in this Bill.

I understand there is no particular significance in the phraseology of the section as it stands in the omission of the reference to water supplies. The phraseology as it appears in this Bill repeats that which is contained in Section 24, subsection (23), of the Act of 1958, which is, in turn, borrowed from Section 56, subsection (2) of Part IV of the Transport Act, 1950. The references to drainage and prevention of flooding were included originally for illustrative purposes rather than as exclusive phrases.

I understand that the obligation to supply water imposed on C.I.E. under existing legislation arises, for the most part, as a result of terminable agreements. There is at least one agreement which has not a terminable clause, and there may be more. As far as this legislation is concerned, there is no departure from the existing obligations on C.I.E. for the supply of water from canals. I am also informed that, by reason of the continuation of the operation of the 1958 Act in respect of the Grand Canal, the inclusion of these words might now have some special significance in relation to their non-inclusion in the 1958 Act in respect of water supplies from the Grand Canal. To sum up, the exclusion of the words Deputy Sweetman wants included has no special significance and the obligation on C.I.E. to supply water is not affected in any way.

Amendment withdrawn?

No, sir. I presume I have the right to reply. I think the Minister for Industry and Commerce has not read the discussion of last week. I made it quite clear that I knew there were rights for C.I.E. to terminate these supplies of water but that it was equally certain that so long as the canal had been kept open for navigation water would be in the canal and that the Company would obviously be desirous of getting the extra revenue that supplying water to farmers would produce. Now, there is an entirely different situation—the canal has not to be kept open for navigation and if so the supply of water in that canal may cease completely. If the supply ceases C.I.E. will merely serve three months' notice on the persons concerned. If they do that, it will completely ruin some farmers there.

Last week the Minister for Transport and Power suggested that if there was to be any change in the water level or supply of water C.I.E. could not do it without submitting further proposals. I want a categorical assurance from the Minister to go on the records of the House that if there is to be any change in relation to the position of water in the Royal Canal he will not give his approval to such changes without first making certain that those people who depend for water supplies on the canal will have an alternative supply, I do not say necessarily at the same cost, but at a reasonable cost. If that undertaking is not put on record I am afraid the day will come when somebody in C.I.E. will get the idea that it is a waste of money to keep any water in the canal and will suggest filling it in and, as a result, a very substantial number of people will be broken overnight.

I do not know if the Minister knows that line down by the Royal Canal out to Mullingar but there are a very great number of farmers who get their sole water supply on that line from the Royal Canal. I want to ensure that there will be—and I shall say quite candidly preferably in the legislation itself—specific warning that the water supplies cannot be terminated, or if that is impracticable for the reason that it will cause a difference between the Grand Canal on the one hand and the Royal Canal on the other, an explicit assurance by the Minister— not in any temporary way but on the basis of an assurance governing Ministers as they succeed one another— that nothing will be done to prejudice those people's livelihoods because that is what will happen unless some such step is taken.

I understand that the likelihood, in the first place, of filling in that stretch of the canal with which Deputy Sweetman is concerned is very remote. In fact it is most unlikely to occur at any time. I also understand that it will be the policy of C.I.E. to continue to supply water to those who are entitled to it under their agreements. Being in the most transient position that one can possibly be in as Minister for Transport and Power, I think I can give the assurance to the Deputy that the Minister for Transport and Power, whoever he may be, must be assured that no hardship will accrue by any action of C.I.E. in relation to supplies of water. I do not think I can go further than that.

I think the Minister's assurance is adequate and I am obliged to him.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill received for final consideration.
Agreed to take Fifth Stage to-day.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

This is in fact a Bill to authorise C.I.E. to cease using the Royal Canal. The Minister said something on the Report Stage in regard to C.I.E.'s obligation to maintain certain amenities associated with the canal that they have heretofore maintained but there is one aspect of this to which the House should have regard. I believe the canals are a very valuable potential tourist amenity and my apprehension is that at first glance that may seem to many Deputies to be a somewhat fantastic concept. The special amenity to which I refer is the amenity of coarse fishing, which could become a very valuable element in our tourist trade.

There is so much propaganda about tourism that I think people often get fantastic ideas into their heads as to what it is. It is a very valuable invisible export but the bulk of that invisible export does not come from the very wealthy tourist who arrives here to stay at luxury hotels. There is no doubt they make their contribution, but the bulk of tourist income is derived from emigrants returning to visit their families and from the neighbours of these emigrants who are drawn here for the kind of amenities that they value.

I was in some measure personally responsible for the inauguration of the Inland Fisheries Trust and the development of its coarse fishing branch. I have seen developed in my own constituency of Monaghan a type of tourism quite unknown in some parts of the country. It is based almost exclusively on the coarse fishing available in some of the small lakes in Monaghan and that type of tourist is very largely a resident of the English midlands. Such tourists do not seek extravagant or luxurious accommodation but find the kind of accommodation they get in a country town or in a rural village very acceptable. They are prepared to pay quite a liberal rent —five or six guineas a week—for the accommodation they enjoy. It is a valuable source of revenue to remote rural areas and it is a kind of income that such parts of the country can derive from no other source.

To the average person here the idea that people would travel from Birmingham, or Manchester, or the midlands of England, to fish in a canal may seem fantastic. It is literally true, however, that in the canals in that area, including, I think, the Manchester Ship Canal, a very large number of coarse fishing clubs exist; and it is fantastic, but nonetheless true, that so numerous is the membership of these clubs in these areas that there is a widespread agreement amongst them that they do not bring any fish home at all. If they catch a perch, a bream, a roach, or a dace in one of these canals they always put it back and it is, indeed, not untrue to say that they have familiar friends swimming about in the canal, friends whom they catch regularly, two or three times a month and put back again into the canal.

Where you have enthusiasts of this kind who have, as they have in Great Britain, an annual holiday and you offer to them the prospect of fishing in the very much more agreeable atmosphere of our Royal Canal system as compared with the urban canal system that they habituate during the rest of the year, and add to that prospect that nobody gives a fiddle-de-dee whether they bring the fish home, fry them, and eat them in the evening, or put them back into the canal, then you are offering those people a tourist attraction of very real and dramatic value to them and you will draw them into areas where the relatively modest outlay they are prepared to undertake during their holiday period will be of great value. They will be very glad of accommodation in a country house. They will be very happy, indeed, in the accommodation available in the local public house or over the local shop where the owner may care to set a room and cater for a neighbourly kind of people such as I describe during the summer months.

All of us have seen the tendency for abandoned canals to degenerate into the kind of public scandal that the old canal in the vicinity of the town of Monaghan has now become. I am sure that when the responsible authority got permission to suspend traffic on the old Ulster Canal all sorts of assurances were given that the most solemn obligations would be undertaken by the Ulster Canal Company to maintain that amenity. Then, as the years rolled by, the canal reached the stage at which the Ulster Canal Company became incapable of maintaining the canal and we discovered, when they were found incapable, that it was nobody's duty to maintain the canal. Ever since I have been a Deputy representing Monaghan I have been trying to get the Board of Works, or some body, to do something about the old horror of the abandoned Ulster Canal. It represents the extreme limit of abuse that can result from a statutory authority suspending traffic on a canal. I want to prevent, in relation to the Royal Canal and the Grand Canal with which we are dealing now, a much lesser abuse.

I understand from the Minister there is no thought of authorising Córas Iompair Éireann to abandon the Royal Canal. I ask him to go further than that. I want to see the towpath maintained. I want to see the canal prevented from silting up. I want to see the canal preserved in such condition that it can be made a fishing amenity to be integrated into the general tourist programme. I want the Minister to bear in mind that the Inland Fishery Trust is prepared to stock the canal so long as the canal is kept in a condition which will make it physically possible to maintain a stock of fish in it.

I press for some express undertaking by the Minister on this occasion because bitter experience has taught me that once you begin the slow progress which so frequently culminates in the abandonment of a canal you are on a slippery slope and, by the time people wake up to the distance they have travelled, it is often impossible to reverse the trend. I should like, on the Fifth Stage of this Bill, a specific undertaking from the Minister that he intends to insist that, even if this company are authorised by statute to suspend their navigation operations on the canal, there will remain on them the clear and unequivocal obligation to maintain the canal, at least to the extent indicated by me, as a tourist fishing amenity which will operate to draw tourists to the country for the coarse fishing facilities which it offered in the past and which it should be maintained to offer in the future.

As the Minister responsible for the development of tourism, I can assure Deputy Dillon the case he has made is very dear to my administrative heart, apart altogether from the fact that there is undoubted merit in what he has said. My experience of fishing has been very limited. I think I fished four times in my life, twice for mackerel with a spinner in Cork Harbour, once with a rod and line on the Blackwater, and on one other occasion—I think I told Deputy Dillon about this—when I kicked fish out of the stream at Ownahincha strand with my bare feet; the trout were swept out by the release of water from the flax pond. I think Deputy Dillon was the only one who believed that fishy story because he himself had had, I think, a similar experience.

I can assure the Deputy of the interest of the Minister for Lands in the case he has made. The Minister's enthusiasm for the preservation of fishing is at least equal to that of the Deputy, particularly in relation to coarse fishing. The comparison the Deputy drew between the Royal Canal and the Ulster Canal is not quite in point because the owners of the Ulster Canal, having ceased to operate, left the country and they had, therefore, no further interest in any of the amenities the canal had to offer. This cannot be the case with Córas Iompair Éireann.

I am informed that the Minister for Lands is at present considering the development of all the canals for coarse fishing and for eel fisheries. The closing of the Royal Canal will not prejudice this development in any way. On the contrary, I am informed the closing will assist considerably in the development of the canal for coarse fishing purposes. As Minister for Industry and Commerce, and as the Minister responsible for tourism, I can give to Deputy Dillon an undertaking that the tourist amenities of the canal, with particular reference to coarse fishing facilities, will not be lost sight of and I shall personally take a keen interest in the development, envisaged by the Minister for Lands, of the canal as a centre of coarse and eel fishing.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share