I find that yesterday a certain big gun in the Seanad went off and that somebody was blown up. I am not quite clear as to whether it was myself or the Senator in question. But I find that I was accused of "endeavouring to usurp arbitrary power," and when that was defined it came to this, that there is a statute which provides that the Royal Canal shall be kept in proper condition, and that I had actually refused, in spite of several letters, to carry that provision out, and had made no bones about it. I do not know if it is the atmosphere of light opera that is about town at the moment that has made Senator Colonel Moore take unto himself all the powers with regard to this Act, that he should become the arbitrator as to whether or not certain improvements were desirable, as to whether a particular statute was mandatory, whether I have any discretion under the statute, whether, in fact, the improvements were such as would fit in under the terms of the particular statute to which he referred, and, finally, that I had definitely decided to usurp arbitrary power. There are a great many decisions involved in all this which the Senator brought up in his casual way. He seemed to think that it was incumbent upon him in the discharge of his duties to make this attack upon me, and he apparently considered that the safest exercise of his duties was to make his attack in my absence.
THE ROYAL CANAL. - STATEMENT BY THE MINISTER FOR INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think I may say, in justice to the Senator, that I do not think that was done deliberately. He was more or less led into this in the course of the debate.
What happened was that I mentioned with respect to the Ministry generally that they were very much inclined to take arbitrary powers, and that I knew one Minister who had in my opinion done so, but I mentioned no names and I was very reluctant to mention names until I was forced to do so by the Minister who was present.
I think that is not theway to remedy a difficulty. It is much better to have names mentioned than to have a casual charge made that Ministers were usurping arbitrary power. That general charge was made. I must insist that it was done in my absence, even though the Senator may not have come in with the intention of saying so much as he did say yesterday, because I want to reveal to the House, and I think I can do so without any breach of confidence, that I have asked Senator Colonel Moore, in the course of discussions with him, to put down a resolution on the subject in this House, so that I could meet him openly on the points he was raising in correspondence with me—that certain charges which he was then making in letters should, if he thought fit, be made in the House, and that I should have an opportunity of replying to them.
The Senator has not seen fit to put down a resolution, as I suggested to him, or to get one moved in the Dáil, which was my alternative suggestion, and then there was this statement yesterday. The facts really are simple. There was a Royal Canal Company incorporated by an Act of 1818. By a later Act, the Midland Great Western Railway Act, I think it was, of about 1845, certain powers of control were taken away from the canal company, and handed over to the railway company, with extra supervision by the Lord Lieutenant. Through the passage of various other Acts and certain changed circumstances, the power of control of the Lord Lieutenant in certain matters became vested in the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Certain profits were to be set aside until a fund to the extent of £15,000 accumulated, and from that £15,000 fund repairs and renewals on the canal might be made. But there was a discretion.
The Lord Lieutenant had power to direct repairs when he thought fit and proper, and, secondly, he had the power and the discretion to decide what repairs were indispensable for the preservation of the Royal Canal. These two things had to be decided. That decision now happens, by the passage of time, to rest with the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Repairs are to be directed when that Minister thinks fit and proper; and, secondly, he has to decide what repairs are indispensable for the preservation of the Royal Canal. The Act of 1818 has some repercussion upon the Act of 1845 and down to the present time, because when the two are looked at together it simply means that the position set up by the 1845 Act was that the Lord Lieutenant was to be in the position of safeguarding the interests of the public, as previously certain people had been there to safeguard the interests of the shareholders of the 1818 Company. So that when the two are put together it comes to this, that the discretion of the Minister with regard to the directing of repairs would work down to a very small point. It would mean that the Minister has to act as a prudent director would in ordering these repairs, and that could be defined as ordering repairs where it seemed to him that the repairs were required, having regard to existing and probably future traffic, and to all other circumstances affecting the canal as a separate commercial undertaking.
This matter has been dragged out in correspondence between Senator Colonel Moore and my Department. I think it started about a month after I took up office, and it has continued since. I have not been able to get from the Senator sufficient details on which I could form a fair judgment as to whether these repairs were such as a prudent director would require to be made, having regard to these things, particularly having regard to the probable future traffic. On that point I could get no information whatever from Senator Colonel Moore. In fact, the position became further complicated by this fact, that the Senator required the canal to be cleared because he projected putting a fleet of a particular type of barge upon the canal, and for the provision of that particular fleet of barges he required Government assistance.
I found myself assailed from two sides, "Clear the canal so that I may put my barges upon it," and "Give me money to build my barges to put on the canal which I have made you clear for those barges." That is the position we have been in for many months, for over a year. That the exercise of my power was not arbitrary I think I have shown. That it was not even unjustified is revealed by another circumstance, that just this day I have received a letter from one of the Senator's colleagues withdrawing the original demand made upon me, and modifying it into an application that the board of control should instruct the railway company to cleanse the canal so as to prevent the propellers of their motor barges getting choked by weeds. So that the original big demand which I refused, and which refusal constitutes this undue exercise of power, as the Senator stated yesterday, has now been modified to this, "Clean the canal of a certain amount of weeds."
The Senator has, I am sure, already learned from a letter sent out by my Department, that the canal is cleaned of weeds twice a year, and that the process costs about £20 a mile. The canal is something short of 100 miles in length I do not think there has been any attempt shown here to usurp arbitrary power. The matter is discretionary within the limits that I have stated. I would ask the Senator if he cares to pursue this further to do as I have suggested to him already, to put down a motion and to let the whole thing be debated and threshed out.
I will limit myself at first to what I did state, that the Minister had taken arbitrary power and that he was not carrying out the statute. The Minister has explained the statute. It is laid down that the railway company who were the purchasers of the canal should keep the canal in proper order, and a board of control was set up to state what that proper order was. That board of control acted—or perhaps did not act very much—over a great number of years, but since the Commission on canals sat a board of control was nominated by the Minister.
That board of control, when this correspondence ensued, sent one of its inspectors to inspect the canal. His report was as nearly as possible to this effect, that he had gone on the canal with a motor boat, and that he had been unable to go more than four lengths of his boat without stopping to clear the weeds from the propeller, and that in fact the canal was not navigable for motor boats. Whether a prudent director would order the canal to be cleared of weeds or not of course I do not know, but it seems to me that he would. The Minister stated that he asked me to put down a motion here. We have had a number of motions at various times; I myself have put down several, all of which have been passed, and none of which has had the least attention paid to it by the Ministers concerned.
Does the Senator not remember reading of a prize with regard to industrial alcohol, about which a committee is now sitting?
The exception proves the rule, I suppose. But I moved several motions which were carried unanimously, and none of which was carried out. However, instead of moving one in this Chamber, where I consider it would not receive any attention, I asked the Deputy, whom the Minister mentioned as a proper person to bring it forward, to do so in the Dáil. He attempted to do so but found that he was precluded by certain rules, because some similar motion had already been brought forward. But he has been waiting until the Estimates came up to ask a question with regard to it. The Minister says it is in his discretion to do what he likes in this matter, but Ministers do not know everything. They have to trust to their subordinates and their officials, and I do not expect the Minister to know exactly the state of the canal. He set up a board of control similar to the one set up before, and that board of control made certain recommendations. The consulting engineer makes similar statements to the one I quoted, but the board of control send in a report to the Minister laying down what ought to be done and what should be done to clear the canal. It laid down specifically what part of the canal should be cleared up first. So far as that is concerned, I think the Minister, as a prudent director, would fulfil the desires of his subordinates and would proceed to carry out their wishes. He also said it is laid down as to what reparation should be made. That is true, but the reparation would be recommended in the natural course by the board of control set up. I have never urged that you should go one step beyond that. All I want to see is that the law is carried out. I have repeated, in correspondence with the Minister, again and again, that the recommendations of the board of control should be carried out. The Minister also says he is safeguarding the public. Throughout this correspondence he has evaded the question, as much as he could, of carrying out any improvements in the canal, and he has done so for different reasons.
If the railways were damaged it would be a serious loss to the public, and therefore he must not clear the canal, as it might take traffic from the railways. He sets himself up in an arbitrary way to decide what sort of transport is suitable and what kind is not suitable. At the same time another Minister is preparing to repair the whole roads of the country so that they may compete with the railways. The canal is not to be cleared. At one stage he told me that there was a great body of opinion in this country who wished the canal to be filled up and closed altogether. I am not sure that he advocated that, but he put it forward as a statement. He says in his statement that he has no information as to the future traffic. On the contrary, he was given a full statement as to what traffic they expected, and as to what rates they were going to charge. He was given a statement that our rates should be 20 per cent. below the railway rates, and he was told the number of tons we expected to carry and the amount of profit we expected out of the freight. Large tolls would go to the railway, £7,000 or £8,000, to compensate for any capital sum they would expend. The Minister for Finance would be able to collect large income tax out of those things.
All those matters were put before him again and again. We had two interviews with him. I had an interview with him in company with some Deputies. We discussed the matter with him for over an hour. He was very patient, listened well, and gave a number of good arguments. The whole thing was perfectly useless, however. In letters I repeatedly said: "Will the canal be cleared or not?" We cannot build a boat for the canal unless we know the canal is to be cleared. He mentioned the loan. I said: "All I wanted at that time was that the canal should be cleared by the authorities." Major Millington laid it down, a man who was a former inspector and a member of the board of control. He said he has had letters sent from one of the directors withdrawing from the loan. That is only natural, because for the last six months the Minister refused to clear the canal. We are not the only people who pressed him to do this. The county councils in Leix and in Westmeath had done so. As a matter of fact, boatmen and other people have certain rights on this canal which are being infringed. A great number of people are earning their living, and their rights are being infringed. They complain that they cannot drag their boats on it, and that they have to put on two horses instead of one. They cannot run motor boats on it. Everyone is complaining. In justice to all the people living on the canal who want to get their stuff cheaper by the canal than on the railway, this should be done.
In the case of Ballymahon, there is no railway touching the town. He also says that a gentleman wrote him stating that he only wanted the weeds cleared away. That is quite true. One of our directors resigned, and said it was hopeless in face of the continuous opposition of the Government to get anything at all. This is a very serious matter. As I said in one of my letters, no business can be done if the Minister says "I consider that the law as it stands now ought not to be carried out until I have considered your prospects favourably. The prospects of the company are not sufficient to give profit." Those are his words. If the Minister is going to decide in this way I do not know how anything can be done. We say we take the responsibility and will put in our money. If we lose money that is our own fault. I wish to repeat that I am not anxious to make a personal attack on the Minister. That was my only reason in not mentioning it yesterday when he was not present. It arose casually. Now I am in honour bound to declare what it was. I know he thinks he is acting for the best in this matter, but I do not think he is acting wisely. That is a matter of opinion. Even if he clears the weeds that will be something done.
It would appear from what the Senator said that the Board of Control had, taking the Senator's reading of the Act, said to me, "You are bound to clear the canal. Here is an estimate of the work required to put the canal into proper order." The board of control said nothing of the sort. It said, assuming that you are acting in the guise of a prudent director, and that you are going to make this canal suitable for boats of a certain type then the following will be required. That left outstanding the point always outstanding, to which I referred in my last letter to the Senator. On the 7th May I stated—
The outstanding feature of the matter is that so far as my information goes your prospective services will be a much less economical form of transport in the industrial and commercial conditions existing, or prospective, in the area served, than the transport services at present available.
So long as that is the particular point of view I have, I do not see how I can make the railway company incur the expenditure which the Senator's proposal would entail. The Senator has spoken for a considerable time, apparently, backing out what he said yesterday, that I had refused to carry out an Act of Parliament. If there is an Act of Parliament saying that I have to do certain things, and that it is peremptory on me, then I can be forced to do those things. There is a definite way of getting that done. It is obvious from the Senator's remarks that is not the case. He recognises there is a distinction. His only point is that I refused to be bound by his argument as to whether or not, regarding the existing and probable future traffic, there is going to be anything served by this fleet of barges. I wish to make clear that that is the only point at issue. The Senator said I have refused to carry out the provisions of a Statute. The atmosphere surrounding that is that there is an Act that provides that certain action shall be taken, and that I set myself up in defiance of an Act of Parliament and say it will not be done. That is not the case, and as long as this is clear I leave the Senator's argument until they raise it here or in the Dáil.
May I quote from the Act of Parliament?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
We cannot gain anything by this. It is a question of construction. You construe it one way and the Minister construes it another. The discussion must now close.