If one follows his remarks closely one would naturally be forced to come to that conclusion. Deputy Figgis, while supporting the recommendations of this Commission, and supporting them in a certain section of his speech without qualification, goes on to assume that the Government has not the ability or the desire, or the money at its disposal, to carry out the recommendations of the Commission; and then he says: "I would urge that it is very important to this country that the Government should determine that the canals should be disengaged from the stranglehold of the railways and that the Government should see if any person or persons, failing their own undertaking of this control, are willing to undertake control and run the canals in competition with the railways, that they are willing to lend such a proposition their active assistance." As one who subscribes to the recommendations of the Commission, I cannot naturally be asked to subscribe to that alternative; therefore I cannot associate myself, so far as that part of Deputy Figgis' speech is concerned, with his supporting remarks.
The seconder of the motion said he was only seconding in a formal manner, and he went on to give certain reasons why he was doing so. To show to the Government and everybody else the kind of misrepresentation and ignorance that exists in regard to the findings of the Commission, let me draw attention to what he says: "I do not expect the Government will nationalise the canals. As a matter of fact the farmers were opposed to nationalisation in any shape or form." I assume every Deputy is interested in this matter and has read the report of the Commission. I want to assure every Deputy, including the seconder of the motion, that the recommendations of the Commission do not propose nationalisation of the canals so far as the carrying section is concerned. All that is proposed is that the canals, natural highways as they are, which have been constructed at a very high expense to the taxpayers, should be acquired and made available for the use of anybody who likes to use them as natural highways in the same way as the roads are utilised, provided that those who claim the right to use the canals are prepared to pay tolls that will meet the cost of maintenance and administration.
That is the proposal of the Commissioners, and I cannot help thinking that Deputy Wilson, in seconding the motion, was in complete ignorance of that part of the recommendation. The Commission was composed of five members drawn from different sections of the community, and they were asked to come together and to advise recommendations, not in the interests of the sections they represented, but in the interests of the nation, as to whether or not the canals were of any use to the community. Without the slightest pressure of any kind on behalf of the Commission, or the officials associated with it, we had evidence from eighty witnesses, including representatives of railway companies, big business interests, and people who were concerned in development in this country. That in itself gives some indication to those who have an interest in this matter of the interest taken in it by every section in the community.
If Deputy Figgis is not prepared to father the motion, and if he is ashamed of the child he has produced before the Dáil, then I, as a member of the Commission, am prepared to take it up, though I would prefer the Government would adopt it as their own child. I have no reason to doubt, or even to assume, that they will not do so. One of the main reasons why the Commission was forced to the conclusion that the canals and waterways should be acquired by the State was due to the fact that their acquisition, ownership and control by private companies has hindered the development of trade over those canals, so far as what are known as bye-traders are concerned. In the case of the Royal Canal, which was originally constructed at an expense of £1,421,000, we have seen that when it was acquired it was stated to be in a hopeless financial condition. It was acquired by a railway company at the very modest figure of £289,000. When you realise that the taxpayers contributed to the construction and maintenance of that canal to the extent of £359,777, you can easily understand the shame it is for a company such as the Midland Great Western Railway Co., who acquired that at the cost of £298,000, and by so acquiring it put it out of use, so far as the trading community is concerned.
The representative of the M. G. W. Railway Company stated to the Commission that the capital expenditure was £325,000. That may be so, but this is a fact: Having acquired a concern which originally cost so much money, they proceeded to build their railway between Dublin and Mullingar upon the property originally belonging to the Royal Canal Co. The principal terminus, the Broadstone, is built on what was originally Royal Canal Company property. To show how the concern has been put out of use so far as the general community and traders are concerned, I may be pardoned for having to quote a few figures. The canal was taken over by the railway company in 1846 under certain very definite conditions so far as the maintenance was concerned. In the year 1867 there were 54 boats plying on it; in 1877 there were 36; in 1883 there were 45; in 1892 there were 31; in 1906 there were 22, and in 1923 there were 13. So far as the tonnage is concerned the following figures may be of interest: In 1898 the tonnage was 32,140; in 1905 it was 25,336, and in 1921 it was 11,063. You can now ask yourselves whether or not this reduced tonnage is due to the activities of the railway company, in having acquired the canal in order to put the Canal Co. out of competition with the Railway Co. as such. I do not suppose there would be any good reason for the Government agreeing to the proposal that Deputy Figgis has put before them as an alternative. That is, if they are not prepared to adopt the recommendation of the Commission, they should take the Royal Canal from the M.G.W.R. and hand it over to some company that Deputy Figgis may know of, which may carry out the same policy as the M.G.W.R. have already carried out.
We were told in the evidence before the Commission, by the General Manager of the Midland Great Western Company—and General Managers giving evidence before a Commission of this kind are not necessarily giving their own opinions, but giving evidence on behalf of a body of Directors whose first concern is profit—that the concern as at present circumstanced is of no marketable value. We contend that if it is not of any marketable value, that, then, it will be a very easy matter for the Government to take it over at a very low figure, and to do what is necessary to put this canal in a position that will enable those interested to increase the traffic of the concern as it stands to-day. The General Manager, in summing up his evidence, was asked: "The summary of your evidence, as I have read it, is that the Royal Canal is a useless concern so far as the trading community is concerned," and he stated: "I would rather put it this way: I look upon it that the Royal Canal is of little practical use to the community as a whole. The suggestion I did make yesterday was that if anything in the way or nature of such expenditure was contemplated, that such expenditure would be better employed in being devoted not to the canals but to the roads and railways." I trust the Deputies will understand the reason he was offering that suggestion. And then he went on: "If there is to be money available for development purposes, I personally think that the money available for that purpose, if applied to railways and roads, would be more usefully spent than if applied to canals and waterways, seeing that such a large amount of money has been put into the construction of canals; I think you will have to consider whether it is desirable to increase that amount or to cut your loss. A large amount of public money was used when railways were not thought of. But to spend more public funds because, one hundred years ago, a certain amount of public money was used would be a mistaken policy." And then he goes on to say that the canals served no useful purpose so far as the trading community is concerned.
That evidence is the evidence of a railway manager who is not in this case giving his own personal opinion at any rate in the interest of the country, but the opinion of the directors who are, first and last, interested in the dividend earning capacity of the railway company. Deputy Figgis stated that the ownership and maintenance should be dissociated from the railway and carrying companies. With that opinion I am in entire agreement, but I was in doubt as to whether Deputy Figgis really suggested the taking over of the canal company from the railway company, and handing it over to the State, or to a private carrying company. I hope, in reply to the discussion before this debate closes, that Deputy Figgis will make that point quite clear. I happened to be listening to a debate, or at least listening to a paper being read on a recent occasion in the Rotary Club where the general manager of the Grand Canal Company made a statement in regard to the recommendations of this Commission. I cannot help quoting the statement that he made about this Commission in order to show the ignorance, or pretended ignorance, that prevails with regard to the findings of this Commission:—
"The General Manager of the Grand Canal Company recently protested his inability to understand why the Commission had not recommended the State acquisition of his company's carrying business when it recommended the taking over of the waterway, and urged that it should be the whole or none."
In this he failed utterly to realise or pretended to fail to realise the clear lines upon which the mind of the Commission moved. I am quite satisfied that the General Manager of the Canal Company, when he was making that statement, before the people who were not in a position to reply to him, failed to understand and realise what the recommendations of this Commission were. But no doubt his object in making that statement was to confound the minds of people in regard to what were the real recommendations and wishes of this particular Commission. The Commission, in its recommendations and findings, was unanimous. I presume that is well known to the Minister, and it is a peculiar thing, particularly in the circumstances of the times in which we live, that a body of men drawn from different sections of the community should come to an opinion of this kind. They unanimously agreed that the utilisation of the inland waterways for the purpose of transport is a factor of substantial value in the national economy. I want to ask the Minister whether he subscribes to that finding. If the Minister and the Government for whom he speaks are willing to subscribe to that recommendation, and if, as is the fact, that the present companies who have under their control the canal systems of this country, are either unable or that their financial position is inadequate to put the canals in such a state as will allow the passage of traffic, then I ask the Minister to state what is the alternative?
In the figures which were produced before the Commission it was stated that the amount of money given in grants to the construction and maintenance of the principal canal system of the country amounted to the very large sum of £2,049,684 originally. The cost of the Grand Canal, I think, I have already given. There is another point which I think it is only right that I should draw attention to, and it is this—that the carrying company in control of the waterway is likely to hinder and hamper the free trade of what are known as bye-traders in many respects. I will give you this case to prove what I am stating—in the case of the Grand Canal Company at the present time—and I think this is probably unknown to some people—the company's boats plying over the canal number 58. The bye-traders' boats number 55. That is practically half-and-half, whereas by the figures produced to the Commission it has been demonstrated that the bye-traders, who have a smaller number of boats plying, are called upon to pay 80 per cent. of the cost of maintenance and administration. I say that is an unfair thing, that the carrying companies controlling the system should be enabled, by imposing an unfair charge so far as the cost of maintenance is concerned upon those wishing to use the canal for the purpose of developing the traffic of this country, to hinder competition. Now, in the case of the Canal Company we very often hear what nationalisation may mean to the trading community. We are told on every occasion when nationalisation is proposed that it means doing away with competition. In the case of the Grand Canal Company, so far as the question of competition is concerned, they have entered into an agreement with the Great Southern and Western Company to get from them so many thousands per year, simply because they came to an agreement not to compete with the Great Southern and Western Company for certain traffic at certain points. I tell you this to show you how this competition under private ownership is abused. We had one individual coming before the Commission who informed the Commission that he had got certain boats working on the canal, plying between Dublin and certain points where the Companies' boats were working. And immediately he set out to use these boats, the Grand Canal Company increased the tolls on this particular point so that they might cut this particular trader out of competition with themselves.
The one important thing the Government should take into consideration, that is if they have any idea of carrying out these recommendations, is this: the canals at present are in a very bad condition, and some of them are, perhaps, in a derelict condition, due to the fact that the companies which acquired them under certain very definite conditions have not carried out the dredging work which I think was clearly understood they were to do when they acquired them. That has resulted in a reduction of the carrying capacity of the boats, and consequently an increase in the tonnage rates so far as the rates to traders are concerned. If the canals were in a navigable condition it would mean that the boats would be able to carry a far greater amount of traffic, and in that way the cost of transport would be reduced.
