Vol. 18 No. 18
I move:
Go n-aontuighidh an Dáil leis an Seanad ina Rún a cuireadh in úil don Dáil an 24adh lá d'Fheabhra, 1927, go bhfuil sé oiriúnach Có-Choiste den Dá Thigh do cheapa chun Bille Port agus Duganna Bhaile Atha Cliath (Droichead) 1927, do breithniú.
That the Dáil concur with the Seanad in their Resolution communicated to the Dáil the 24th day of February, 1927, that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to consider the Dublin Port and Docks (Bridge) Bill, 1927.
I regret I have to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. This is a Private Bill, and to pass the Second Reading would mean accepting the expediency of the Bill, granted that the allegations as to the facts in the Bill can be proved.
To pass the Bill would commit us to the principle of reconstructing Butt Bridge, and from information at our disposal it is not considered that a bridge on a site so far west as Butt Bridge would enable the traffic to be dealt with satisfactorily — in other words, that a bridge much more east than Butt Bridge would be required to deal with the traffic difficulty. In opposing this I am not concerned with what has appeared in certain publications — with the proposal to make a parking place for motor cars in the present Custom House Docks. I do not believe that is a practical proposition. To make it a practical proposition it would be necessary to cover in the docks, which would be a very expensive proceeding. A roadway would be required to portion of it, and I am not in a position to say where the money is to come from for that particular experiment. We must, I think, take into consideration in connection with this Bill the extension that has taken place in the city during the last fifty years. Butt Bridge was constructed about fifty years ago. At that time probably the site of the bridge was suitable. Considerable changes, however, have taken place since then. One can get a better idea of the changes when it is remembered that the Custom House was at one time on the south-east corner of Grattan Bridge. Since that time what was called the Rory O'More or O'Connell Bridge has been constructed, and Butt Bridge was also constructed since that time. I do not think it is necessary to go into the merits of the particular bodies concerned in this, although I must say I regret very much that I feel called upon to oppose a Bill promoted by an important local authority in the Metropolis. This particular local authority has control of the bridges. The bridges when constructed are paid for by the municipality of Dublin, and at least to some extent by the Dublin County Council. In other words, the Port and Docks Board promotes the Bill, provides for the flotation of whatever loans are required for the work, and gets paid in return for the cost of the Bill, and the cost and maintenance of the bridge, by the citizens of the City and County of Dublin. My objection is based entirely on the proposed site of the bridge. I am satisfied from my examination of the problem that the site is not far enough east, that the bridge would require to be constructed some 200 or 300 yards further east in order to relieve the traffic.
A census of traffic taken in 1923 and again in 1925 shows an increase of something like 60 per cent. in important centres in the city. The traffic problem of the future, even if the increase does not continue at that rate, is going to be a very serious one, and it is a matter for serious consideration whether the sum of £90,000 should be spent on a bridge on the present site. I understand there were conferences between the Commissioners of the City of Dublin, the Port and Docks Board, and the Public Works Department. My information is that at that time the estimate for the bridge was about £40,000, while the present estimate, I am informed, is about £90,000. If the bridge be constructed as is proposed in this measure it may delay the construction of a bridge at a more easterly point, and I cannot emphasise too strongly the views that have been placed before me by those responsible for regulating traffic. I need hardly say that the cost of regulating traffic has increased very considerably in the last few years.
I wish to support the view put forward by the President on this important matter. The position of bridges in the city must, as he insists, be considered primarily from the point of view of future traffic. The traffic problem, owing to the development of transport in recent years, is a notoriously difficult one in all the great cities, and the cost of regulating traffic in the City of Dublin has, it is well known, increased very much along with the difficulty. This proposal to rebuild Butt Bridge on its present site would not relieve congestion in the precise points at which congestion is most felt and where it militates against the welfare of our Dublin traders. There is a bottle-neck at College Green, and through that passes, at certain hours of the day, a huge volume of traffic from the docks. The reconstruction of Butt Bridge will not relieve that pressure; it will merely provide an avenue of approach for more traffic into that bottle-neck. As a sequel to this reconstruction, I understand it is intended to widen Tara Street. That would be a costly business, and it will merely bring relief to one small portion of the city streets, while enhancing the difficulties opposite Trinity College and the Bank of Ireland.
It is quite feasible, as the President suggests, to construct an entirely new bridge in a new situation further east of the Custom House. The objection to that that occurs to the man in the street is that it would impede shipping, the arrival and departure of steam boats. Anyone who is acquainted with the way in which those problems have been solved in continental ports is well aware that, for example, at Rouen there is a transporteur bridge — a mechanical arrangement is devised giving a moving platform or ferry, and vehicles and foot passengers go at street level on to that and are conveyed across, and there is not the slightest impediment to shipping. A replica of that was constructed at Newport, called the transporter bridge. A construction of that type is less costly, much more efficient, and provides the further facility of leading up to the clearing of practically derelict property and slums and getting an egress in the neighbourhood of Lombard Street. So that with such a bridge it would be possible to have a straight run practically from Clontarf district, through Amiens Street, right along one continuous thoroughfare out to Ballsbridge.
In view of those possibilities it would be utterly wrong to sanction the expenditure of a huge sum on a proposal which does not take account of the existing conditions, and, what is worse, does not take account of future development. The proposal is bound up with the whole question of town planning, and what the City Commissioners are thoroughly alive to is the urgent need for the setting up of a town planning authority. It would anticipate town planning and would frustrate proper town planning if this Bill were allowed to go through.
I find myself in a somewhat difficult position, because as a member of the Port and Docks Board I am called upon to justify the proposal of that Board in face of opposition from the President, followed by opposition from Deputy Magennis, who sits for a Dublin constituency. The difficulty in connection with this matter is that the majority of Deputies are not in a position to form a proper judgment even on any argument I may put forward or that is put forward by the President on a matter which is really a domestic one concerning the City of Dublin, the Port of Dublin, and the area surrounding Dublin. The ordinary procedure in connection with Private Bills is that a Second Reading is taken as a matter of course, and all the arguments for and against are thrashed out in Committee. The President contends that the Bill should not be submitted for examination to a Joint Committee. It seems to me, apart from the merits or demerits of the Bill, that this is a somewhat drastic method of dealing with a Bill promoted by the Dublin Port and Docks Board after consultation with the other bodies, particularly the City Commissioners, and after an agreement had been come to on the matter before the Bill was promoted. But, of course, I could not expect to carry the Bill in face of the opposition that is manifested, nor do I think it would be desirable that the Port and Docks Board should persist with the measure when it has been received by the House in this spirit. I would like, however, to go as briefly as possible into the merits of the case, as a member of the Port and Docks Board who has, for the past twenty years, urged and impressed, on every occasion that presented itself, the necessity for rebuilding Butt Bridge. The bridge was originally constructed as a swing bridge for the purpose of preserving the river for shipping west of it. The bridge was built in 1877, but shortly after it was built the project called the Loop Line was initiated, connecting by rail Westland Row and Amiens Street stations. The building of that line definitely confined the limits of the Board to the east of Butt Bridge, because the Loop Line became an obstruction which could not be negotiated by ships, and therefore the upper reaches were permanently thrown out of use as far as port purposes were concerned, and could only be used for navigation by small craft, such as Messrs. Guinness's lighters.
Everybody who knows Butt Bridge will recognise that it should never have been erected as it is, that it is quite unsuited to the changed order of traffic and conditions, and is quite unable to deal with the traffic going over it. Objection is raised to the Bill on account of the idea, based on traffic considerations perhaps, but largely because the traffic is going to be altered, in view of the alterations in the neighbourhood of the Custom House docks by extending Amiens Street to the quays, and it is suggested that that traffic should be carried by a bridge which would have its base at Moss Street. The merits of that proposal have been considered by the Port Board. They do not believe that a bridge built there would materially alter things as far as traffic is concerned, while it would sacrifice a very valuable portion of the river for port purposes. They also maintain that even if that bridge were built, the reconstruction of Butt Bridge would still be necessary. As between the merits of the two arguments, I think the matter would lead to a great deal of contention on both sides, which would be very difficult for the House to settle. What I suggest is, if possible, that the House should hold up the Second Reading of the Bill and give an opportunity for some independent body, or some people who would be nominated, to consider the whole question in all its bearings. We might then be able to arrive at some conclusion, because if this Bill is refused a Second Reading the position is that you refuse the opportunity that the Port Board presents of dealing with a question which is not of to-day or of yesterday, but which has been a pressing question for the last twenty or thirty years. As the President has said, the Port and Docks Board is the bridge authority. Whether it is right or wrong that it should be so, I will not argue, but it is the authority, and you could not possibly expect the Port and Docks Board to promote a Bill to build the Moss Street bridge, which would have such a detrimental effect on the port, because you must remember that the portion of the river that would be cut off from use by the erection of that bridge is a portion that is particularly valuable. There are two lines of cross-channel steamers there, there is practically all the cement trade of the city there, and practically the whole of Guinness's traffic is handled there.
I am sorry that Deputy Johnson is not here, because he would probably have taken the opportunity to abuse the Port and Docks Board, but I maintain that the members of the Board are actuated by such motives that, even if the erection of such a bridge were found to be against their interests, they would not oppose it except they were fully convinced that the other bridge would be of so great an advantage to the city and neighbourhood that it would justify them in doing so. That is the position they maintain, and they say that with the rebuilding of Butt Bridge on the lines they propose, it would be able to deal adequately with any traffic problem that is likely to arise, in the near future, at all events. I think that the traffic problem is sometimes inclined to be exaggerated in the minds of people who have high ideas about town planning. The Port and Docks Board may be wrong in their view. That is a question for argument, but it is the very definite opinion of members of the Board, who are conversant with the traffic problem on and in the neighbourhood of the quays.
Deputy Magennis has suggested a transporter bridge. The Port Board are not in any way opposed to transporter bridges, but their view would be that a transporter bridge, so near Butt Bridge as Moss Street, would be an expensive and an entirely unsuitable erection. No matter what you do you cannot abolish Butt Bridge, and with Butt Bridge the monstrosity it is, I say that the question as to whether further facilities are required should be considered in the light of going down a great deal further eastward than Moss Street, that the maintenance of a bridge at Butt Bridge, if it is not to be abolished, and the maintenance of another bridge a hundred yards down the river, is, in my opinion, a ludicrous proposition, and one that will not stand examination. Instead of killing the Second Reading of the Bill, leaving the Port Board no further forward and put in a position where they would not be willing to promote a Bill on the lines of Moss Street, if the President could see any way out of the impasse it would be well. Various questions that arise, such as the Port Board being the bridge authority, are questions that really depend on the future. I say that this Butt Bridge question is a very urgent matter, and I am perfectly certain that the Port Board will fall in with any suggestions that will get this thorny question settled, before there is any wrangle on it, either in the House or before a committee, on the recommendations of anybody in an independent position to examine the whole position.
Deputy Hewat deprecates the proposal not to give this Bill a Second Reading, but Deputy Hewat, I am sure, appreciates the point made by the President, that to give this Bill a Second Reading in fact commits one to the principle of the building of a bridge at Butt Bridge, and excludes the consideration of alternative competitive schemes. One then goes on to examine in detail the proposal to build at Butt Bridge. Anything else is out of order. I understand that when certain schemes for the development of electric power from the Liffey were under consideration any references to the Shannon Scheme were out of order. That is the difficulty. If we give this Bill a Second Reading to-day we are confined to the consideration of the proposal that there be a bridge built at Butt Bridge, and no considerations, such as the alternative proposal for a bridge further east, are in order. Deputy Hewat was quite candid. The discussion, as far as it has gone, manifests a conflict between traffic and town planning considerations on the one hand, and berthage considerations on the other. Deputy Hewat says that some people have the traffic complex overdeveloped and perhaps do not advert to the value of berthage consideration. That may be so or it may not be so. But I suggest that this conflict that is revealed by the discussion is a real one, and is not one regarding which the Dáil ought to take a hasty decision.
I make this suggestion to Deputy Hewat: that we ought not to-day give this Bill a Second Reading; that the Second Reading of the Bill be postponed for quite a long period, three weeks or one month, and that within that time a Committee of the Dáil be asked to consider the merits of the Bill, unfettered as they would be by the passing of the Second Reading. They would be unfettered to this extent, that they would be free to consider alternative proposals, free to explore the whole field of traffic considerations, town planning considerations, and so on, and they would not be rigidly confined simply to details of the proposal that there be a bridge at Butt Bridge. If we proceed from Second Reading to the Committee Stage of this Bill, then all these important considerations that have been urged by the President and Deputy Magennis would really be relevant. The other proposal is, perhaps, unusual; perhaps not strictly within the four corners of any code of procedure known to the Dáil.
I submit that from the practical point of view it is desirable that this Bill be put back a month or six weeks; that within that time a Committee of the Dáil informally — if that is preferable — be asked to weigh up these considerations urged for and against, and to decide on this conflict of berthage versus traffic and town planning. Traffic is a very real and very important consideration for the citizens of Dublin, and I certainly would like that on that matter the Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána, or his nominee, be heard by the Committee of the Dáil. I think such a committee might also hear the Borough Surveyor and others. I think the net result of their examination would be that they, and through them the Dáil, would ultimately be in a better position to weigh justly the considerations for and against that have been urged here to-day. But if we were asked to decide on them to-day, I submit the average Deputy would find himself wholly unfitted to take such a decision.
I quite agree with the Minister if that could be done. So far as the Port and Docks Board are concerned they would, in fact, be grateful for an examination of the proposal by a Committee of this House.
There is an important point in this which should not be overlooked. It is not the case in connection with a Private Bill that this particular motion for a Joint Committee which, in effect, asks the Dáil to agree with the principle of the Bill, should always be passed. The contrary is the case. When in the House there is opposition to a Private Bill, root and branch, it is at this stage the opposition ought to be manifested in justice to the promoters. It is better to say to them at this particular point: "Your Bill, in principle, is objectionable to the Dáil," than to allow them to go to the expense of appearing before a Joint Committee on Private Bills and, later reject the Bill for a reason that concerns its principle.
When a Private Bill is referred to a Joint Committee the procedure is not the same as it would be in the case of, say, a Select Committee on a Land Bill. The Deputies on that Joint Committee would be selected as people who would not, in fact, have any local or personal interest in the Bill. The Deputies selected in this case might be from the West, from Donegal or from Cork; the selection might be Deputy Roddy, Deputy Myles and Deputy Murphy of Cork. They would approach the Bill in a semi-judicial spirit, and they would not be able to consider alternative proposals. They would, of course, have observations from Government Departments, and it is nearly certain that in face of a report from the Minister for Justice on the lines that the Minister has now given us, the Committee would take the line of specially reporting to the two Houses — at least to this House — that they thought the other proposals should be investigated. But the Committee's difficulty would be to travel in any way outside their own strict terms of reference, namely, to find whether, in the first place, the Preamble of the Bill was proved. When a Private Bill is referred to a Committee at all, expenses are undertaken by the promoters. Therefore, the procedure of opposing a Private Bill at this stage, when the opposition is to the Bill, root and branch, is quite proper.
It is quite simple to amend this motion so that consideration of the matter could be taken this day month, if necessary. In the interval a Committee could be appointed, such as the Minister for Justice has suggested, or any other form of investigation could take place. I think the only proposal we could take now is one to postpone consideration of this motion for a certain period.
I am prepared to fall in with that suggestion. If the matter is to be postponed, a month may not be sufficient; probably it will require a longer time, because the various witnesses who are likely to come forward will take a considerable time to make preparations. It will be more for the convenience of the Committee to have ample time to spare so as to examine the whole question.
Suppose we postpone the matter until Wednesday, 20th April, or would the Minister rather a month's postponement?
It will be a very busy period.
If the matter is postponed very much longer this particular Private Bill might not get consideration as a Private Bill in this Oireachtas. Then the only course would be to carry it over by resolution to the next Parliament.
I do not think we would care to risk that. It would be a great deal better from my point of view, representing the Port and Docks Board, that the matter should get consideration rather than have a withdrawal of the Bill. That is the only other alternative, I think.
May I point out that, in effect, the Committee will be investigating the problem of town planning, and it would be far better if the Government were to introduce a Bill setting up a town planning authority and let it deal, then, appropriately with this and other problems of the same type?
If Deputy Magennis's suggestion were carried out and the Port and Docks Board have to wait for the decision of that authority, we might be waiting quite a long time.
Pending the consideration of the desirability of such a development as Deputy Magennis mentioned, there is need for some better information of the merits of this proposal than at present exists for members of the Dáil. It might be in conflict with our defined procedure here without passing the Second Reading to set up a Committee of the Dáil to weigh the pros and cons of the proposal embodied in the Bill. But on the basis of a long postponement of the Second Reading I think it would be easy by agreement between parties to ensure that such an examination would, in fact, take place, and then people would be in a better position to discuss and weigh the points each way after, say, a six weeks' postponement.
I think there would be very little difficulty in securing that the officials primarily concerned in matters of traffic and other issues that are involved would attend before a Committee, even if that Committee were not a Committee of the Dáil in the full sense of the word, but a Committee set up by agreement amongst the groups within the Dáil.
We can postpone the matter until 20th April; then it can be mentioned and further steps taken.
Very well.
May I ask for an assurance that the Government will do something?
That is understood.
