I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.
Under existing law, there is a special restriction on the building of bridges over the Shannon in that a work may not be executed if it constitutes an interference with any right including a right of navigation. This means that in any case where a bridge over the Shannon with an opening span requires reconstruction, the new bridge must also contain an opening span, even though a fixed bridge with sufficient clearance would satisfy navigation requirements. Bridges with opening spans are much more costly to build and maintain and it has been estimated that the total additional initial cost for providing opening spans for a number of Shannon bridges which are likely to require reconstruction by local authorities in the immediate future is at least £100,000. No one would grudge the extra cost if genuine navigation interests were involved, but in fact the Shannon is already limited to navigation by fixed bridges at its entrance and by narrow locks with high sills. Most of the so-called "opening" spans have been in effect closed for very many years, yet the navigation using the river has experienced no difficulty in passing under them. The Bill, therefore, proposes to remove the legal restriction I have mentioned and to enable the merits of an opening versus a fixed span to be considered in each case.
I should point out that the Bill does not introduce any new principle in the matter of navigation rights. It was at one time assumed that the bridge order procedure under Part IV of the Local Government Act, 1946, enabled a bridge to be constructed even if it involved a curtailment of navigation rights. The original intention of subsection (1) of Section 40 of the Local Government Act, 1955, was to put this beyond doubt. After the section had been opposed by some Deputies, the then Government agreed as a compromise to introduce an amendment at the Committee Stage in the Dáil to exclude the River Shannon from the scope of the subsection.
The local bodies concerned have protested repeatedly against the restriction thus imposed on the reconstruction of the Shannon bridges. They are acutely aware of the extra cost involved, and they are also aware of the actual facts regarding navigation. The Government are concerned to ensure that the defective opening span will be replaced by new spans as early as possible, and they consider that the legal position should be remedied so that money, time and effort will not be wasted.
That is not to say that every consideration will not be given to rights of navigation. The procedure to be followed is laid down by the Local Government Act, 1946, as amended. The consent of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who is the Minister chiefly concerned with navigation interests, is required to any bridge order made, and he would not agree to any unwarranted interference with navigation rights. Furthermore, before a bridge order is made providing for the replacement of an opening span by a fixed span, a local inquiry is held at which the pros and cons are fully thrashed out in public. I can assure the House that there will be no question of a fixed span being provided at a site when the clearance is not adequate for navigation purposes.
In the case of Athlone Bridge special provision is made in Section 2 of the Bill. This is necessary because a local inquiry has already been held and there would be no point in expending the money and time involved in a further inquiry. The evidence clearly showed that a fixed span would be adequate at this site. Apart from the general limitations on Shannon navigation imposed by the fixed bridges at its entrance and by the locks, it appears that the existing "opening" span at Athlone has failed to open since 1942, yet navigation including C.I.E. launches can pass under it. A new fixed span will afford the same clearance. I may mention that the public bodies concerned have made repeated representations to that effect since the Athlone Bridge Order, 1956, was made. That Order had to provide for an opening span because of a proviso inserted in Section 40 of the Local Government Act, 1955. The Bill therefore proposes to amend the 1956 Order by providing for a fixed span instead of an opening span.
In conclusion, I should like to stress the urgency of the Bill. Severe weight restrictions have been imposed in the case of some of the Shannon bridges and reconstruction work is urgently necessary. The enactment of this Bill will enable work to proceed at once on the design and construction of a relatively simple new span at Athlone, and will enable the necessary steps to be taken for the provision of the new permanent spans—fixed or open, as the evidence warrants—at the other sites requiring urgent attention.
