Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 14 Nov 1945

Vol. 30 No. 10

Lough Corrib Navigation Bill, 1945—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. O'Grady)

This Bill has been introduced because Galway County Council felt, for some time past, that there was a difficulty concerning the legal status of certain members of this board and, in order, amongst other things, to set that matter right. The objects of this legislation are twofold: firstly, to reconstitute the board of trustees of the Lough Corrib navigation, and, secondly, to revise the proportions in which the contributions of the local bodies concerned are made towards the expenses of the navigation.

This navigation was constructed by the Commissioners of Public Works for navigation, drainage and water power under the code of Drainage Acts. On completion it was vested, under the Drainage (Ireland) Act, 1856, in a board of trustees consisting of representatives of the three contributing areas of Galway City and the counties of Galway and Mayo. The functions of the board related to the maintenance of the navigation, including bridges in Galway, canal locks and piers, beacons and buoys in Lough Corrib and the adjacent loughs and rivers. The navigation has not been used for passenger transport since 1931, in which year the steamer service between Cong and the City of Galway was discontinued and merchandise traffic in recent yeas has consisted chiefly in turf and fishing boats.

The Act of 1856 provided that every trustee should be either the agent of an estate of certain yearly valuation or should be possessed of property qualifications of a considerable value. Galway County Council has drawn attention to the fact that an alteration in the constitution of the board was desirable as, having regard to the statutory qualifications, there was doubt as to whether certain members of the board were legally qualified to act and there was difficulty in finding suitably qualified persons to fill vacancies. There are at present four vacancies on the board.

Under existing legislation the board consists of 12 members, six representing County Galway, three County Mayo and three Galway City. It is now proposed that the reconstituted board should be comprised of eight members, five to be elected by Galway Corporation, two by Galway County Council and one by Mayo County Council. This representation is based roughly on the proportionate expenditure in the different areas. Instead of a property qualification it is proposed that any person who is a local government elector for the area represented shall be eligible. The trustees will be appointed by the contributing authorities in each year in which a local government election is held. At present the trustees hold office until they die, resign or are removed. One county manager, appointed by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, has functions analogous to those of the manager in respect to the county council.

The Act of 1856 provided that the cost of maintaining the navigation, so far as it could not be defrayed out of income from tolls, etc., should be borne by the townlands, baronies, etc., and in the proportions set out in a navigation award of 1859. This award fixed the following proportions:—County Galway, 52 per cent.; County Mayo, 32 per cent.; Galway City, 16 per cent., area of the "County of the Town."

These figures now bear no relationship to the comparative cost of maintaining the navigation within each area. Mayo County Council have, for instance, represented that they should be relieved of their liability to contribute to the board on the grounds that the navigation is of little or no advantage to County Mayo, the traffic, so far as that county is concerned, having been practically limited to the despatch of turf to the Galway side of the Lough. Mayo County Council were also concerned that under the existing law they might have to bear a portion of the cost of maintaining certain bridges across the navigation in the Galway urban area, these bridges having been reconstructed on a larger scale than the original bridges in connection with a road improvement scheme and which new structures, the council held, conferred no benefits on the population of County Mayo.

Provision is, accordingly, made for a revision of the contributions (where the expenditure of the board is in excess of income) as follows:— Galway Corporation, 60 per cent.; Galway County Council, 30 per cent.; Mayo County Council, 10 per cent. These revised contributions are related more closely to the prevailing distribution of expenditure. The expenses incurred by the contributing local authorities are to be raised by means of the poor rate and, in the case of the county councils, as a county-at-large charge, instead of as a charge on specified areas as at present. The amount of the levy by the board of trustees on the local contributors has varied but has not exceeded £900 a year but the portion of this sum chargeable on the Mayo County Council has been in arrears for some years according to the last audited statements. The average annual expenditure in the past three years was about £600 and at 31st December, 1944, the board had a balance in hand of £204.

Having regard to the fact that the navigation is now used only to a very limited extent and that parts were never even completed, it is proposed to provide a means for abandoning or transferring any works comprised in the navigation under certain conditions to a local or drainage authority without having to resort to the elaborate machinery provided in the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888. Owing to the possibility of abandonment or transfer of certain works power is taken to vary the proportions in which contributions of the local authorities shall be payable.

Provision is also made in the Bill to empower a contributing local authority, after consultation with the board of trustees, to execute and maintain works such as bridges, where the public interest requires the work to be of a more elaborate nature than would be required for the purposes of the navigation. The cost is to be allocated, where necessary, between the local authority and the board of trustees, subject to the decision by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health on any questions arising.

There has been some doubt as to the precise legal liability for maintenance as between the local authority and the board of trustees in regard to, at least, one of the existing bridges over the Eglinton Canal. To clear these doubts and having regard to the fact that the maintenance of the bridges and the roadway from Wood Quay to the public road in Galway is, in present circumstances, more appropriate to the local authority than to the board of trustees, provision is made to place such liability on Galway Corporation, being the local authority concerned. This provision excludes the possibility of Mayo County Council being held liable to contribute towards the cost of maintenance of these bridges.

No cost to the Exchequer is involved in the operation of the measure.

Mr. O'Dea

Galway County Council did apply to the Minister to settle up a difficulty which arose on the question of the qualification of trustees for this navigation board. Section 10 of 5 and 6 Victoria provided, as the Parliamentary Secretary has told us, that a person, to be qualified for membership, should have property of the annual value of £100 or be the agent of an estate of which the rents were about £2,000. That raised a difficulty as to whether certain members were qualified or not. Recently, we did appoint some trustees and the council decided that "annual value" did not mean "annual valuation". Certain houses in the town of Galway, which have a valuation of £15 or £20, would be worth £200 or £300 a year. The council decided that owners of such property were entitled to be members. I do not think that the council bargained for the differences in the assessments which were made as between Galway and Mayo——

Mr. Baxter

Galway did not bargain for that, at any rate.

Mr. O'Dea

Mayo appears to have come out of it very well. A large sum of money was spent before the award of 1859 was made. The amount was, I think, £102,289. It was understood that the councils would bear half the expenses but they were not made to bear half that amount—£51,000. They were actually bound to contribute £14,883. Of that, £2,396 was to be borne by the town of Galway, £7,743 12s. 6d. by the County of Galway and £4,743 by the County of Mayo. The award provided that the maintenance charges in future should be borne in exactly the same proportions as that sum of £14,000 was to be distributed amongst the different bodies. Mayo was, as I have said, to pay £4,743 out of a total of £14,883 and Galway was to bear £7,743. The proportion was as 4 is to 7.

I take it from what the Parliamentary Secretary has said that Mayo was to contribute 32 per cent. of the annual maintenance charges. In this Bill, that has been reduced to 10 per cent. I do not quite understand why that advantage was given to Mayo. It is said that there is no navigation on the Corrib. If there is no navigation on the Corrib, Galway is not benefiting any more than Mayo. Why should Galway be penalised in such circumstances? For several years, Mayo County Council have contributed nothing at all to the cost of this navigation. Galway County Council has contributed each year about £640. Mayo's contribution was to be £250 or thereabouts. Mayo County Council have refused to appoint a trustee on the board and have refused to contribute a penny towards the expense of the navigation, with the result that all the costs and expenses have been borne by the County of Galway. That is the county which is penalised under this Bill. The county which has refused to contribute gets the advantages. In the Dáil, it was stated that this Bill would not interfere with the arrears due by Mayo County Council. But we all know that a county council is not bound to pay for more than two years any arrears payable out of poor rate. Under the 1902 Act, the Minister has power to extend the period for payment up to two years. Therefore, Mayo County Council can get away with the contribution of two years' arrears instead of the amount which they owe. I think that a provision should be inserted in this Bill which would render them liable for the entire amount which they have failed to pay.

Apart from the fact that Galway Corporation has to contribute 60 per cent. of the maintenance charges, there is a provision in Section 14 that if there is a bridge over the Eglinton Canal it shall for the purpose of the Local Government Act, 1925, and any Order made under that Act, be regarded as part of the road on which it is situated and shall be deemed to be a work the execution and maintenance of which have been undertaken by the local authority charged with the expenses of maintenance of such road, and the board of trustees shall cease to be liable for the maintenance of any such bridge.

I am informed that the reconstruction of those bridges will cost about £18,000. If all that falls on the borough of Galway it will be a very heavy expense, and Mayo will not have to contribute even 10 per cent. of it. If the Minister wishes to relieve the County Mayo, I would submit that he should not be generous at the expense of Galway, but that he should make up the deficiency out of public funds.

There are a few other points which I would like to criticise in this Bill, not in any aggressive way, but in a helpful spirit. In Section 4 the Bill provides that five members shall be elected by the Galway Corporation, two members by the Galway County Council and one member by the Mayo County Council. Provision is also made for the time of election and the term of office of members in Sections 7, 8 and 9, and Section 10 provides for the resignation of members. But I do not see any provision made if either nominating council refuses or neglects to appoint a trustee. I think that is an omission. The Minister himself should have power to nominate, or if he does not nominate, the Bill should declare that the board is properly constituted notwithstanding the fact that a person has not been nominated on a certain date.

I think also that in the case of casual vacancies occurring, acts of the board should not be invalidated while the vacancies exist, and it should also be made clear that the five members appointed by the Galway Corporation, the two members appointed by the Galway County Council and the one member nominated by the Mayo County Council as trustees, need not be members of the nominating councils. Where a council nominates members as trustees, some at least ought to be members of the council, but all of them need not be. It would be no harm if that provision was made right. One of the clauses of the Bill provides that a member of the board ceases his membership when he ceases to be elected as a member of the Galway Corporation. That provision will create certain hardships. I think it should be provided that if he was elected once he should continue to be a member of the trustees.

In Section 13 there is a clause that, the Minister may, by Order, authorise the abandonment or the transfer to a drainage authority or a contributing local authority of any portion of the navigation or work forming part thereof. That clause seems to be drawn in rather a sweeping fashion. After all, if you abandon a navigation, it is the right of the people to use the waterway. They have as much right to use a waterway as to use a highway, and I think you cannot abandon it unless you say that the rights of the public over the waterway cease to exist.

Certain notices should be given, as in the case of the abandonment of roads, and there are also certain mills which have water rights and it ought to be seen whether their rights will be interfered with or not. Then, in Section 14, it is stated that if a local authority improves the navigation, compensation shall be paid to the local authority but if a depreciation of the navigation is brought about, the local authority shall pay compensation to the board of trustees.

I do not know what depreciation would mean, because if the depreciation was such as to stop navigation altogether, it would not be any advantage to the public that the trustees shall be compensated. Public rights would be interfered with in that case. I suggest that the section should be amended so as to cover cases in which the depreciation would not cause the river to become unnavigable.

Section 15 deals with the expenses of contributing local authorities. It says, in the case of Galway Corporation, the expenses incurred shall be raised by means of the poor rate. I would like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to those words, because they include the urban area of Ballinasloe. That should be mentioned as a separate charge, rather than as a county-at-large charge. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to consider that question.

There is the question of officers. I take it that only the name is changed and that the present officers continue as such. Suppose that new officers have to be appointed—who is to make the appointments? Also, who is to assess the amount to be demanded from the present council, and how is the assessment to be made? In other words, the Bill should provide for the reserved functions of the trustees and for the executive functions of the county manager who has to manage the business.

I dealt before with the question of areas and I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to see if he could not include a provision which should bring the Bill into line with Section 7 (1) of the Local Government Act, 1898. There is also the small matter that might be mentioned, in regard to the travelling expenses of members. Again, if the contributing bodies refuse to contribute, what procedure is to be adopted to enforce payment? That I think is a very important point because one council may contribute and the other may not. What is the right of a contributing council against a non-contributing body, or is it the trustees who must sue the body which does not contribute, and in what manner must that be done? These are points which I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain.

Pádraic Ó Máille

Aontaímid uilig go bhfuil gá le Bille dá leithéid seo. Nuair a ceapadh na hIontaobhaithe i dtús báire bhí cuid mhór bád gaile ar an loch agus cuid mhór bád ag iompar earraí air. Bhí tairbhe mhór i Loch Coirib ar an mbealach sin do Chathair agus do Chontae na Gaillimhe agus do Chontae Mhuigheo.

Is é an truaigh é go bhfuil an trácht locha ionann is imithe i léig, cé gur saoire go mór é earraí a iompar ar uisce ná ar aon bhealach eile.

Aontaím leis an Seanadóir Ó Deághdha go bhfuil cion thar an gceart de chostas an Bhille seo ar Chathair na Gaillimhe.

Mr. O'Grady

The Mayo contribution to which Senator O'Dea has referred has been reduced, as he pointed out and as I stated in my opening speech, from 32 per cent. to 10 per cent., but the contribution from the Galway County Council has also been reduced from 52 per cent. to 30 per cent. These reductions are related to the amount of expenditure in the various contributing areas.

Mr. O'Dea

But the contribution of the Galway Corporation has gone up from 16 per cent. to 60 per cent.

Mr. O'Grady

I was coming to that. The increase in the contribution of the Galway Corporation is due to the fact that the major portion of the expenditure arising out of this Bill in connection with this navigation is expenditure in Galway City. It is on that basis that these various proportions were made out. With regard to the cost of the bridges, some time ago these bridges, I understand, were reconstructed on a larger scale than was necessary for navigation. To meet the requirements of modern transport, the bridges had to be widened and possibly strengthened. There was also a question as to who was responsible for one particular bridge. I understand it is impossible to identify that bridge, as no map exists to indicate which of the five bridges is the one in question. Now all these bridges are being transferred to the local authority, and I take it that, in accordance with the usual practice, any reconstruction of bridges in Galway would be subject to the usual Grant-in-Aid from Central Funds.

Mr. O'Dea

Was there a Grant-in-Aid in respect of the ones reconstructed in recent years, because I think the Galway County Council paid a very big sum towards the cost of their reconstruction?

Mr. O'Grady

I have no information at my disposal as to whether there was any Grant-in-Aid then, and I do not know the years in which these reconstructions took place. I assume there was some Grant-in-Aid because, as everybody is aware, there is a Grant-in-Aid in respect of such works. With regard to the powers to compel a council to appoint trustees, I take it there is provision in the Bill to compel them to discharge that particular duty just as there are provisions to compel councils to perform any other function.

Mr. O'Dea

I do not think there is.

Mr. Baxter

The same question arises in County Cavan.

Mr. O'Grady

I shall have the matter looked into. As to the question of the number of members of the board who would be members of the contributing local authorities, as the Bill stands, any ratepayer would be eligible to be a member of the board, whether or not he was a member of a contributing authority, but the practice in such cases has been that public bodies appoint some of their own members to act as trustees on those boards, feeling, no doubt, that a member of the council would perhaps be in a better position to combine the interests of the board and the interests of the contributing body, than a member of the general public.

With regard to the abandoning of navigation and the procedure in connection therewith, it was felt that the procedure under existing legislation was far too cumbersome and slow. The Order would not be valid until legislation was enacted giving effect thereto. It was felt that that was too unwieldy and too cumbersome to deal with a case like this, where it might be found that portion of this navigation was no longer of any public utility or value, and the board of trustees decided that in the public interest it should be abandoned. This Bill gives the necessary power to the board to do that, but no action can be taken except on the initiation of the board. I will take a note of the suggestion made by Senator O'Dea with regard to the urban area of Ballinasloe.

Mr. O'Dea

As a separate charge.

Mr. O'Grady

With regard to the appointment of new officers, I presume that the usual procedure which applies to every public body or joint committee will operate in this instance?

Mr. O'Dea

That is so. Of course, I dare say that the old Bill did provide for that. When that was in existence you had no manager; now you have a manager. That is the reason why I think that the duties of the manager should be defined, and also the reserved functions of the board.

Mr. O'Grady

The duties of the manager, of course, would be analogous to the duties of the county manager in any particular county in relation to the board. Another question asked by Senator O'Dea was: "Who will assess the demands on the contributing bodies?" In my opinion, the demands would be in accordance with the percentages laid down.

Mr. O'Dea

I meant is it the manager or is it the trustees? Is it the trustees will have the power, or is it the county manager who will make the assessment?

Mr. Baxter

I would say the trustees.

Mr. O'Grady

It is specifically laid down that the percentages are to be provided by each of the contributing bodies.

Mr. O'Dea

I know that.

Mr. O'Grady

I take it, then, that it would be an ordinary function of the trustees.

Mr. O'Dea

But that is not definite.

Mr. O'Grady

The next point raised was in regard to the payment of travelling expenses to members. I do not think there will be any question about that. This will be recognised as a public body, the same as any other body of a similar kind, and members thereof will be entitled to their travelling expenses.

Mr. O'Dea

I raised a point as to how you can compel the local authority to contribute. I also asked what the position will be if a nominating body will not nominate a trustee? Will the board continue to be in full effect even though there are vacancies on the board? Will the Minister have power of nomination?

Mr. O'Grady

It is set out in the Act that, whenever a vacancy occurs, that vacancy must be filled as soon as possible.

Mr. Baxter

Suppose Mayo decides not to make a nomination to the board, and thereby are not in a position to levy a rate, will the Galway people be able to levy a rate over the whole area?

Mr. O'Dea

That is the point. There was a case some time ago in which the Circuit Court judge held that the drainage rate could not be recovered because some counties—I think it was Meath and Offaly—did not nominate members to the board, and therefore it was held that the board was not properly constituted.

Mr. Baxter

It was the counties Leitrim and Cavan.

Mr. O'Dea

I was afraid the same question might arise about a demand made by the trustees if the membership of the board was not filled up.

Mr. Hayes

Could we not decide this in Committee, and take steps to see that the Mayo representatives are present to help in this debate?

Mr. O'Grady

Personally, I should be very glad if we had them here.

Mr. Hayes

That is right. They would be a help in this case.

Mr. O'Grady

As far as I can see, we have nobody here but the representatives from the Galway area. In the other House, we had the Mayo members present, and although we were conferring benefits on them they did not seem to appreciate it. We were reducing their contribution from 32 per cent. to 10 per cent., and that is a decided benefit. With regard to those two points made by Senator O'Dea, I think they are more or less matters that could be decided only by a lawyer. As he is a lawyer, and I am not, I think we had better defer them——

Mr. O'Dea

I wanted to put them before the draftsman.

Mr. O'Grady

I appreciate your point.

Mr. O'Dea

I think there was only one other point that I raised. Certain arrears are due by the Mayo County Council, and in consequence of their non-payment the Galway County Council had to pay up the difference. It is too bad now that Galway cannot get the right to recover them from Mayo. If they do try to recover them, I do not want to be met by the point that they are entitled to recover only six months of the arrears under the Act of 1898, or, if the Minister extends the time, that they are entitled to recover only two years' arrears. I think they should be entitled to recover the full amount.

Mr. O'Grady

I have taken a note of that. The point is that the board of trustees will be responsible for the collection of arrears.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for the next meeting of the Seanad.