I move amendment No. 1:—
To insert at the end of the section the following sub-section:—
(2) The Board of Trustees may act notwithstanding one or more vacancies in their membership.
Lough Corrib Navigation Bill, 1945—Committee.
Sections 1, 2 and 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, and Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In sub-section (5), to add at the end of the sub-section the following words:—"but all acts and proceedings of such person while a member even though disqualified shall be as valid and effectual as if he had never been disqualified."
It is quite possible that somebody might be nominated who would not be qualified to act or may cease to be qualified. The object here is that his act is valid while a member of the board of trustees, or as if he had never ceased to be qualified. I do not know if the Parliamentary Secretary considers this to be necessary.
The amendment is considered unnecessary.
If the Parliamentary Secretary is satisfied, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 6, 7 and 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That Section 9 stand part of the Bill.
Sections 7, 8 and 9 appear to contain a lot of material and repetition which could be embodied in one section. I would draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to it in the hope that on the Report Stage he would cut down the wording somewhat.
I will have that matter looked into.
Section 9 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 3:—
(10) If any contributing local authority shall neglect or fail to elect the number of persons it is entitled to elect to the board of trustees on the day appointed for such election the Minister may nominate a person or persons to be a trustee or trustees in lieu of the person or persons whom such authority shall fail to elect.
In Sections 7, 8 and 9, the power of Galway Corporation, the Mayo County Council, and the Galway County Council, is set out. I simply propose that a day should be appointed for the election of those members by each of those bodies. I had a feeling that there was some danger that some council might refuse to nominate or elect such representatives. My proposal is that if such a body should refuse, the Minister shall have power to nominate a member or members in lieu of those whom the council failed or neglected to nominate. The aim is to have the board constituted properly.
As I mentioned before, there was a case in court in connection with the trustees of a drainage board, and the circuit judge held that, because certain councils did not nominate members, the drainage trustees were not properly constituted, and therefore their acts were invalid, and the rate they struck could not be collected. It is to avoid any danger of such a happening that I propose this amendment.
It is considered that this amendment is not necessary, having regard to the amendment of Section 4, which provides that the board of trustees may act, notwithstanding one or more vacancies in their membership. In the event of a public body failing to discharge its statutory duties, the Minister for Local Government has adequate powers to deal with it.
Amendment withdrawn?
If the Parliamentary Secretary is satisfied, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
I move amendment No. 4:—
To insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) The board of trustees may act even though there are one or two vacancies in its membership, and its acts and proceedings shall be as valid as if no such vacancy existed.
My amendment to Section 11 is practically the same as Senator Quirke's amendment to Section 4. If the Parliamentary Secretary is satisfied with Senator Quirke's amendment, I am willing to withdraw it.
It is considered that Senator Quirke's amendment covers the point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In sub-section (1) at the end of paragraph (a), line 32, to add the words:—"but the contributions which should have been paid by the Mayo County Council to the board of trustees under that award in respect of the years 1941-1942, 1942-1943, 1943-1944, 1945-1946, shall be paid by that council to the board of trustees and shall be deemed to have all accrued due on the appointed day, and if not paid when demanded shall be recoverable by the board of trustees from the Mayo County Council as an ordinary debt. In the event of any difference or dispute arising between the parties as to amount of said indebtedness said difference shall be settled by the Minister or by such person as he shall appoint for the purpose."
Section 12, sub-section (a), provides that the navigation award of 1859, in so far as it relates to the manner in which all expenses of and incident to the maintenance and conservancy of the navigation (so far as those expenses are not defrayed out of the income thereof) shall be charged, borne and paid, shall cease to have effect. If that is left in as it stands, I imagine it would have the effect of wiping out all the assessments that have been made on the Mayo County Council, which, as I mentioned on the last occasion, the Mayo County Council refuses to pay.
They have paid nothing for many years and if that section is passed as it is, I do not think any sum could be recovered from them under that award. The amendment is for the purpose of protecting the other councils against such an eventuality in respect of the years 1941 to 1946. The amendment proposes that these sums should continue as a debt payable by the county council. I do not think there is anything else in the Bill which would protect the other councils if this amendment is not accepted.
One year appears to be missing from the amendment.
I was going to point out that myself. I noticed the error when I read the Order Paper. It is a clerical error and I would ask the permission of the House to insert the year, 1944-45, as part of the amendment.
Leave granted.
I rise to oppose the amendment as drafted by Senator O'Dea. On the occasion of the debate on the Second Stage of this Bill, certain speakers tried to create the impression that the Government was inclined to act magnanimously towards Mayo at the expense of Galway. I hold that the shoe is on the other foot. Mayo has never derived any benefit from this navigation scheme. As a matter of fact, the particular section of the scheme in County Mayo was never of any use— you could not float a cork on it. I hold if there is any accuracy in the charges of discrimination that Mayo has been the subject of the discrimination. The report of the Drainage Commission recommended the abandonment of this particular scheme. The scheme, if anything, is in the interest of Galway, but there is an effort to make the Mayo people responsible for maintenance work done in Galway. I hope I would not be out of order in drawing the attention of the Seanad to the recommendations of the Drainage Commission in so far as this particular scheme was concerned.
You may do so, Senator.
The recommendation was that certain navigation schemes which were obsolete and could not be put into operation should be abandoned and the channels could be used for the relief of flooding, or could be dried up to relieve water-logging in adjoining lands. Instead of doing that, this scheme is being perpetuated by spreading portion of the charge over Mayo for maintenance of work that will never be done in Mayo, and making Mayo people responsible for services from which they will never derive benefit.
Whatever interest this Bill has for the people of Galway, it is of no interest to the people of Mayo. Galway derives some benefit from it and Senator O'Dea is particularly anxious to spread the cost of maintenance between County Mayo and County Galway. Is the Senator not ignoring the fact that, in the City of Galway, a number of mills derive direct benefit from these waters by obtaining a supply of power? Mayo is a very highly-rated county. It has a long and honourable record in the roll of honour of counties which met the annual assessments for rates. It is very poor recognition of that record that the county should be saddled with responsibility for maintenance of works from which it never derived any benefit and will never derive any benefit.
I know that this Bill provides for a reduction in the percentage for which Mayo will be held responsible. Evidently the Minister realised from the beginning that it was absurd to make Mayo responsible for any percentage of the charges in respect of this scheme. The Bill provides that Mayo's responsibility shall be reduced from 32 per cent. to 10 per cent. The reaction of Mayo County Council, however, is that there should be no levy since no benefit is derived.
That question can be dealt with on one of the next three amendments. This amendment deals merely with arrears.
I am merely giving my reasons for opposing the amendment. I have stated briefly our reaction to this proposal—that there should be no levy when there is no benefit.
I am sorry that I cannot accept this amendment. The legal advisers to the Department of Local Government and Public Health contend that this is not the appropriate Bill in which to amend the law in respect of the recovery of debts by local authorities. As the law stands, a debt incurred by a local authority cannot be paid out of rates after a period of three months ensuing upon the half-year in which the debt was incurred unless the time is extended by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, who has power to extend it to two years. It is obvious that a Bill such as this would not be the proper medium for amending so comprehensive a number of Acts as the implications of the amendment would cover. The legal advisers to the Department of Local Government and Public Health contend that this is not the proper Bill in which to make such a change.
I am not satisfied with that attitude. A section has been put into the Bill which revokes an award made under a former Act. Senator Ruane speaks of the assessment on Mayo County Council. That was fixed, under that Act, by an award made by the Commissioners of Public Works.
They held at that time that Mayo should contribute a certain proportion of the initial cost of the works—not such a proportion as would be warranted by the amount spent on the works, which was £102,000. A great portion of that money was spent in making a canal between Lough Mask and Lough Corrib which did not work.
Apparently, the Senator thinks that Galway should be blamed because this canal was not properly constructed or because, when constructed, it did not take the volume of water it was supposed to take. Lough Carra and Lough Mask drain underground into the Corrib and flood the lands of the county of Galway. My friend says that navigation was abandoned in the interest of Galway. I cannot understand that argument. If there has been no navigation, then Galway has not benefited any more than has Mayo. Neither will Galway benefit any more than Mayo in the future. Then, why should Mayo be relieved at the expense of Galway and why should not Mayo pay the debts due by it under that award? Since before 1941, Mayo has made no contribution whatever to the cost of those works. Galway County Council built two bridges at a cost of several thousands of pounds and did not ask Mayo for a contribution of one penny.
Mr. Ruane
Were those bridges built in Mayo or Galway?
How does that affect the question? Of course, they were built in Galway—in the town of Galway.
Mr. Ruane
Why should we pay anything towards them?
Because they are part of the drainage works set out in the award made by the Commissioners of Public Works. Just as Galway is paying for the canal that did not work, so Mayo should pay for the bridges situate in Galway. I might as well ask why Galway should pay for that unworkable canal in Mayo. If there has been no navigation, Galway has not benefited. We all hope there will be plenty of navigation in the future and that the people of Mayo will be able to send their produce to the town of Galway in ships sailing up the Corrib. In that way, we hope that Mayo will gain great advantages from this navigation. In the meantime, this Bill does a tremendous injustice to Galway. It wipes away the award, so that Mayo will have to contribute nothing of what it should have paid in the past years. That is a clap on the back for Mayo for the default made by it in paying its just debts. We are told that we cannot amend the Act under which they are bound to pay. I am not seeking to amend any Local Government Act. I am simply providing that those debts which were not paid in past years will be taken as having accrued on the appointed day. Why should Mayo be let off its just debts? I do not understand how any representative of Mayo can get up and say: "We do not want to pay and will not pay our just debts". That is an attitude to which I object.
On a point of order, it is not a question of "we do not want to pay——"
That is not a point of order.
There is not much difference between saying: "We do not want to pay" and "We will not pay." The attitude of the Senator, no matter how he expresses it, is that Mayo does not want to pay its just debts. I do not understand how my friend is not ashamed to get up and make such a statement on behalf of his county. That is the attitude of the Senator, instead of coming along and saying: "You are relieving us to a great extent; you are reducing our percentage and we shall gladly pay what we owe." The attitude of the Minister is that he does not want Mayo to pay what it owes, instead of saying to it that he will give this reduction if it pays what it owes. He proposes to reduce the percentage from 42 per cent. to 10 per cent. and to wipe out the arrears. That is a very serious attitude to adopt and I ask the House to accept this amendment, as altered, providing that Mayo pay the amount legally due by it. There seems to be no proper answer to that demand. If the Minister would accept the amendment, leaving out certain words, I might agree but I do not agree to the proposal to wipe out the award and to ask Mayo to pay no part of its debts.
Aontaím leis an Seanadóir O Deaghdha. Is é mo thuairim go bhfuil an ceart ar fad aige. Níl sé ag iarraidh aon chostas a chur ar Chontac Mhuigheo nach ceart a chur. Tá a fhios againn go ritheann na huiscí as Loch Carra agus Loch Mease isteach i Loch Coirib agus, as sin, trí Chontae na Gaillimhe. Nuair a bhí mé óg, bhíodh bád ag dul ó Chathair na Gaillimhe go Contae Muigheo agus bhíodh bád ag iompar móna ó Chontae Mhuigheo go Gaillimh. Mar sin, níl sé do réir na fírinne a rá nach raibh aon bhuntáiste ag Muigheo as an scéim seo.
Senator O'Dea has put forward the right viewpoint on the matter. I happen, like Senator O'Dea, to be a Galway man, but I have also very close associations with County Mayo and, if every man had his own, I would have still closer associations with Mayo. I should like, however, to adopt as far as I can a broadminded attitude on this matter. As Senator O'Dea has explained, the waters of both Lough Mask and Lough Carra flow underground at present into Lough Corrib and from there through Galway to the sea. My father during his lifetime often told me about a canal that was constructed from Lough Mask on to Cong, on the borders of Galway and Mayo. The men who worked there were paid 6d. a day, but after a large amount of money had been expended it was found that the canal would not work. The bottom of the canal, being limestone, was porous, so that the water disappeared. It is hardly fair to attribute that failure to any negligence on the part of Galway.
Another point will arise on a later amendment in regard to bridges constructed in the Galway area. Mayo is in a partnership in regard to this navigation scheme. That partnership may not be a paying concern at the present time but, if things develop properly as we all expect, it will yet be a paying proposition for Mayo. We must have self-help in matters of this kind. I think it would be a very wrong principle if the Government were to take the side of a body which refused to meet its liabilities. We must all face up to our liabilities as far as we can and if we think they are unjust make some effort to have them readjusted. The Minister in this Bill is reducing Mayo's liability. He is doing that without having got any guarantee that these liabilities will be met.
I should like to support the amendment put forward by Senator O'Dea and, like Senator O Maille, I do so in the interests of Mayo as well as of Galway. In the discussion of this Bill there has been what I can only describe as a defeatist attitude adopted by certain elements in regard to Lough Corrib. Lough Corrib is one of the most beautiful lakes in the world but it was spoken of here as if it were a sheet of water fit only for carrying turf boats. Lough corrib I repeat is one of the most beautiful sheets of water in the world. Lake Lucerne itself is not more beautiful except perhaps that it possesses the added attraction that its shores are studded with woods. We are making an effort to develop our resources here and one of the most valuable resources we have is our beautiful lakes. Lough Corrib stands pre-eminent not alone for its natural beauty but for its historic interest. Every island on it is full of hidden riches. It was to one of these islands that St. Brendan, the navigator, came to die. I feel sure that in the happier days to come, Christian archæologists from many countries will visit Lough Corrib. When we understand the possibilities of this lake from an archæological point of view, and the likelihood that archæologists may come there to unearth the hidden treasures of our country, I am sure no one will grudge any expenditure which may be necessary to develop it. Lough Corrib may be worth hundreds of thousands of pounds to the country. I am sure Mayo will be very proud to contribute its share and will not resent the payment of the paltry sum at stake in this Bill. It will be very proud of taking part in making Lough Corrib what we all hope to see it, a great centre of cultural interest and a great source of refreshment for the tired peoples of the world.
Tá faitíos orm nach mbeidh ar mo chumas aontú le mo charaid, an Seanadóir Ó Deaghdha, maidir leis an leasú seo. Tá mé ar aon intinn leis an méid adúradh, go háirithe ag an Seanadóir Ó Conceannainn, i dtaobh áilleachta agus tábhachta náisiúnta agus cultúrtha Loch Coirib, ach ní bhaineann na pointí sin leis an mBille seo. Má táthar le Loch Coirib d'fheabhsú, d'fhoirbhiú le haghaidh lucht cuartaíochta agus é a scrúdú ó thaobh staire agus seandálaíochta, ní mór é seo a dhéanamh ar shlí éigin eile nó trí Bhille éigin eile.
Ní maith liom aon duine nó aon dream a shaoradh óna gcuid fiacha dlisteanacha gan údar mór a bheith leis. Sa geás seo, is fíor go bhfuil cliste ar Contae Mhuigheo a gcuid íoc ar feadh roinnt blian. Ar an taobh eile, is fíor gur beag an buntáiste a bhí le fáil ag Contae Mhuigheo, nó ag Contae na Gaillimhe ach an oiread. Blianta ó shoin is cinnte gur bhain Contae Mhuigheo tairbhe mhór as na bealaigh uisce atá i gceist. Bhí mórán tráchta ann suas go dtí Conga agus ar ais go Gaillimh. Ach chuaidh tairbhe na tráchta go mór do shochar Chontae Mhuigheo. Ach, mar adúirt an té adúirt é, d'imigh sin agus tháinig seo. Fuair Contae Mhuigheo buntáiste as go neamhdhíreach. Cuidíonn Canáil na Gaillimhe go mór le dréineáil na Coiribe agus, ní miste a rá anseo go ritheann cuid mhaith d'uiscí Loch Measc agus Loch Carra chun siúl tríd an gCoirib agus trí Chanáil na Gaillimhe. Ní fíor a rá nár thairbhe é an Chanáil sin agus ní fíor a rá nach tairbhe fós é.
Ar chor ar bith, is dóigh liom nach dona an moladh é agus gach ní a bheith curtha san áireamh, an fiacha seo a laghdú nó a mhaitheamh ar fad.
Ní mian liom aon ní eile a rá faoin gceist ach a iarraidh ar an Seanad an scéal d'fhágáil mar atá sé sa mBille.
As I have already stated, I am not able to accept this amendment. It is only right to point out that the trustees had ample powers for the recovery of this debt if they had only carried out their obligations when they were in being. It is not quite correct to say that Galway derives all the benefits—whatever benefits there may be—from the construction of this canal. Mayo also benefited, though not, of course, to the same extent, but it cannot be overlooked that the obligation of Mayo is being considerably reduced, and I think any fair-minded person who looks into all the aspects of the case will agree that the public interests are being served by this Bill.
Is the amendment being pressed?
I wonder is the Parliamentary Secretary opposing all my amendments, because if he is I will have to put them all to the House. For example, in amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8——
Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are interdependent.
There are also the amendments to Section 14. If we get some relief, I do not mind losing the £1,200 or £1,300 that Mayo owes us, but if every amendment is to be opposed, I will put them all to the House.
I think it is very difficult for representatives here from Cork or Dublin to know with which team they will play in this matter—Galway or Mayo. Listening to the discussion, I was certainly impressed by the case made for the payment of debts which have already accrued and are due, apart from the question of the next amendment, which was discussed with this one. I have not exactly followed the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary, but I would point out that this matter has been discussed in the other House, where there are direct representatives from those two constituencies, and it was more proper for them to thrash it out there than for us to try to play with either team here. As the matter has been discussed at great length now, I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should consider it between this and Report Stage rather than divide the House on it.
I feel in a difficulty in the matter. I should like to express the view, as conceived in my mind now, that whatever is to be the apportionment for the future I am impressed by the fact that one county has defaulted in its payments up to the present. I think the Parliamentary Secretary should look into the matter between this and the Report Stage rather than have us dividing on the question now.
I should be quite satisfied with that.
I rise merely to say that I did not realise when we came in here on a Navigation Bill that we were going to get the slant on Irish tourism which has been very properly given to us by Senator Mrs. Concannon. Without in any way wishing to detract from the value of Corrib from that angle, I do not think that the scenic values of Corrib will hardly be improved by suggesting that Mayo becomes a little bit of Galway county, and I think that was really the line Mrs. Concannon went on. I should like to know in what way this Bill can possibly assist in the development of Lough Corrib for tourist purposes. If I felt that it could assist in the development of Corrib or if I felt that Senator O'Dea's amendment would assist in the development of Corrib for tourist purposes, then my difficulties would be very easily dissolved, because quite frankly at the moment I find myself completely in accord with Senator O'Donovan. Two very different principles have been discussed in this amendment. The first principle is whether a man should pay his debts. On that principle there can be only one answer. I was delighted to see Senator O Máille first and Senator O'Donovan secondly adhering to that principle, because I can remember a time not so long ago in the early days of the Fianna Fáil Government when that principle was not so generally accepted.
On a point of order, I think we all said "just debts".
"Just debts."
I never heard it suggested that, in the Land Act, of 1933——
We will not discuss Land Acts.
Stick to the point now.
I am very glad to hear that principle accepted, because I do not think it had been fully accepted on another occasion 12 years ago. There is a very definite difficulty in my mind, as a person who knows absolutely nothing about the rights and wrongs of the future. I understood from Senator Ruane, and I understood it was almost admitted by Senator O'Dea, that so far as Mayo is concerned the part of the canal that is in Mayo is not navigable, and that therefore so far as Mayo is concerned for the future there cannot be any benefit coming to them. That was controverted by the Parliamentary Secretary, and I should like to hear the Parliamentary Secretary indicate in what way he feels that Mayo can obtain a benefit in the future. If he could persuade me on that point, then I am afraid my friend Senator Ruane and I might differ.
I am afraid that Senator Sweetman has misunderstood the point I made with regard to whatever benefit Mayo may derive from this canal. It was not my intention to convey to the House that this was a navigable canal. My intention was to convey that a certain amount of drainage benefit will accrue to Mayo as a result of this canal and that, in addition, Mayo will also benefit at least to the extent of the increased traffic in the conveyance of turf and other commodities. With regard to the amendment that we have just been discussing, I am afraid that, however much I should like to do so, I cannot accept the amendment, because no useful purpose would be served by its acceptance. The question has been examined minutely by the legal advisers of the Department of Local Government and Public Health and, as I have already stated, they are of the opinion that this is not the appropriate measure under which to amend the law as it exists at present. For that reason, I think that there would be no useful purpose served in accepting this amendment.
Yes, but because there has been no navigation on the Corrib since 1931, Galway has profited no more than Mayo; in fact, Mayo has benefited more than Galway because there has been an amount of turf traffic as far as Cong.
That may be so, but for the future Galway will get all the benefit, and Mayo will get none.
According to Senator Ruane, all navigation will be abandoned.
I gathered from the Parliamentary Secretary that it has been abandoned.
No.
No. The locks have been kept up. The two bridges have been kept up by Galway at their own expense, and they have asked Mayo for nothing.
How will Mayo benefit?
There are two locks concerned: one has dried up, but the other is working.
Mr. Ruane
I have listened to the arguments of Senator O'Dea with regard to this question of the relief to Galway because of the subterranean channel between Lough Mask and the Corrib, but I do not think that that enters into the matter at all because, perhaps, at some future date a subterranean channel might be discovered between the Corrib and Lough Gill, or some other subterranean channel. I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that the responsibility attaching to this should be left open to the drainage authority. I would be perfectly satisfied if that were done, and we would then watch with interest and delight the development of the Corrib when the Tourist Board takes over and provides all the amenities which are there, if properly developed.
Is the amendment being pressed?
Yes, Sir.
There is, apparently, no subterranean channel between the Parliamentary Secretary and Senator O'Dea.
I am putting the question. Those in favour say "Ta"; those against say "Níl".
Question put.
I think the amendment is lost.
I ask for a show of hands, Sir.
I think, Senator, the amendment is lost.
Well, can we have a show of hands, Sir?
Very good. Those in favour of the amendment will please stand in their places.
Four Senators rose.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are interdependent.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In sub-section (1), (b), line 41, page 5, to delete the word "sixty" and substitute instead the word "forty-five".
Before the Senator proceeds, might I intervene for a moment? I presume, A Chathaoirligh, that the names of those who voted on the last amendment will be put on record?
Yes.
Because I should like it to go on record that Senator O'Donovan did not place himself on record as voting for the principles which he advocated so strongly.
Mr. O'Donovan
Thanks.
In connection with the amendment I have moved, as I explained before, in this section the percentages have been altogether altered. Galway corporation, I think, had to pay 16 per cent. of the cost of navigation in the old days, and that percentage has been changed from 16 to 60. Mayo County Council had to pay 32 per cent., and that percentage has been reduced to 10 per cent. The amendment I am proposing would also affect the amendment to Section 14. As is pretty well known, the rates in Galway are very high, amounting to 30/- in the £. This navigation is supposed to affect the counties of Mayo and Galway, as well as the town of Galway, but the town of Galway is really at the tail-end of the navigation. As a matter of fact, when the navigation was in existence it came down only to a place called Wood Quay in the town of Galway and did not come down to the part of the town where the locks are kept up; and yet Galway is now asked to pay 60 per cent. of the total cost. That will be an undue burden on Galway Corporation. In that connection, as I have mentioned, I have an amendment to Section 14. Section 14 (5) (a) says:—
"As on and from the appointed day every bridge over the Eglinton Canal shall, for the purposes of the Local Government Act, 1925 (No. 5 of 1925), and any order made (whether before or after the passing of this Act) under sub-section (3) of Section 24 of that Act, be regarded as part of the road on which it is situate and shall be deemed to be a work the execution and maintenance of which has 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."
Now, there are five bridges in the town of Galway. Two of them, as I tell you, are on the main roads, and these have been reconstructed and new bridges have been erected by the Galway County Council. The other three bridges are on what are called urban roads. They are not main roads, and I am informed by the county surveyor that it will cost about £18,000 to put new bridges, that are badly needed, on those three roads. That would mean throwing an additional expense of £18,000 on the Galway Corporation.
Sixty per cent. of it.
No. My friend says 60 per cent. of the cost, but it is the entire cost of the reconstruction. Previously it was the board of trustees that had to make these reconstructions, but now it is the road authority that has to construct the bridges. The road authority is responsible now for the construction of these three bridges, and, therefore, the Galway Corporation will have to bear the cost of the entire £18,000 necessary for the reconstruction of these three bridges, and the board of trustees will be entirely relieved to that extent and Mayo County Council will not have to bear it either. So that, to that extent, Mayo is being relieved of its debts, being let off 32 per cent. of this, and is also being let off what is the greatest expense that will accrue, and that is the amount necessary for the reconstruction of these three bridges. I am very modest in asking that only 20 per cent. be put on Mayo instead of 32 per cent., and 35 per cent. on Galway County Council instead of the 30 per cent. mentioned in the Bill. Instead of Galway having to bear 60 per cent. it will now have to bear 45 per cent.
I can understand Senator O'Dea's point with regard to the differences that exist between Galway Corporation and Galway County Council as to responsibility in this case, but I fail to see where Mayo comes in. The bulk of the expenditure that the Senator understands will arise on the navigation scheme will be on bridges to be erected in Galway. Why should Mayo have to pay 20 per cent. of that expenditure? I think no sensibly-minded person would ask Mayo to exceed the 10 per cent. mentioned in the Bill.
There was some reference on an earlier amendment to Mayo defaulting. I protest against that. For years Mayo has had a very honourable record in that respect, and was very high in the list of counties that discharged their rate commitments. Only latterly has Mayo given first place to a few other counties in that respect. Mayo has had a very high place in the list every year, so that it is not fair to refer to that county as defaulting. It has not defaulted. The county responded as far as it received any benefit, direct or indirect, but it received no benefit under this scheme.
I suppose the Senator will admit that it has not paid on it for many years.
The various amounts were apportioned in proportion to the expenditure in the different areas during recent years. In the Galway area, the expenditure was 84 per cent., and on that basis it might be asked to make a contribution of 84 per cent., but it is not being asked to do so, because regard has been taken to the fact that henceforth it will be responsible for the maintenance of bridges over the canal. Furthermore, if at any time it is deemed necessary to alter the charges or to rearrange them, the Minister has power to make such a revision under Section 12 (2). It is felt, having regard to the amount expended in the various contributory areas, that the amounts apportioned in the Bill are the most equitable.
I cannot understand that argument at all, that because money has been spent in a place, the people there must bear the expense.
The question is that amendment No. 6 be agreed to.
My anxiety is about amendment No. 8.
Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are, as I have said, interdependent.
If amendment No. 8 is taken with amendment No. 7, I am against it.
On a point of order, has not a decision been taken?
On amendment No. 6?
On amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8.
Amendment No. 8 refers to Mayo, and I object to the percentage being raised.
If we alter the percentage in one case, inevitably we must alter the others. Therefore, the other amendments depend on No. 6.
Mr. Ruane
Then I am against the three amendments.
Put Amendment No. 6.
Amendment put and declared lost, Senators Mrs. Concannon, O Máille and O'Dea dissenting.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.
Sections 12 and 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.
I move amendment No. 9:—
In sub-section 5 (a), page 7, to delete paragraph (a), lines 1 to 12 inclusive.
This is the section that shows the expenditure on three bridges on the town and Corporation of Galway. The sub-section states:—
"The board of trustees shall cease to be liable for the maintenance of any such bridge."
I am informed that these three bridges must be reconstructed and that the reconstruction will cost £18,000. The idea is that the £18,000 will be put on in the proportion of 60 per cent. to 100 per cent. on the Corporation of Galway where the rates are already 30/- in the £. Galway Corporation has done a great deal of useful work and has built many houses. Where previously it had to provide 60 per cent. it will now have to provide 60 per cent. of the expenditure as well as the entire cost of the reconstruction of the bridges. That is the most serious matter in the Bill and for the reasons given I ask the House to support the amendment.
Is mian liom ceist a chur ar an Rúnaí Parleméide, Má shocruigheann na fitfiúirí (Trustees) chanáil na Gailimh d'aistriú chuig an mBórd Draenála, an é an Bórd sin a bhéas freagarthach annsin ar costas na ndroichead?
Ní dóigh liom é. It is felt that the local authority would be the more appropriate body to take charge and to be responsible for the maintenance of these bridges, and the question of reconstruction or any thing of that kind. This new board which is being set up under the Bill would not have the necessary or appropriate machinery for these matters. Because of that, it is felt that the correct thing to do is to hand over responsibility to the local authority.
Some bridges already erected in County Galway have, I understand, been erected by means of free grants and it can be naturally assumed, as in all other instances, that there is always a generous grant from the Central Fund. I think that Senator O'Dea is unduly pessimistic when he speaks of the heavy burdens that will be imposed on Galway as a result.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary say what the reconstruction of the last bridge cost, and what was the grant? I asked that in the last debate here.
The full cost was given to the county council.
That is good. I should have explained, perhaps, that if those bridges were ordinary bridges on an ordinary road, I could quite understand what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. In such a case, construction costs over an ordinary road are less than a quarter of a bridge over a canal. Canal bridges must be swivel bridges, and the cost of a swivel bridge is several times greater than the cost of an ordinary fixed bridge. This difference ought not to be borne by the corporation, but by the navigation trustees.
I hope they will get the grants, but that is a matter entirely in the lap of the gods. A Bill is not presumed to put a liability on anybody except the person whom the Bill says will be liable. We must face the issue, so far as this Bill is concerned, that no grant will be given. If the Parliamentary Secretary includes a clause that the cost will be borne by the Central Fund, I would be pleased to accept it as it stands, but he has not done that. He has been very generous to Mayo and very hard on Galway, and I hold the generosity should not be at the expense of County Galway.
Is the amendment being pressed?
Yes.
Question put: "That the amendment be agreed to."
I think the amendment is negatived.
I thought you declared it carried, Sir.
I have declared it negatived.
In that case, Sir, I want to challenge a division.
Very well, let us have the division.
On a point of order, Sir, there was only one níl.
We are about to test that now, Senator.
The Committee divided: Tá, 19; Níl, 16.
Tá
- Baxter, Patrick F.
- Butler, John.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Counihan, John J.
- Hayden, Thomas.
- Johnston, Joseph.
- Keane, Sir John.
- Kyle, Sam.
- McGee, James T.
- Madden, David J.
- Magennis, William.
- O'Dea, Louis E.
- O'Donovan, Timothy J.
- O Máille, Pádraic.
- O'Reilly, Patrick John.
- Parkinson, James J.
- Ruane, Seán T.
- Smyth, Michael.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
Níl
- Clarkin, Andrew S.
- Healy, Denis D.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Honan, Thomas V.
- Johnston, Séamus.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, Peter T.
- Lynch, Peter T.
- McCabe, Dominick.
- O Buachalla, Liam.
- O'Donovan, Seán.
- Nic Phiarais, Maighréad M.
- Quirke, William.
- Ruane, Thomas.
- Stafford, Matthew.
- Summerfield, Frederick M.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators O'Dea and O Máille; Níl: Senators Clarkin and S. O'Donovan.
Amendment declared carried.
Section 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Section 15 and title agreed to.
Bill reported with two amendments.
Report Stage fixed for first day of meeting of the House after present week.