Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 may be taken together.
Lough Corrib Navigation Bill, 1945—Fourth and Fifth Stages.
I move amendments Nos. 1 and 2:—
1. In page 3, Section 4, to add a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) The quorum for a meeting of the board of trustees shall be one-third of the whole number of the members of such board.
2. In page 3, Section 4, to delete sub-section (2) (inserted in Committee) and to substitute therefor the following sub-section:—
(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of this section the board of trustees may act notwithstanding one or more vacancies in its membership.
At the last meeting of the House, an amendment was inserted to the effect that the board might act notwithstanding one or more vacancies in its membership. It struck me at the time that, if that provision were allowed to stand, there might be a large number of vacancies in the board—six or seven— and yet the board might continue to act. In these circumstances, I thought that it might be helpful to put in the amendments which I now submit. The amendment which proposes to fix the quorum is taken from Sections 18 and 19 of the Vocational Education Act, so that we shall be acting according to precedent. The number of vacancies could not, if my amendment were accepted, at any time exceed five, and the ambiguity which appears to be present in the amendment inserted at the last meeting would be removed.
I am afraid that we cannot accept those two amendments. We have already fixed the quorum at three. Under this amendment, the quorum would be fixed at one-third of the total membership. As the entire body consists of eight members, it is obvious that you could not have an attendance of one-third of that number. Apart from that, each of the contributing bodies is under a statutory obligation to fill vacancies as they arise and the Minister for Local Government and Public Health is bound to see that these bodies discharge their statutory duties. It is felt that the Bill is better as it stands than it would be if these amendments were accepted.
I am not in any way committed to the fraction, one-third. I merely suggested that because the Act from which I took the first amendment provided for a quorum of one-fourth and it struck me that that would be a rather small number in this case. The necessary attendance might be only two. One-third of the membership of the board would be two and two-thirds. Since we cannot have the two-thirds, it is obvious that three would form the quorum. When the quorum does not work out at an exact figure, the practice is to take the next greater whole number. I should prefer a quorum of half or even a larger number. I submit this amendment, providing for one-third, for the purpose of removing the ambiguity that seems to exist in the amendment carried on the last day. That amendment provided that the board "may act notwithstanding one or more vacancies in its membership".
One or two.
No—one or more. With his legal instinct, Senator O'Dea suggested an amendment providing that the board could act "notwithstanding one or two vacancies in its membership". That amendment was not accepted by the Parliamentary Secretary, but the amendment in the name of Senator Quirke, referring to "one or more vacancies" was accepted. More, I say, is a very loose way of stating the provision necessary to secure that the acts of the board are complied with.
As the Bill stands, the quorum is definitely fixed as three, and under Section 13 of the 1856 Act which actually remains in force all the powers and duties vested in the trustees may be exercised and discharged at meetings at which not less than three members are present. If you take Senator O'Reilly's amendment as against the quorum of three, already fixed, you will find that there is really nothing in it, that they both amount to the same thing.
I think that the three is a reasonable number, and that you cannot reduce it lower. If you make it larger you will possibly find that you will have a meeting of only three members, and if the quorum is fixed at four the meeting would fall through. I feel that three is a reasonable number having regard to the total membership of the board as eight.
Are the amendments withdrawn?
Mr. O'Reilly
When the Parliamentary Secretary is not prepared to accept them there does not seem much point in pressing the amendments.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In page 5, section 12, subsection (1) (b), in line 41, to delete the word "sixty" and insert instead the word "sixty-five"; in line 42, to delete the word "thirty" and insert instead the word "thirty-five"; and to delete line 43.
This amendment is for the purpose of removing what will be for all time, while it remains in the Bill, a source of contention as between counties Galway and Mayo. During the discussion on the Second Stage of the Bill certain arguments were advanced in support of the imposition of a percentage of the maintenance charges on County Mayo. The only argument, as a matter of fact, which appeared to stand on its legs was that made by the Parliamentary Secretary who, I believe, must have been misinformed. He said that the people of Mayo derived certain benefits from the navigation scheme in the matter of drainage and of turf transport.
Since that discussion on the Second Stage I have made contacts with people in touch with every aspect of this scheme in Mayo, and I am reliably informed that no turf goes over or ever went over the canal from Mayo to Galway or from Galway to Mayo. So far as the relief of drainage which this scheme is supposed to give to Mayo is concerned, I would like to quote for you, Sir, and for the members of the Seanad, an excerpt from the Report of the Drainage Commission, which, as you know, preceded the introduction of the Arterial Drainage Bill. This Bill, the Corrib Navigation Bill, is in direct contradiction to the recommendations of the Drainage Commission as set out in paragraphs 302, and 303 of the Report, which goes on to state:—
"Several of the existing navigation schemes are still nominally maintained, although traffic is negligible and there are no prospects of increased trade, as the traffic formerly carried is now more expeditiously dealt with on the roads. To bring some of these navigation schemes to an efficient state would now require a considerable outlay without any compensatory increase in business. The abandonment, however, of these canals or canalised rivers might in some cases leave them available for river discharge and give an increased outlet for floods..."
The same Report definitely singled out the Lough Corrib navigation scheme as a case in point, referring to it as follows in paragraph 303:—
"The short canal, five-eighths of a mile in length, connecting Lough Corrib and the River Corrib with the sea, is a case in point. Over it are five swing bridges built in 1859. Two were renewed last year and the renewal of three more of the lough gates is contemplated. The total cost of these works is from £40,000 to £50,000, although the only traffic consists of one or two pleasure boats making one passage up or down the canal each year and these boats could easily be lorried to or from the docks at very little expense. If abandoned, the canal would form a very useful drainage channel for dealing with flood discharge."
I should think that disposes of the argument that the Lough Corrib navigation scheme is of any benefit to the people of Mayo for the purposes of drainage. On the last occasion my friend Senator O'Dea referred to the fact that two bridges were built in Galway and that Mayo was not asked to make any contribution. As a matter of fact Mayo was asked to contribute but did not, for very sound reasons.
They refused.
From 1865 until 1941 Mayo, or that part of the county which is known as the Barony of Kilmain, made an annual contribution to the maintenance of that scheme. In 1941 it transpired that the levies were made by a body irregularly constituted. The maintenance charges were, therefore, irregularly levied. Mayo then ceased to make any contributions as from that date. To relieve any feelings of uneasiness among my Galway friends, let me say that it is not contemplated in Mayo to sue for a recovery of the amount, wrongfully levied and collected since 1855. This amount in the aggregate totals considerably over £20,000. We have our own navigation schemes in Mayo. Some time ago the Mayo County Council approved of a scheme to make a swing bridge connecting Broadhaven and Blacksod Bay. The only thing holding up that scheme is the fact that the materials required are not easily obtained. When that work is done it will be of very considerable benefit to craft passing round that part of the coast, and not confined to Mayo craft. Similarly at Achill Sound, a new swing bridge is to be built when materials can be procured. These two works will cost a considerable sum of money and will be of general benefit, but we are not asking Galway for a halfpenny.
In so far as the bridges built in Galway are concerned, I am very credibly informed that the cost of those works was, in the main, borne by a grant from the Road Fund, and, therefore, the responsibility for the scheme is not increasing the burden on the ratepayers in Galway. The people in County Mayo who were responsible for these maintenance charges are farmers whose land is among the most highly rated in the country. They never derive any benefit from employment schemes because there are no unemployed from the area on the register. There are no people on the dole and they can never avail themselves of work carried out by the Government schemes for the relief of unemployed as other areas may do.
In other parts of the county where there is a reasonable amount of unemployed to carry out these works, benefits have been derived from them. It is felt, in Mayo, that an area which for such a long time has been contributing to a system from which they never got any benefit should be relieved of any further responsibility, and while we wish Galway people well in every sense of the word we do not feel that it is right or just or proper that Mayo should have to continue for all time contributing to a maintenance charge, I do not mind how small it may be, towards the upkeep of a scheme that is of benefit to County Galway alone.
On the last occasion on which this matter was debated, Senator Mrs. Concannon spoke in a very eloquent manner on the beauties of Lough Corrib and of the opening that exists there for improvement by the expenditure of a little extra money. I should like to assure the House that we have some very beautiful lakes in Mayo also. In North Mayo we have Lough Conn. People who visit that lake annually from many parts of the country and from overseas, like to refer to it as the Killarney of the West. I am quite satisfied that with a little expenditure on the amenities of Lough Conn we would make it more attractive and more remunerative to the people of Mayo. If such expenditure is undertaken, I assure you that we shall not look to Galway for monetary assistance. Because of these considerations I feel that I am not asking anything unreasonable in requesting the Seanad to support my efforts for the removal of this unjust burden on Mayo. I appeal also to the Parliamentary Secretary to accept the amendment. The lifting of this burden, as I said at the outset, will remove for all time a bone of contention as between the counties of Galway and Mayo.
I must compliment my friend, Senator Ruane, on the very cool effrontery with which he has proposed this amendment. I have not heard anything like it for a very long time, and I am sure it has taken the Seanad by surprise. On two different occasions I pointed out the injustice inflicted by this Bill on County Galway, particularly on the borough of Galway, and the equally unjust relief given to Mayo. My friend, Senator Ruane, is not satisfied with that. He wants to remove liability for even the miserable 10 per cent. that Mayo has been asked to pay, notwithstanding the fact that for some years past they have not contributed one penny towards the cost of the navigation. They have refused point blank to pay one penny, and I am sure they will refuse to pay again.
Now we are asked to remove the liability for the miserable 10 per cent. of the expenses of the board of trustees which Mayo is asked to pay under this Bill. Mayo's liability was fixed under a very old award made, I think, in the year 1859. The ratepayers of Mayo were held to be liable for 32 per cent. of the original outlay and of the cost of maintenance. That was a very reasonable contribution and yet this Bill reduces Mayo's contribution under this particular clause to 10 per cent. And my friend is not satisfied! I suppose there are some people you cannot satisfy. If the measure of their liability had been left as it was, I am sure there would not be a word of protest but because the Government have thought fit to give this tremendous concession to Mayo, my friend, emboldened by that concession, comes along and says: "I want to get rid of the whole liability." I think that request is so ridiculous that it need not be answered.
I am afraid I cannot accept this amendment. We have endeavoured to hold the scales of justice as evenly balanced as possible between Galway and Mayo, but judging by the speeches which we have just heard we have evidently been wronging both counties.
You have been wronging Galway, anyway.
That convinces me that we have been fairly just to both counties. Under the Act of 1856, as Senators are aware, the charges were first levied and the various contributing bodies were bound by law to make certain contributions. In the case of Mayo the old contribution was 32 per cent. The charge to be levied under this particular section is now to be reduced to 10 per cent. In arriving at the figure for the various contributions to be made by the contributing bodies, we had regard to the expenditure in the different areas as a sort of yardstick measurement of the amount of contributions of these various bodies. In any case, under Section 12 (2) the Minister is empowered at any time to review the charges, and if a case can be made for so doing, reallot them on a different basis and alter the percentage up or down, as he considers just. With regard to the point made by Senator Ruane, as to the erection or renovation of bridges in Galway, I think he can make his mind easy on that matter as I am not aware that the ratepayers were called upon to contribute towards that expenditure. The cost of the erection of these bridges was borne entirely from the Central Fund, and I doubt if anyone can reasonably assume that the ratepayers will be less generously treated in regard to such works in the future than in the past. I think that on the whole any impartial observer will have to agree that we have endeavoured to be fair to all parties concerned, and for that reason I regret that I cannot accept the amendment.
I must say that I have a good deal of sympathy on this occasion with Senator Ruane. On the last occasion Senator Ruane suggested that Mayo should not pay something that the council was quite legally bound to pay. On that issue I was quite clearly prepared to be against him, but this appears to be a question of the future. It appears to me to be a question of the benefit to be derived from these works, in the future and I did hope that the Parliamentary Secretary would give us some indication as to what benefit Mayo would derive and would not merely have adopted the attitude of getting up and saying: "I have decided on a certain proportion for each county and you must accept my decision as being good and proper," without giving us rhyme or reason for the grounds on which he came to that decision. If that is the line to be adopted on legislation of this kind, it appears to me that it is utter waste of time to come here at all. It would be very much better if the Executive decided what laws they were going to promulgate and leave it at that. I suggest that we are entitled to hear the reasons for the Government's proposals in this matter. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the yardstick was the expenditure in each area. Let us hear what benefit Mayo will derive from this expenditure. If his reasons are good and sufficient, then I shall oppose Senator Ruane, but until such reasons are produced to the House it appears to me that the case made by Senator Ruane is left unanswered.
May I say, in reply to the references made by Senator O'Dea to the fact that Mayo has not contributed anything since 1941, that I gave the reason for that? Mayo County Council obtained the opinion of very learned counsel that the sums of money which they had been paying since 1865 were levied by a body irregularly constituted and that they were not legally responsible for these contributions. That was why Mayo stopped the payment of levies.
On a technicality.
Mr. Ruane
As Senator Sweetman pointed out, we have got no evidence from the Parliamentary Secretary that any benefit will accrue to Mayo as the result of the perpetuation of this scheme. If I could go back to the people of Mayo and say: "Well, you are going to get such and such a benefit and you are not going to be asked to pay very much," I would gladly do so, but I should like to be able to tell them what benefit they will derive from this navigation scheme.
I am glad to have an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that in the case of the erection of bridges along this navigation scheme the bulk of the expenditure will be defrayed out of the Central Fund. It is a considerable relief to me to hear that, because the estimate for the construction of these bridges runs into a sum of £50,000. Ten per cent. of that £50,000 would mean a rather heavy levy on Mayo. Even if it were made a county-at-large charge, it would entail the striking of an extra 3½d. or 4d. in the £. It would naturally make the people in Belmullet and North Mayo ask: what contribution are we getting from Galway towards the construction of the canal between Broadhaven and Blacksod? It would make the people in Achill ask: what is Galway contributing to the cost of the swing bridges to be constructed at Achill Sound? If the assurances for which I have asked were given, I would gladly withdraw the amendment.
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided:—Tá, 17; Níl, 18.
Tá
- Baxter, Patrick F.
- Butler, John.
- Campbell, Seán P.
- Counihan, John J.
- Douglas, James G.
- Duffy, Luke J.
- Fearon, William R.
- Hayden, Thomas.
- Hayes, Michael.
- Keane, Sir John
- Kyle, Sam.
- O'Donovan, Timothy J.
- O'Reilly, Patrick John.
- Parkinson, James J.
- Ruane, Seán T.
- Smyth, Michael.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
Níl
- Clarkin, Andrew S.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Foran, Thomas.
- Healy, Denis D.
- Hearne, Michael.
- Honan, Thomas V.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, Peter T.
- McCabe, Dominick.
- Magennis, William.
- O Buachalla, Liam.
- O'Dea, Louis E.
- O'Donovan, Seán.
- Nic Phiarais, Maighréad M.
- Quirke, William.
- Stafford, Matthew.
- Summerfield, Frederick M.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Seán T. Ruane and Sweetman; Níl: Senators Hearne and Seán O'Donovan.
Amendment declared negatived.
Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
Before the Bill passes, Sir, I should like to draw attention to what seems to be a rather peculiar provision in this Bill and in some other Bills of this character. I would draw your attention to the provisions of Section 6, which provides that "Article 12 of the Schedule to the Local Government (Application of Enactments) Order, 1898, as amended by any subsequent enactment, shall apply to the Board of Trustees", set up under this Bill. It is extraordinary, however, that that Article, to which reference is made in this Bill, has, in part, been repealed by the Local Government Act of 1931, and that further provision in that regard is being made in a Bill which will come before us very shortly. It seems to me that if we want to make provisions in a Bill of this kind for the qualifications or disqualifications contained in the Application of Enactments Order, they should be set out specifically in the Bill, and that we should not be asked to say that certain provisions shall have effect although, elsewhere, these provisions are repealed. I do not know what the Parliamentary Secretary may have to say about this, but I would urge upon him that it is important that in a Bill of this kind the actual matters that are being repealed should be set out in the Bill, and that it should not be done in the manner in which it is being done here.
I do not know that I have very much to say on this. It strikes me that it is a matter for the draftsman rather than for me. However, I shall have the Senator's remarks noted, with a view to seeing what can be done.
I take exception to the view that anything done in this House is a matter for the draftsman rather than for Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered: That the Bill be returned to the Dáil with two amendments.