Transport Bill, 1960: Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. Childers)

The purpose of the Bill is to enable C.I.E. to close the Royal Canal to navigation on two months' notice; under existing legislation, C.I.E. could not close the canal to navigation, unless it had not been used for public navigation for three years or more.

The Royal Canal, about 96 miles in length, extends from the Port of Dublin to the Shannon at Tarmonbarry. It passes through the counties of Dublin, Kildare, Meath, Westmeath and Longford and served the towns of Dublin, Mullingar and Longford. Longford was served by a branch, about 5½ miles long, from the main line of the canal a few miles from its junction with the Shannon.

The Royal Canal was constructed under the provision of a Charter of Incorporation of the Royal Canal Company under the Great Seal of Ireland in 1789. Ownership of the canal passed to Great Southern Railways Company from the Midland Great Western Railway Company under the Railways Act, 1924; and subsequently, ownership passed to C.I.E. under the Transport Act, 1944. Neither C.I.E. nor their predecessor ever operated a commercial transport service on the Royal Canal. Commercial navigation on the canal has in fact ceased since 1951. The Broad-stone branch of the canal was closed in 1927 and subsequently filled in. Recently the Longford branch and the section from Spencer Dock, Dublin, to Liffey Junction were closed to navigation. There is no longer access to the canal from the Port of Dublin. During the past four years, there has been no public navigation on the Royal Canal except in a technical sense, that is to say, by locally owned rowboats or canoes. In that period, the canal had been used on 14 occasions only and the total revenue derived by C.I.E. from tolls in that period amounted only to £10 5s. 1d.

I would have been quite satisfied to allow the position of the Royal Canal to continue as at present until the five year term for the reorganisation of C.I.E. was completed in July, 1963. The question has arisen, however, of the replacement of various road bridges over the canal and it has been found that the cost of replacing these bridges will be increased subtantially if they have to be designed to provide for navigation. For example, in the case of the "Dublin" Bridge at Mullingar which is due for immediate reconstruction, the cost of the new bridge will be increased by about £8,000 if it is necessary to provide for navigation.

A similar position will arise in respect of other bridges on this canal which must be reconstructed in the near future. If such bridges were to be reconstructed to allow for navigation shortly before the closing of the canal to navigation the Minister for Local Government feels, and rightly so, that the Departments and the local authorities concerned would be open to criticism for wasteful expenditure.

The Minister for Lands is at present giving consideration to the possibility of developing the canals generally for coarse fishing and eel fisheries. The closing of the Royal Canal to navigation will not prejudice any plans in this respect; in fact it should clear the way for further consideration of such plans.

Lest there should be any misunderstanding on the point, I would mention that the closure of the Royal Canal to navigation would not affect the other obligations of C.I.E. in relation to it. C.I.E. would continue to be responsible for such matters as drainage and prevention of flooding and if, subsequently they should wish to abandon the canal these responsibilities will be transferred, if necessary, to some other body or bodies.

In the course of the Dáil debates on the Bill Deputies expressed some concern that the closing of the Royal Canal to navigation might interfere with the supply of water from the canal to farmers and other users. C.I.E. at present supply water from the section of the Royal Canal between Dublin and Mullingar to some twenty persons or undertakings outside the city and to seven in the city including Dublin Corporation. The closure of the canal to navigation will not affect the right of the persons concerned to supply of water.

Another point mentioned in the course of the Dáil debates was the question of the use of the Royal Canal towpaths. The position in this regard is the same as in the case of water supplies—the right to use towpaths will not be affected by the present Bill. If and when C.I.E. want to abandon the canal they will be obliged to seek an abandonment warrant from the Minister for Transport and Power of the day. Needless to say, permission to abandon the canal would not be given without due regard to interests in respect of which C.I.E. retains responsibilities nor would such permission be given unless it were clear beforehand that abandonment would not prejudice proposals for development of the canal for other purposes.

As to the future of the Royal Canal, the present intentions are that the portion of the canal between Liffey Junction and Mullingar will be retained indefinitely for water supply purposes; the portion of the canal west of Mullingar will also be retained for the time being, but ultimately it may have to be abandoned unless it is found possible to develop it for some other purposes. The portion of the canal between the Liffey and Liffey Junction and the Longford branch have already been closed to navigation.

It will be noted that this Bill deals solely with the Royal Canal. The position in relation to navigation on the Grand Canal was explained by my predecessor in the course of the debate in Dáil Éireann on the Transport Act, 1958. The provisions of that Bill, as introduced, would have enabled C.I.E. to close a canal to navigation on one month's notice. It was, however, strongly felt by various interests that the Grand Canal still had a potential for future development, and to meet those views the Bill was amended to provide that C.I.E. would close a canal to navigation only where it had not been used for public navigation for three years or more. The intention of that amendment was that those interests which supported the retention of the canal would thereby have an opportunity of demonstrating that the canals would be used to an extent sufficient to justify their retention for navigation; and in relation to the Grand Canal this situation will remain unchanged at least until the end of the five-year period allowed to C.I.E. under the Transport Act, 1958, for reorganisation of the transport services.

In all these circumstances and bearing in mind the urgent necessity to provide for reconstruction of certain bridges over the Royal Canal, I consider that the legal requirement to keep the canal open to navigation should now be repealed and, therefore, I recommend this Bill to the House.

Mr. McGuire

There is not very much to be said about this Bill, except that there is something sad, if inevitable, about the bringing in of a Bill to terminate the active life of something that started in 1789 in such a blaze of glory, being established under Royal Charter and so on, but I think the Royal Canal has reached such a stage of decay and disuse that we must all agree the suggestions in this Bill are the only ones for winding up, as it were, this canal. One cannot help having a slight apprehension, just as with the closing of the branch lines of the railways, that possibly we should be careful, even in the last stages, that we retain as much as possible of the usefulness of the canals that remains. It is only fair to say that the only use now of the canal is fishing and the supplying of water and these two factors seem to have been taken into consideration in the Bill and seem to be covered very reasonably.

I am rather interested in the Grand Canal which is still in a reasonably navigable condition. I remember the time when these canals were being taken over by C.I.E. and I made some remarks in this House disagreeing with the taking over of the Grand Canal Company which at that time was operating quite successfully and, if I remember rightly, making a reasonable, though small, profit on its operations. I felt at the time that here we were taking over something from private enterprise that was in fact quite successful. Very often, we hear that something which has not been a success under private enterprise has to be taken over by the State. Now we have a case where something was taken over in a going and successful condition which may very easily find itself in the same position as the Royal Canal, the position we have before us today.

I was pleased to hear the Minister refer to the Grand Canal and to learn that there is a belief that it may still be able to prove useful and be navigable. As we know, in Germany and Holland and other European countries today, even in this jet age, the canals serve a useful purpose because they provide a rather cheap method of transport for very heavy goods which do not require quick delivery.

There is also the tourist aspect. One of the most important tourist facilities we have, a facility which, I think, has not yet been developed sufficiently, is the use of the Shannon for yachting and as a holiday area. A very cheap means of getting yachts and boats from the sea on the east coast over to the Shannon is through this canal. That should be borne in mind in future and we should be slow to do anything in the case of the Grand Canal which would put it in the same condition as that in which we now find the Royal Canal.

Apart from that, the discussion on the Bill in the Dáil was very full and covered all aspects. I think it is fair to say that a reasonable and full attempt has been made to safeguard all the rights and interests that will be affected by the closing down of this canal and therefore I support the Bill.

Mr. O'Dwyer

I agree with Senator McGuire that it is regrettable that it should be found necessary to close this canal which would seem to have had such great possibilities. I sincerely hope the Minister will look into the development of the waterways of Ireland, particularly the Shannon. I always felt that the Shannon should be much the same for us here as the river Danube is in Germany. With the great developments taking place now in Shannon, Foynes——

An Cathaoirleach

I am afraid we cannot discuss the development of the Shannon.

Mr. O'Dwyer

I hope the Minister will bear in mind that it might be possible to develop the Shannon from Limerick to Athlone.

Mr. Cole

I want to ask the Minister one question, that is, what is included in the term "navigation"? If there were an order, as I suppose there will be eventually, to close the canal to navigation, does the Minister envisage that it will exclude canoes and rowing boats? That should be expressly stated and expressly understood. Canoeing is only in its infancy in this country, but year by year more people are engaging in it, and if more people come from England and other places for fishing trips, they will realise the possibilities of canoeing and boating in this country. I think the canal is a navigable approach to the country from Dublin, or from the port of entry, shall we say. The possibilities of its being available for that purpose should be kept in mind. I can quite understand that the navigation of the locks would have to be undertaken by the canoeists themselves, but they should be able to do that. I would ask the Minister to ensure that if an order is made closing it to navigation, it will be made available for boating in that form, at any rate.

Mr. L'Estrange

This Bill sounds the death-knell of the Royal Canal and we all regret that. The Minister mentioned water supplies. Water supplies are of tremendous importance to farmers living along the canal and I hope their rights and interests will not be interfered with in this Bill. Speaking in the Dáil, the Minister said that the portion of the canal west of Mullingar will also be retained for the time being, but ultimately it may have to be abandoned, unless it is found possible to develop it for some other purpose. I hope that the canal will not be closed down any further.

When the Minister says he hopes it might be developed for some other purpose, is he aware that the Minister for Local Government has a scheme to bring piped water supplies to the whole of rural Ireland? In Westmeath, there are a few engineers carrying out a survey in that regard. We intend trying to bring the water to certain areas, to some main arteries which the farmers can tap for their own dwelling-houses with the aid of the grants given by the State.

I wonder would it be possible to use the Royal Canal as one of those main arteries? Would the Minister consult the Minister for Local Government and his engineers at some future date in that regard, because I think there is a possibility or a probability that it could be so used? The Royal Canal is 96 miles long and that would save the ratepayers of Dublin, Kildare, Westmeath and Longford an amount of money. I do not know if it is possible; I am only throwing out the suggestion.

The Minister also said that portion of the canal outside Mullingar will be left open and will be used by the Inland Fisheries Trust. I am glad that portion of the canal is to be left open. There is no doubt that the Inland Fisheries Trust have done wonderful work in the midlands. Hundreds of tourists came to Mullingar for the coarse fishing and I am glad that portion is being left open for development by the Inland Fisheries Trust.

Professor Quinlan

I rise to reinforce the point made by Senator Cole. The reason given by the Minister for the closing of the canal was the necessity of putting up new bridges or reconstructing existing bridges and such structures might prove a handicap in the future to whatever use the canal is put. In other words, I regret that the future policy with regard to the canal has not been fashioned before any steps are taken that would make it less useful. The business of pleasure boats and canoes could very easily be interfered with by the type of structures that would be put across the canal. I do not see any reason why that could not be decided in the next year or two before any steps have been taken which would prevent an extension of that type of traffic by canoes or pleasure boats.

We all know the great tourist attraction of the pleasure boats on the canals in the Netherlands. These boats are capable of carrying several hundreds of people. It is conceivable that the type of pleasure boats which might be put on the canal would be limited by the bridge structures across the canal and would also have a certain bearing on the maintenance of the locks in that, as pointed out by Senator Cole, once it was closed to navigation, it would not be navigable by canoes or pleasure boats. If that restriction were removed, it would mean that the locks would be put into such condition that they would not impede future development.

In short, I would prefer if it had been possible for us to have a more comprehensive scheme before us with regard to the utilisation of the canal in order to ensure that no step we are taking would impede future development.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I should like to support what has been said by Senator McGuire and several other Senators in relation to our canals. This Bill deals with only one canal and it hands over the right to C.I.E. to close it down. I feel that our attitude towards our canals and towards this kind of closing down is shortsighted and narrow, and I feel that if it were possible to take a wider point of view, a community point of view rather than a simple balance-sheet point of view, we might well decide that it might be better to spend public money and keep them open. Obviously, in their present condition they are singularly unattractive. No capital has been spent on them in the way of putting up restaurants, boating houses or anything of that kind, and they have been allowed to fall into a state of decrepitude. Yet I believe that neglect should never have occurred.

We passed a Transport Act in 1958. On that occasion, some of us tried to ensure that a question about the closing of railways and so on could be brought to the Dáil or the Seanad and the Minister on that occasion—the predecessor of the present Minister— was very much opposed to doing that. He said that we must give the company full power on certain lines to enable them to make "a go" of it. Certain safeguards, however, were inserted in the Act which meant that the company could not do certain things and we passed the Act with those safeguards. Now I think many people in relation to the closing of branches of the railways and so on, regret the fact that they cannot debate them.

We were told earlier today that the validity of a motion on the Order Paper is being contested on the grounds that under the 1958 Act, we cannot discuss that type of motion. Now, the 1958 Act did contain the provision, as the Minister said, that the company should not be given the power to close a canal unless it had not been used for navigation for three years. I think I am not misinterpreting that clause when I say that, and, as I understand it, that clause is now being repeated under subsection (7), Section 1, of this Bill. Unless I misunderstand it, that is the point of the subsection.

That means that, in 1960, two years after the passing of the 1958 Act, which contained the proviso that a canal could not be closed unless it had not been used for navigation purposes for three years, we are being asked to reverse that proviso and give power to C.I.E. to close a canal. In other words, one of the safeguards, the inclusion of which persuaded us to pass the 1958 Act, is now being removed. I do not favour that type of legislation. I feel that it is getting in by the back door something we resolutely opposed when the 1958 Act was before us.

It may well be that the poor old Royal Canal is in such bad shape now that most of its water reaches cannot be used for navigation. I am not in a position to say, but what has been said by Senator McGuire about maintaining navigable waterways from the east of Ireland to the Shannon is of very great importance. I agree with him when he says we have not done half enough in this way. I am convinced that, apart from the local market which would be small, there would be a big British market for such boating facilities if the canal were developed and advertised. It might be possible on a large scale to bring yachts over from Britain to traverse Ireland by canal and use the Shannon territory as the Norfolk Broads are used. The Norfolk Broads, are now, I understand, seriously overcrowded, through they have, of course, an immense mileage of canal and river.

Nobody talks of closing those canals merely because they are not used for commercial freight traffic; they are used for pleasure boats. C.I.E. has not been imaginative enough to attempt to develop that kind of boating on our waterways. They have been content to let them fall into decrepitude, and then have come to us to ask us to close them altogether and that is not good enough. It might be justifiable from a short-term point of view by a single company, but certainly it is not justifiable from the national point of view.

With relation to our waterways, therefore, of which the Royal Canal is one, we in Dublin do not use our waterways as we should. Some Senators mentioned the Continental canals and boating facilities. Around Dublin —inland, which is largely the canals— such facilities are monstrously inadequate by Continental standards, but all that C.I.E. can do is to ask for power to close the canals, to fill in some sections and abandon others. It may not be strictly a C.I.E. responsibility, unless it has great drive and initiative with regard to that aspect of its work, but I do not think C.I.E. should be given power to veto forever those possibilities as they might be developed by others. Consequently, I am opposed to the Bill on those general grounds.

Mr. Donegan

A constructive point was made by Senator McGuire when he said we were closing something which was paying. With regard to the general transport situation of the country, I suppose the small must give way to the great and though a small unit of transport is paying, it must give way to a large unit of transport that wants to assimilate the work done by the smaller unit and so perhaps make the large unit more economic. I am sure at least that that is the reasoning behind the closing of the canals but it is pathetic to see a private company now extinct, while a public company carries on the same work but not in the same way, takes over its operations and endeavours, by increasing its turnover and reducing overheads, to make itself pay.

That is the way of all flesh, I suppose, but I would like to sound a note of warning inasmuch as the sort of authority, the sort of operation, proffered in this Bill before us to-day which is soon to become an Act is a steamroll sort of operation, an operation from which we get the right result whether the way of doing it is right or not. I am fully aware that in the past few years we have had, and in the next few years, we shall have, the greatest drive ever made to make C.I.E. pay. It is quite right that there should be such a drive but when we close up canals, we come very close to something of which I disapprove, interference with the rights of private individuals, private companies and private citizens who are carrying on a business which crosses the operations of a great national transport company which we are trying to make pay.

I know that that has only a slight relationship with the Bill we are now discussing but that is the way I feel about it and about all the operations carried out to make C.I.E. pay: they should be examined by the Minister in the light of whether they are bearing down too heavily on any section of the population, on any private company or any set of individuals.

Pádraig Ó Siochfhradha

I leith na ceiste seo, tá roinnt ceisteanna tagaithe im aigne féin ina thaobh. "The closing of the Royal Canal"; an tús, an bunús atá leis seo: cad is ciall le "closing"? De réir mar thuigimid an chaint is éagóir ar shlí ná beidh trácht a thuilleadh ag gabháil tríd, ach níl dul as sin, is dóigh liom; tá an pobal tar éis na canáil a thréigint ar son gléas eile iompair. Níl aon ord nua le cur ann ach amháin an méid atá luaite ag cainteoirí agus atá luaite ag an Aire féin, go n-úsáidfear cuid den uisce a sholáthair do chuid de na daoine atá ina gcónaí in aice leis an gcanáil seo.

Má bhíonn sé sin mar ócáid phoiblí, mar riachtanas poiblí i leith na canálach, cé hé go mbeidh cúram air an chanáil a choimeád i gceart? An é an comhairle condae é go bhfuil orthu uisce a sholáthar do na tithe agus do na daoine atá ina gcónaí sna háiteanna sin nó cé choimeádfaidh an t-uisce sa chanáil? Rud is ea uisce atá tugtha do rith leis féin má gheibheann sé an chaoi. Sna canála san tá comhla, tá doirse, tá geataí, tá glasanna. Má caithfear an chanáil a choimeád ar siúl nó in éifeacht nó cúram uisce a sholáthar don phobal, cé hé go mbeidh sé mar chúram air aire a thabhairt go mbeidh uisce sa chanáil agus na doirse, na comhaltaí a choimeád ionas ná lobhfaidh siad agus ná titfidh siad as a chéile?

Tá caint ar iasc nó ar iascaireacht nó ar bheathú éisc a bheith ar siúl sna háiteanna sin. Caithfidh dream éigin eile a bheith freagrach as sin. Cé a bheidh freagrach as uisce a choimeád in áiteanna agus an obair a choimeád ar siúl? Cuir i gcás go raibh droichid le déanamh thar an gcanáil agus iad ró-íseal do thrácht nó do sheoltóireacht nó do bhádóireacht ar feadh na canálach féin: an mbeidh cead ag an gcomhairle chontae droichead íseal a chur thar an gcanáil sin agus é a chur choíche as feidhm maidir le bádóireacht nó aon ní dá leithéid a chur ar siúl arís ann?

Tá an cheist san im aigne maidir leis an gcanál. Cé bheidh freagrach má usáidtear iad do sholáthar uisce agus freagarach go mbeidh uisce ann? Ní hé Córas Iompair Éireann é, is dócha, má bhíonn cúram na canálach bainte díobh. Tá rud eile sa cheist: ní bhíonn clathacha, claidheanna nó bancanna na canálach sin i gcónaí ó bhaol. Má thagann bearna agus má ritheann an t-uisce síos ar fud na bpáirceanna an mbeidh Córas Iompair Éireann freagrach as an mbearna sin alíonadh agus a dheisiú? Tá a lán ceisteanna ina thaobh sin ag gabháil leis an obair. Níl dul as na canála a chur as feidhm oibre. Tá an pobal tar éis iad a thréigint agus ní féidir go gcuirfidh an pobal an obtair chéanna ar siúl ortha arsís.

Tá an pobal sa gcaoi chéanna ag tréigint na traenacha agus ag dul le gléas eile iompair agus ní féidir é sin a stopadh, ach má bhíonn an chanáil á coimeád oscailte, gan í a líonadh le cré arís, cé hiad sa deireadh a bheidh freagrach as aon éalaithe, damáiste nó briseadh nó má théann an t-uisce a bhionn sna canála i ndísc go mór mhór má bhítear ag brath orthu le huisce a sholáthar in aon cheantar?

Mr. Carter

Most of the Senators here have been extremely sentimental in dealing with the Royal Canal and I suppose that is understandable. A number of Senators have made points which are not strictly applicable to the Bill at all. I do not see that C.I.E., as a semi-state corporation, has any obligation to provide facilities for pleasure boating. Senator Sheehy Skeffington mentioned the monstrous lack of facilities for boating in and around Dublin. He could have gone further and added that there was a monstrous lack of enthusiasm for any kind of boating at all in this country, so that there is no use in talking about providing facilities for boating when you have no boats to engage in that activity.

This measure was, I presume, brought about by the fact that the Royal Canal can be said to have fallen into disuse for a long number of years. So far as the farming community west of Mullingar are concerned, many of them regard it merely as a nuisance. Whatever point might be made regarding the provision of drainage, that would be the only point that would count as far as they are concerned. Certainly those people who have been inconvenienced all down the years by the canal cutting through their lands at the most vital points will not be sorry to see it abandoned. I know a number of farmers who would be very glad to get back the portion of the canal running through their lands in order to get a right of way to the land which was cut off when the canal was cut, in the first instance.

Neither is there any use in arguing that C.I.E. should keep the canal there in the hope that at some future stage it might be used. The Minister said that the canal had been used only about 14 times in the past four or five years, and that since 1951, it has not been used in a commercial sense at all, and the revenue from it amounted to roughly £10. I do not see, therefore, that there is anything to be gained by keeping on a property which has largely fallen into disuse.

Surely if the Royal Canal was not used during the war years when we were short of fuel and finding it hard to move transportable goods, it is hard to see that it will be used in the future. It will be very hard to make a case that it would be of any benefit to the community. Similarly, whatever about the portion of the canal between Dublin and Mullingar, and whatever potentialities it may have regarding fishing, those potentialities will be limited from many points of view. We in this country do not use even the Shannon, which is a lovely river. Senators have spoken in a rather nostalgic fashion about pleasure boating. I would invite any of them to come down the Shannon in summer, and they would see there the complete lack of interest in boating in general, apart from the very few little pleasure boats and the boats belonging to fishermen. An argument against this Bill on the ground that it is going to deprive somebody of pleasure in that regard has no basis.

I would press on the Minister to consider and, if necessary, recommend to the company, the proposition of abandoning the canal altogether west of Mullingar and returning the portions to the owners in the first instance. If the company had to make provision for drainage or some other vital matter, these matters could be ironed out between the landowners, the company and the local authorities concerned. Certainly from Mullingar down, the canal makes no provision, as far as I know, for water supplies. On these grounds, coupled with the facts I have put forward, I would be in favour of abandoning it as a loss to the company and to the community in general.

Mr. J.L. O'Sullivan

It is very regrettable that these canals have to be closed down. In line with that, it is even more regrettable that certain railways have to be abandoned. These important systems of transport are very important to certain parts of the country, and the people concerned feel very bitter about these proposals to abandon these systems of transport.

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 14 Dec 1960