Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 30 Apr 1985

Vol. 357 No. 10

Canals Bill, 1985 [Seanad]: Second Stage.

When is it proposed to take Second Stage?

The Minister to move.

The Minister for Canals. I always knew they would find a job for him.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

The purpose of this Bill is to inaugurate a new era for the Grand Canal and the Royal Canal as a public amenity under the expert care of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland.

The two canals involve more than 250 miles of waterways, together with their extensive banks, towpaths, docks and harbours, and have been with us for about 200 years. They have enormous potential for development. The effect of this Bill will be to put these valuable facilities on a par with other major amenities, such as the Phoenix Park, St. Stephen's Green, Killarney National Park and the Shannon Navigation, which are already cared for by the commissioners to our considerable benefit and enjoyment. The Bill provides the necessary flexible framework in which the two canals can flourish in their new role as a public amenity.

The Bill will, at the same time, also relieve Córas Iompair Éireann of a considerable burden which, for more than 20 years now, has had no direct relationship with its essential function as a public transport provider nationwide. The transfer of the canals from Córas Iompair Éireann will be a further important step in the fundamental reorganisation of Córas Iompair Éireann proposed in the national plan now under way.

It is for those reasons that the Government wish to have the canals transferred quickly after the enactment of this Bill.

Córas Iompair Éireann has owned the Royal Canal system since 1945 and has owned the Grand Canal system since 1950. A brief outline of the history of the canals may help to put this Bill in context.

The Grand Canal system is the older of the two, having been begun in 1756. It appears that over £1 million was spent on its construction, much of it from private sources. In all, the Grand Canal system, comprising the main line from Dublin city to the River Shannon near Banagher, and off-branches and the Barrow Navigation, involves more than 160 miles of waterways.

The Grand Canal system was actually proposed much earlier, in 1715, as part of a comprehensive national plan to improve navigation and drainage. Construction work did not begin in earnest until 1772 when the Company of Undertakers of the Grand Canal, comprising major landowners and other notables, was formed by an Act of Parliament to undertake the construction of the canal from the River Liffey in Dublin city to the River Shannon near Banagher, County Offaly. It took more than 30 years — about 1805 was the finishing date — before boats could complete the 80 miles from Dublin to the River Shannon. In the meantime considerable expense was incurred in the provision in 1791 of an alternative link from the Grand Canal to the River Liffey at Ringsend — rather than from James's Street as originally intended — and in the construction of extensive docks at Ringsend by 1796.

In addition, lengthy off-branches to the main line of the Grand Canal were provided to Ballinasloe, Kilbeggan, Monasterevan, Mountmellick and Naas. Eventually the Grand Canal was linked to the River Barrow at Athy. Navigation on the River Barrow from Athy to St. Mullins, Country Carlow, was the responsibility of the Barrow Navigation Company, established in 1790, and remained so until 1894 when the Barrow Navigation became part of the Grand Canal system and the Barrow Navigation Company was dissolved by an Act of Parliament of that year.

In 1848 the Company of Undertakers of the Grand Canal became the more flexible The Grand Canal Company, which operated until 1950 when it was dissolved and the Grand Canal system was transferred to Córas Iompair Éireann by the Transport Act of that year.

The Royal Canal was begun in 1789 to link the north bank of the River Liffey in Dublin city to the River Shannon at Tarmonbarry, a distance of just over 90 miles by a somewhat circuitous route. The Royal Canal Company, comprising major landowners and other notables, undertook the construction of the canal as a challenge to the Grand Canal which had been begun over 30 years earlier, in 1756, and was already open to traffic for some distance before work on the Royal Canal was begun.

From the start the Royal Canal was a doomed commercial enterprise, largely because it was too close to the main line of the Grand Canal. Even so, it appears that over £1½ million was spent on the construction of the 96 miles of the Royal Canal system, a vast amount of money at that time.

The Royal Canal Company experienced considerable financial and physical difficulties in undertaking the construction of the Royal Canal. Despite repeated parliamentary assistance, it had to be dissolved by Act of Parliament in 1813. The completion of the Canal was entrusted to the Directors General of Inland Navigation — the predecessors of the Commissioners of Public Works whose establishment dates from 1831. It is a question now of handing over the canals from CIE to the Commissioners of Public Works. The Directors General completed the 90 miles link to the River Shannon by 1817 and in 1818 handed over the completed Royal Canal to The New Royal Canal Company formed by an Act of Parliament of that year. The original Royal Canal Company had also hoped to emulate the Company of Undertakers of the Grand Canal by providing offbranches from the main line to major towns. But one offbranch only was ever constructed, a stretch of just approximately five miles to Longford. This did not open formally until 1830.

While The New Royal Canal Company made a modest success of its undertaking, the tonnage carried was still only a fraction of what was carried on the Grand Canal. The coming of the railways marked the end of the Royal Canal as a transport artery. In 1845 the Royal Canal was acquired by the Midland Great Western Railway Company of Ireland with a view to constructing a railway line along the bank of the Royal Canal. This it did and the railway runs alongside the Royal Canal for about 53 miles from Dublin city to beyond Mullingar, Country Westmeath.

In 1877 the Midland Great Western Railway Company opened Spencer Dock on the Royal Canal near its link with the River Liffey. This greatly benefited the railway undertaking but the Royal Canal continued to decline. This was rather ironic because in 1792 Parliament authorised the Royal Canal Company to construct Spencer Dock as part of the Royal Canal system and had grant-aided that company for the purpose. The work could not be done by that company because of the various difficulties which had beset it from the very outset.

The Royal Canal has remained in railway company ownership since 1845. It has done so through the 1924 amalgamation of the Midland Great Western Railway Company with other railway companies to form the Great Southern Railways Company which in turn was dissolved to form Córas Iompair Eireann under the Transport Act, 1944.

The extension of the railways and improvements in the roads network hastened the decline of commercial traffic on both canals. The decline accelerated greatly from the beginning of this century, despite some increased usage in the war years. The result was that the Transport Act, 1958 gave Córas Iompair Éireann power to close the canals — or any part of them — to navigation, which had not been used for public navigation for three years or more, while the Transport Act, 1960 gave Córas Iompair Éireann power to close the entire Royal Canal to navigation. The Dáil and Seanad Debates on the Bill for the 1960 Act — which I listened to as a parliamentary reporter — make very depressing reading indeed. No real future was envisaged for the canals with the result that proposals were advanced to construct new roads over long stretches of both canals in Dublin city. Fortunately, considerable public objection prevented the implementation of those proposals. More important, the present Bill safeguards both canals against such developments in the future.

It is to the great credit of Córas Iompair Éireann that, despite their other pressing commitments over the years, the 80 miles of the Grand Canal main line from Dublin city to the River Shannon are still fully navigable today, as is the over 60 miles stretch from the main line of the Grand Canal to Athy and from there along the Barrow Navigation to St. Mullins, Country Carlow. The 96 miles Royal Canal was closed to navigation by Córas Iompair Éireann in 1961, as it was empowered to do by the Transport Act, 1960, and over 30 miles are now dry, including the off-branch to Longford. There are six culverted bridges over the Royal Canal in Country Longford which render through navigation impossible.

Much has been done to improve and restore parts of the Royal Canal by way of considerable voluntary local effort and with the assistance of Córas Iompair Éireann, An Chomhairle Oiliúna and local authorities. That effort and assistance is much appreciated but, of course, it must be admitted that much remains to be done, not only for the Royal Canal but also for the Grand Canal and Barrow Navigation.

So much for the past and present, but what about the future? Lest there be any misapprehension, let me say categorically that it is the Government's commitment to retain the navigability of the canals in so far as it is already in existence and, wherever possible, to improve and develop it. The Government have also decided that adequate resources will be made available to the commissioners to implement this Bill. The first task of the Commissioners of Public Works on taking over the canals will be to make a thorough assessment of the structural condition of the canals and their potential for development. It will be for the commissioners to decide and tackle priorities in the light of available resources, including assistance from local groups and other public authorities. This will require patience, and the understanding of the public that everything that needs to be done to the canals cannot be done quickly and that some restriction in the use of some parts of the canals may be necessary for a period so as to have repair and improvement works carried out for the public benefit. The new public amenity role of the canals calls for a caring response from the public at large and local communities in particular, so as to safeguard and improve the amenity value of the canals. The people in Dublin should be as loath to spoil the canals by rubbish or damage as they are to spoil St. Stephen's Green or the Phoenix Park.

The Commissioners of Public Works will welcome all suggestions for the safeguarding and improvement of the canals as a public amenity, and I have no doubt that they will give very careful consideration to any suggestions which Members of this House may wish to make to them at any time in the matter. I need hardly stress that all interested groups, including Bord Fáilte, local authorities, amenity and other community groups, leisure interests, should make contact with the Commissioners of Public Works in regard to the canals and establish appropriate liaison arrangements for the future. The commissioners have confirmed to me that they will be consulting interested groups in relation to the canals, as they do extensively at present in relation to the Shannon Navigation, for example.

Turning again to the Bill I should stress that its purpose is to secure the future of the Grand Canal and the Royal Canal as an amenity for the benefit of the public. The Bill provides for the transfer of the two canals to the Commissioners of Public Works with the obligation to maintain them for the enjoyment and recreation of the public, whether for navigation or fishing or other leisure pursuits. Obviously, the commissioners must have power in the overall public interest to decide on the most appropriate mix of uses, or principal uses, at particular times or in particular parts of the canals, and the Bill gives them the necessary flexibility to do so. There is no reason to believe that the commissioners would exercise that power, or any of the detailed powers in the Bill, unreasonably.

I should also mention the two important safeguards which were written into the Bill by the Seanad. The first is a guarantee in relation to the conditions of employment of the 75 or so canals staff on their transfer to the commissioners and is provided in subsection (2) of section 3 of the Bill. This requires a full comparison between the conditions of employment — including pay, superannuation and so on — of the canals staff in Córas Iompair Éireann and under the commissioners, and the giving of appropriate residual compensation in every case where this is warranted. Compensation would only arise where the new conditions of employment under the commissioners could not take full account of the loss of certain specific benefits — for example, travel concessions — which are not available outside Córas lompair Éireann. As Deputies may be aware, there are significant differences in pay and other benefits between the two employments. The Labour Court will decide any questions which may arise about compensation for any canals staff. The Government will decide in due course how the cost of any compensation arising will be met.

It will not be possible to quantify the appropriate residual compensation, if any, in any case, until the negotiations with the canals staff are sufficiently advanced. These negotiations are already under way and it is earnestly to be hoped, in the interests of all concerned, that they can be brought to a successful and early conclusion so that the canals can be transferred to the Commissioners of Public Works and begin their new rõle as a public amenity.

The second safeguard inserted by the Seanad concerns canal fisheries and is in subsection (2) of section 5. This requires the commissioners to consult with the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry in relation to all matters which affect or could affect fish, fish life, fish stocks or fishing in the canals. The detailed arrangements for this consultation will be settled by the special liaison committee which the Government have decided to establish between the Office of Public Works and the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. The Government are satisfied that these provisions fully protect the canal fisheries and, therefore, the important contribution which they make to tourism earnings in many areas. From the fisheries aspect alone, the scope for improvement of the tourism potential of the canals is obviously enormous and must be tapped.

The last point which I wish to make concerns the date on which the canals will be transferred to the Commissioners of Public Works. That date will be fixed by order under section 18 and will depend primarily on when the Bill is enacted, and also on the completion of any practical arrangements for the transfer. It is clear from what I have already said, and also from the general public welcome for the Bill, that the earliest possible transfer of the canals to the commissioners is desirable. That will secure the canals in their new rõle as a public amenity and end an unnecessary imposition on Córas lompair Éireann. Therefore, I look forward to the support of this House in securing early enactment of the Bill.

This is a very important Bill. I welcome the recurrence of the word "amenity" throughout the Bill and the Minister's speech. I welcome the Bill on behalf of Fianna F il in so far as it goes. I have some suggestions to make that it should have gone further, but it is in keeping with a growing movement in Ireland and throughout the world which has made its objective that of preservation of amenities. It even has a political manifestation in the Greens movement, movements of ecologists and environmentalists. It is an indication of the wakening up of people to the dangers of development and the necessity to look after our environment and amenities so as not to allow technological or industrial development, whether it is the agricultural or manufacturing industries, to harm the environment in which we live.

I should like to thank the Minister for the brief history of the Grand and Royal canals — he was being a bit exclusive there and I will have something to say about that later. The history was interesting. It was interesting to note that the people who undertook the building of the Royal Canal did it to do the Grand Canal people in the eye. They quarrelled and tried to defeat them. That was an interesting sidelight on individualistic development in a community and the result of it was that the Royal Canal from the word go was doomed to failure.

Canals at the moment seem to have a certain romanticism attached to them, and indeed, throughout history anywhere a canal was cut. Xerxes cut one when he was invading Greece and deLesseps, when he was cutting the Suez Canal, found the remains of an old canal which had existed at a time when modern man thought people were not quite so advanced in thinking. The Old Dublin Society have carried out a good deal of study of the canals which start in Dublin, the Grand and the Royal. Some time ago I read a very interesting article in the journal of the Old Dublin Society about the building of the hotel at Portobello. That magnificant structure which is still in use — I believe it is being used as a nursing home — cost £10,000 to construct fully furnished. The building is being well looked after. It is a revelation of the differences in the value of money to think that it was purchased for £10,000. The study I referred to had some interesting facts about the barges used on the canal, the food available, the quality of the mutton, the fares, the cost of meals and so on. Those meals seemed to be comparatively expensive. There was some inflation at the time from the Napoleonic wars but considering the wages people were paid they appeared to be quite expensive.

In a sense we have in the canals an indication of the effect of technological change. We have grown accustomed to very speedy technological change over the last two decades. The people who invested in canals were caught rather quickly by the development of the railways. They could not possibly have though that the canals would become outmoded so soon. In Ireland those who developed the canals were caught by what was a major technological advance which held the stage for a long time. People at the end of the last century and into this century who invested money in railways thought there would not be an end to the railway as a means of transport here so quickly. Again, technological change put the railways in the position they are in. Of the £100 million-plus which the House votes for CIE, about £70 million at least is attributed to railway losses. I know that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has a special interest in this. I note that I have alerted him and I probably have done him a good turn to keep him alert by mentioning one of his pet studies.

The heavy investment that took place in the 18th and 19th centuries in the canals was overtaken as the Minister said, and as is well known to students of industrial history, by the development of the railways. The railways, in turn, were outstripped by the development of trucks and motor cars. We have had a couple of decades of highly accelerated technological change and we would be as well to be very careful about what we put our money on for the future.

The word "amenity" was stressed time and again by the Minister. One big deficiency in his speech was that there was no foreshadowing of a kind of national plan for the canals. That could be done very easily, insisting on the co-operation of the various interests that will now have to deal with the development of the canals. Boating is the one that occurs to me first. In the United Kingdom canals have been developed for pleasure boating. The Grand Canal has been kept open and I had the doubtful privilege of being abandoned at the wheel, as a joke I believe, approaching a bridge. The approach to bridges is never straight. The bridge is always at an angle to the main flow of the canal. I was left at the wheel to see how strong my nerve was. I managed to hold out without damaging the boat or the bridge or run into it but only because the skipper returned in time to see to it that I did not do so. I was inveigled in a midland city in England to go on a canal in the summer time and I found that the waters smelled. They were fetid. For the most part that is not something we have to suffer in the mid stretches of the Grand Canal. Admittedly, they have all suffered from indiscriminate dumping, bad citizenship, social sins. Those of us who regard Croke Park as a place of pilgrimage will always remember the horrific dumping that used to take place there of old bicycles, tyres and, I presume, stolen goods. At the rate things are moving it will be the graveyard of BMWs to a large extent if we do not get that problem under control.

Fishing is a big consideration here, in Great Britain, and on the Continent. I come from an area that has developed a modest tourist business on the basis of the interest of coarse angling clubs in Great Britain. Members of those clubs travel to fish the lakes and rivers in Cavan and Monaghan. I am aware that the canals are drawing increasing numbers of people who wish to fish for coarse fish.

The Deputy referred to the citizens of Dublin but the people in his constituency polluted those lakes also.

I did not necessarily say that it was the citizens of Dublin. The Deputy did not hear me use the words, "citizens of Dublin". I did not say where the pollution came from but if the Deputy accepts responsibility for the citizens of Dublin I will not argue with him. The Deputy is probably referring to the lakes where game fish are found that have come under pressure through highly developed pig farming in my county. That is true but it is a subject for another debate. The new administration for the fishing industry is important. It takes a more sophisticated person to catch a trout than it takes to catch a bream, a tench, a rudd or a pike. We have had pike development also and it is possible to have pike in a canal. Those very sensitive and astute people who are watching our environment have been complaining that pike is being over-killed by continental fishermen. It is claimed that pike caught here is frozen and sent back to the continent. We would need to watch out for that development. Some years ago we were taking pike out of the lakes, canals and rivers wherever we wanted to have trout. Now there is a danger of running short of pike through killing and over-fishing. It is important to realise how delicate is the balance of nature.

I mentioned the noisome experience I had on a canal in the English Midlands. Most stretches of our canals are clean and flow through wholesome, somnolent, healthy countryside. Anyone in Dublin who passes any of the canal harbours will notice that young boys and some girls use them for swimming. This is an important amenity which will carry implications for dredging and weed cleaning, as well as some kind of regulation with regard to fishing and boating, lest they fall foul of each other.

I cannot let the occasion pass without mentioning two of our modern poets who had a particular interest in canals. Paddy Kavanagh loved the Grand Canal and celebrated it in verse. Some very percipient people have dedicated a seat in memory of Kavanagh on the bank of the Grand Canal. I will not quote the poem but it celebrates the water in the canal. It is rare to find such a thing. We cannot forget Brendan Behan and the Royal Canal where "the oul triangle went jingle jangle," much to the amusement of everybody who knew him and those who still celebrate him.

A national plan could co-ordinate all those interests together with the newly acquired interest of the Office of Public Works. It is for that reason that there is something lacking in the Minister's speech. He should at least foreshadow that kind of co-ordinated development of the canals as an amenity. People dedicated to their own kind of objective can be very unaccommodating when they clash with people who have another objective.

That reminds me of another reference to the canal by a man who paid this State some service, Todd Andrews. In his autobiography he relates that he was upset at one stage by people who, if not called the "undertakers" of the Grand Canal, at least had that mentality. The term "undertakers" is applied in Ulster to those who were involved in the plantation of Ulster. As chief executive of Bord na Móna Andrews had to deal with a legitimate drainage problem and he thought that the Grand Canal people were being somewhat recalcitrant and not very helpful. To the horror of his board, he suggested at a meeting that these imperialists — that is the kind of rugged, vigorous and stylish prose he uses in the book — were blocking progress and that a bomb should be placed to blow the side out of the canal at a particular place, thus getting rid of the vexatious blockage. The board were horrified that somebody in such an important position should advocate such a radical approach, although it did not happen. He had a legitimate interest as boss of Bord na Móna in doing something relevant to the canal. The canal people had their own interest to satisfy. This underlines the importance of a plan to co-ordinate all efforts in making these two canals an amenity.

I am glad to hear that some development has been made as a result of the Seanad debate with regard to the CIE employees. The Minister said that discussions were going on concerning a guarantee and was generous enough to admit that Government amendment No. 1 came about as a result of proposals put by various speakers in the Seanad. The amendment is as follows:

In page 5, between lines 23 and 24 to insert the following:

"(2) (a) A person to whom subsection (1) applies shall on the vesting day enjoy conditions of service not less beneficial in aggregate than the conditions of service to which he was subject immediately before the vesting day having regard to—

(i) any adjustment to the scale of pay by reference to which such person was remunerated or the conditions relating to the grant of pensions, gratuities and other allowances on retirement or death to which he was subject immediately before the vesting day, and

(ii) any compensation given to such person in respect of becoming an officer or servant as the case may be of the Commissioners.

(b) Where a disagreement arises on or after the vesting day as to the amount of compensation (if any) given to a person to whom subsection (1) applies in respect of becoming an officer or servant as the case may be of the Commissioners, such disagreement shall be referred to the Labour Court which shall determine the amount of the compensation (if any)."

Perhaps the Minister would indicate whether the trade unions involved accepted that as a satisfactory resolution of the difficulty which the workers saw. Some time ago I met the representatives of the workers and they were very perturbed because it was difficult to establish relationships between remuneration and other perquisites they were enjoying and any grading in the OPW. The Minister said in the Seanad that discussions were under way. Perhaps he would let this House know what advance has been made in these discussions since 28 March and if all the difficulties have been resolved. My meeting with the workers representatives was before that date. There is a question of wages, amenities and conditions. The grapevine had it that there was a provision in the Bill right up to the drafting stage and that then it suddenly disappeared, to the shock and alarm of the workers. When I was putting through this House legislation transferring workers from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to two semi-State bodies I gave the sharpest guarantees to those workers with regard to conditions of service. I gather there are 70 or 80 CIE workers who worked in the canal section and no doubt their experience at various levels developed over the years, as well as the traditions. Like railwaymen and busmen, very often the employment has been over several generations and there has been a handing down of information and traditions all of which will be useful to the Office of Public Works in their new role as developer of the canals as an amenity. I said at the outset that I welcome the Bill so far as it goes. I wish to remind the Minister that there is a canal known as the Ballyconnell-Ballinamore Canal which has been the subject of much discussion, feasibility studies, engineering studies and various other studies for many years in the context of its development. This waterway is 38 miles long and is in an area that has tremendous potential. By the end of the century all the activities we have been talking about up to now will be very important in our social life and there is no area with greater potential in that respect than the one that begins at Ballyshannon, which continues through the two Lough Ernes and which can be linked to Ballyconnell and Ballinamore. The eventual idea is for a linkage of Erne and Shannon. Through the auspices of Deputy Mary O'Rourke, the President of the Chamber of Commerce in Athlone some years ago approached me regarding the possibility of twinning Enniskillen with a view to developing a water freeway between the two. Because of the availability of an airport and of the waterway, there is tremendous potential for development in the area. We are dealing here with the taking over of the Royal and Grand Canal systems but why not go all the way and take over all the canals and put them into a national plan for the development of canals? I will be tabling an amendment to that effect in the hope that at long last we will have a home for the Ballyconnell-Ballinamore Canal and so that we may hope for its development and for the development of that area generally.

Some people say that boating through the midlands is not very exciting. I do not agree that the midlands is a dull part of the country. With the developing stresses in our society where so many one-ulcer men are in two-ulcer jobs, boating in the midlands will become very popular. Even if that area is not a land of roses, it is an area that any decent salesman should be able to sell not only to our citizens, who should be first in importance, but also to visitors. The sight of the somnolent Hereford or Friesian raising his head in pleasant meads, as the poet said, is very relaxing and consoling as one moves slowly along the Grand Canal.

Local authorities, too, would be part of this national plan. I have referred to boating, fishing and swimming. I do not wish to be quixotic about it but I submit that it was short sighted that proposals for the building of bridges were turned down by local authorities and culverts put in them instead. Perhaps it is easy for me to say that. I do not have the problem of funding and I expect that the provision of bridges would be much more costly than provision of culverts but by the end of the century we will be regretting having opted for the culverts. The exigencies of the moment are all-important for an administrator and one can see his point in the sense of his having to make a decision in the light of the cheapest way of solving the problem.

I might add that if the Government do not begin funding the roads we may be using the canals once again as a transport system. I am crucified with complaints about roads. At least so long as there is a certain water level in the canal, one could travel on it without subjecting oneself to the same risk of breaking a leg as is the case when travelling on some of our roads.

There is a wealth of talent available to the Office of Public Works apart from their own official expertise which is multifaceted and which can be brought to bear on the sort of development I am outlining but local authorities and their engineering staffs must be involved also. The power to close the canals to navigation, a power that was exercised in the case of the Longford stretch of the canal, is one that should be subject at least to some control by the Minister but Bord Fáilte should be involved on a large scale. They are linked with fishing but there are other aspects in which they could be involved to a greater extent.

We hear people say sometimes that because of the troubles in Northern Ireland, fishermen from abroad will not come to this part of the country. That is a lot of nonsense. Promotional groups who go abroad and talk to angling groups can succeed in bringing them here. These fishermen have no interest in political developments or troubles. If Bord Fáilte or local groups along the Royal or Grand Canals formed their own committees and formed direct links with angling clubs in England, they would succeed in bringing fishermen from there to this part of the country. Bord Fáilte, mainly through the farm guesthouse scheme, should be able to provide adequate accommodation for the visitors. In passing, I should like to compliment the board for the standard they have achieved in respect of farm guesthouse accommodation.

The Minister would need to indicate to the House what kind of resources will be made available for the development of the canals. There is about £168 million available from youth employment levies, social fund contributions and from the imposition of 1 per cent on this or that. If a substantial fraction of that money were put into the development of the canals in general, including the two I am talking of, we would have a very worthwhile project, one which would have tremendous potential for the enjoyment of our citizens and for selling to tourists, especially those living in very cramped and crowded industrial sites all over Europe, not merely in the UK, which has drawn most of our attention up to now in the coarse fishing area, but in the Ruhr Valley and other areas.

The writings of people like Heinrich Böll indicate that there are areas where there is tremendous potential to attract people to the midlands even though it does not have the grandiose scenery of Cork, Kerry, Donegal or Wicklow and cannot boast about the sunny climate as they do in the south east.

The youth employment levy, the AnCO levy, the European social fund levy, environmental and education grants could provide money for development and, if the Minister does not avail of these sources, it will be passing the ball from CIE to the OPW and the same use will not be made of the ball as was made by Ciarán Fitzgerald and his men during the year.

There is a myth mentioned in modern histories that Guinness's stout, when transported by a canal barge, tasted much better. They enjoyed a nicer stout in Limerick than they did even in the home of Guinness. There is another myth which old people tell us, that when they were young if they rested a pint on the counter it was so strong that it stuck to it if they did not drink it fairly quickly. That is not very convincing when I saw that Guinness spent thousands of pounds to try to get that stickiness out so that it would not rot the guts of the people drinking it. People who tell that story are convinced that it was much better because it was so sticky. The original promoters of the Grand Canal were called undertakers. However, the railwaymen because of technological advances, proved to be the real undertakers and that means it is in the amenity field. It is consoling to think that the amenity, environmental and ecological fields are now becoming more and more important.

We do not know if the canal will ever be used for transport in the future. We were very glad to have it during the last war. If we ever had to use it again, the Grand Canal could be put into some kind of shape but the Royal Canal would need a great deal of money spent on it. Anyone who remebers The Illustrated Social History of England by Trevelyan will know that in the 18th century in England it was much safer and faster to go by sea from Yorkshire to London than by land because of the road system and we might reach that stage here. Trevelyan indicated that there were so many footpads, purse snatchers and robbers along the way that it was safer to go by sea anyway. We could also reach that stage as far as robbers and violators of the old are concerned. If the Minister gave consideration — I know he has a special interest in it — to the development of an overall plan for the canals, including some of those which have been left out, we would be obviating the danger of passing it from CIE, who have no transport use for it, to the OPW as a kind of receptacle and one which will not be energised unless plenty of money is made available. I know that there are highly sophisticated and dedicated people in the OPW who would be only too glad to address themselves to the problem of development if finance is provided for them by the Government.

As I said at the outset, I intend to put down an amendment re the Ballyconnell-Ballinamore Canal and I also intend to put down an amendment regarding the transfer of employees. I may do that when I examine the Minister's statement in more detail and also when I have read the Official Report of the Seanad on the debate and made contact with the employees. I am very glad that interest was aroused in the Seanad regarding the fact that provision will be made for the transfer of historical documents connected with the establishment, operation and development of the canal system. I mentioned already that, many years ago, I saw a study in the records of the Old Dublin Society regarding the canals. It is not contained in the Early History of the Grand Canal by Henry Philips although I am sure he had access to documentation when he was putting this together. It is not quite as interesting as the one which I also read in the Dublin historical record which I have some place but not to hand.

It is important that the records should be transferred and preserved. Some time ago, I had occasion to look up old national school roll books of the 19th century. Most of the documentation regarding the canals will be from the same period and I regret to say that the records were very damp. The binding was coming apart and it was difficult to read the pages because the wet was spreading the ink and the documents were in a poor state of preservation. I hope that the Minister, whose special field this is, will see to it that not merely are those historical documents transferred but that they are preserved.

Níl morán mór le rá agamsa ach failtiú roimh an Bhille seo ar son Fhianna Fáil. Tá súil agam nach obair in aisce atá i gceist. Tá súil agam go mbeidh plean chun na canálacha d'fhorbairt agus nach mbeidh orainn fanacht i bhfad chun teacht ar an bplean sin. Tá a fhios agam go bhfuil an t-eolas agus, is dócha, an tídealachas in Oifig na nOibreacha Poiblí chun an plean seo a chur ar fáil dúinn, agus má tá an Rialtas toilteanach an t-airgead a chur ar fáil beidh an fhorbairt againn. Tá plean ollmhór ag Oifig na nOibreacha Poiblí cheana féin mar gheall ar an Éirne ach ní bhfuair an OPW an t-airgead chun an plean sin a chur i gcrích. Dá bhrí sin, is é an rud atá ag teastáil uaimse ná oll-phlean agus an t-airgead ón Rialtas chun an plean sin d'fhorbairt.

I welcome the move to transfer the ownership of the Grand and Royal Canals from CIE to the Office of Public Works. The canals represent a valuable amenity which can be of tremendous value environmentally and socially to city, town and rural village alike. It is my sincere hope that with the transfer of the canals to the OPW they will be used to the maximum benefit of all interested parties whether for commercial or pleasure purposes.

For too long the canals have been neglected. This is not because of any lack of interest on behalf of people working on the canals. We should take this opportunity to compliment them on the excellent work they have done through the years with limited finance. I am glad the Minister has entered a section in the Bill which protects their interest. I have no doubt but that the OPW will do an excellent job in maintaining this tremendous amenity. Those of us who have dealings with the board know that they can be slow and tedious but when they take on a job they do it to the best of their ability and the end result is always something we can be proud of.

I am happy to be speaking on the Canals Bill because if the pressures which were brought to bear on CIE in the early sixties, especially in Dublin, to allow the canals to be developed as roadways or drained for other purposes had been acceded to, we would not have this Bill before us today. It is to CIE's credit that they did not close the canals and I pay tribute to them for the way they dealt with the canals over the years. It would have been a tremendous mistake to close the canals. This amenity would have been lost to the city forever.

CIE became owners of the Royal Canal system in 1945 and owners of the Grand Canal system in 1950. About that time, traffic on the canals began to decline and it was no longer a profit making venture. I have very happy childhood memories of the canals. I watched a flourishing traffic on the canals during the war years. They were the means of bringing goods, especially turf, into the city of Dublin. At that time, petrol for transport purposes was very scarce and this was a cheap and efficient way of serving the needs of the city. The Grand Canal runs through my constituency. I remember that there was a station at Baggot Street Bridge where the local residents went to collect turf which had been brought from the midlands by a canal barge which was often drawn by a horse. The horse walked along the canal bank drawing the barge after him.

Under the Bill, the commissioners will take over the ownership and care of more than 250 miles of waterways but the areas of the canal with which I am most familiar are those within the city boundaries. Dublin Corporation have a canals subcommittee of which I am a member. I am pleased to note that the Minister of State has accepted the recommendation of the sub-committee for consultation with the Departments of Agriculture and Fisheries and Forestry in any case where works are proposed on the canals which might affect fish life. The Minister should be congratulated for his prompt acceptance of this recommendation which is incorporated in the Bill.

The use of the canal for fishing is to be strongly encouraged. Dublin Corporation sponsored a very successful junior angling competition last year. The House may be interested to know that over 250 young people took part and almost all caught fish. Of these there was one young boy from America and two from England. Several thousand fish were caught and all were returned to the water. A special species of fish was caught which was not recorded before. It was taken from the canal at Portobello. It is now proposed to extend this competition along all stretches of the canal with the assistance of the other local authorities involved.

Dublin Corporation commissioned the Central Fisheries Board to carry out a survey of the fish stocks in the canal. Following their recommendations over 6,000 rudd and tench were released into the Grand Canal last November. Restocking of the canals will be carried out on the recommendations of the Central Fisheries Board over the next few years. The section of the canal from Phibsboro to Finglas is used regularly for fishing and there are a number of active clubs in this area. Competitions are held in conjunction with the National Coarse Fishing Federation of Ireland. This aspect of the development of the canal is very important and has tremendous potential. It is essential that the development of fishing, restocking, competition and so on be carried out in consultation with the CFB and the National Coarse Fishing Federation.

Dublin Corporation over the years have always accepted the amenity and recreational possibilities of the canal despite their abandoned condition. It was possible with the help of the environmental works improvement grant to carry out a number of worth-while improvements along the banks of the canal. These consist of the laying of tarmac footpaths and landscaping, planting trees and erecting wayside seats. It was also possible to carry out clouting work on the bed of the canal. In some cases local residents associations carried out this work. Dublin Corporation provided trucks and lorries for the removal of the debris. Dublin Corporation have also grant-aided canoeing clubs. This sport is most attractive to watch and could improve if the canals were properly maintained. Dublin Corporation, the inner city group and Arthur Guinness Limited combined in an employment scheme to construct canal gates which have since been put in place by CIE.

All of these improvements have been worth while. I accept what Deputy Wilson said in his speech. A strategic development plan must now be prepared by the OPW so that local authorities, including Dublin Corporation, can contribute in whatever way possible towards providing a permanent recreational facility especially in the city area. Dublin Corporation would be anxious to cooperate with the OPW in every way. We have a good track record in providing public facilities.

I should like to pay tribute to the voluntary canal amenity groups who have done a tremendous job in preserving the canals in their areas. I especially name the Royal Canal amenity group. I know many people have joined branches of this organisation and give up their evenings and weekends to do hard work in terms of pulling weeds, cleaning debris and so on. In a society where the State is asked to do almost everything their contribution is worth recognising. With the transfer of the canals to the OPW the goodwill of these organisations should not be lost. The OPW should do everything in their power to channel the efforts of voluntary organisations into their programme of preserving the canals.

I should like to reflect on the construction of the Royal Canal as outlined by the Minister in his speech. Work on its construction commenced in 1772 and was completed in 1805. While that work was going on an alternative link with the Liffey in Dublin was provided in 1791 at Ringsend instead of the original link from James's Street. Extensive docks were constructed at Ringsend by 1796 at very considerable expense. I am sure that in the heyday of the canals the docks at Ringsend were used extensively. For the past number of years the docks at Ringsend have been empty and they have now become derelict. Numerous representations were made by different organisations, including Dublin Corporation and the Inland Water Association, with a view to having a marina established in this area. The canal base forms a natural setting for a marina. No civilised city today could fail to recognise such a facility within a mile of the centre city and with walking distance of this House. I urge Deputies to visit that site and see the amenity I am speaking about.

I know it well. One time a ship ran into a tram there.

The residents of Ringsend have a seafaring history and have expertise in boat building. A marina in this part of the city would add colour to the area, provide an amenity and give excellent employment to a community who are deeply interested in boats, sailing and fishing. The Minister has a reputation since taking office of restoring our heritage in this city. I would be failing in my duty as a Deputy if I did not bring this excellent amenity to his attention. It is completely unutilised. I urge the Minister to contact the Office of Public Works and have this area redeveloped along the lines I have suggested. I welcome the Bill which gives responsibility to the Commissioners of Public Works to maintain the canals as a public amenity for navigation, fishing and otherwise for the enjoyment of our citizens.

I, too, welcome this Bill the purpose of which is to transfer the Grand Canal, the Royal Canal and their tributaries from CIE to the Commissioners of Public Works. The Commissioners of Public Works are a very responsible body and they will do a tremendous job in developing the canals over the next few years. For the past six or seven years the Office of Public Works have been contemplating having the canals transferred to them from CIE. There were several legal and other difficulties to be surmounted. Eventually they were surmounted and I am delighted that this Bill has come before us and that the two canals, which are a very important amenity, are being transferred to the Commissioners of Public Works. I hope they will make a great success of the development of the canals.

The canals are comprised of about 250 miles of waterways. They were designed first for the transport of goods. They are now being turned into amenity waterways. They were designed and built about 200 years ago and they were very well constructed. Many of us have looked at the canals and watched the flow of the water. How slowly it flowed. We must have had wonderful engineers who were able to construct those canals at that time. It is important to remember that when they were constructed there was no machinery. The work was done with a pick and shovel. There were no excavators, no diggers and no lorries to take away the material.

The Grand Canal was constructed in 1756 and it runs from the River Liffey in Dublin and joins the Shannon at Banagher. It cost £1 million and took about 30 years to complete. Branches were constructed eventually to Ballinsloe, Killbeggan, Monasterevin, Mountmellick and Naas. The Royal Canal commenced in 1798 starting at the north bank of the Liffey and entering the Shannon at Tarmonbarry. The Royal Canal cost £1,500,000 to construct. It was not a great commercial success as a waterway and eventually it was purchased by a railway company who built a railway line along the canal. It ran for 53 miles to Mullingar in Westmeath. Trains took over the transport of the goods which the canals had carried.

I was rather interested to hear my colleague Deputy Wilson say we may have to use the canals again because the conditions of our roads are not so good and we have so much traffic on them. Possibly Deputy Wilson is right and we may have to use the canals again when the Office of Public Works have done a good and effective job on them. CIE did a very good job in looking after the canals and they deserve our congratulations. I suppose this work was not in their field apart from the transfer of goods. Having the canals taken over by CIE did not serve any useful purpose. They took over the Royal Canal in 1945 and the Grand Canal in 1950.

I welcome the fact that the Commissioners of Public Works will be taking over the canals and developing them as amenity waterways. They will be a tremendous asset and they will be of tremendous value to our people environmentally and socially. The Commissioners of Public Works did a great job on the Shannon Navigation and I am sure they will do just as good a job on the development and restoration of the canals. As amenity waterways they can be used for boating, fishing, ski-ing and possibly a marina can be established here and there. They can also be used for cruising and the cruisers on the Shannon will be able to use the canals when they are dredged. They will be used for general recreational purposes. Our canals should be restocked with fish, as this would be a great amenity to tourists and others. At present there are more than 500 boats plying for hire on the Shannon and we hope that the number will be increased substantially——

Hear, hear.

——when the canals are made available for boating. This will help our ailing boatyards and the boat building and boat repairing business.

As well as the Commissioners of Public Works, many other Departments will have to become involved in the development of the canals, such as the Department of Fisheries and of the Environment and also Bord Fáilte and the local authorities in the different counties. The Office of Public Works are attached to the Department of Finance, but the most important Department is that of Finance and the most important man the Minister for Finance——

Hear, hear.

——in making money available to the Office of Public Works for the development of the canals. We all know that the commissioners cannot do a good job unless the finance is made available to them. We hope that in the next budget — whatever Government will be drawing it up — there will be a substantial sum of money allocated to the Office of Public Works from the Department of Finance for the development of the canals.

What will be the commitment of the Commissioners of Public Works to restoring the canals for navigational purposes? That is most important. Possibly, it will be easy to restore the Grand Canal for these purposes, but there will be more difficulty with regard to the Royal Canal. Some local authorities have dredged and done amenity schemes on the Royal Canal very successfully. I do not live in one of those counties, but it has been conveyed to me that the local authorities concerned have done a very good job on part of the Royal Canal. AnCO can play a very important role. People are in training at AnCO who could do a lot of work on the canals through the Office of Public Works. That office have the necessary machinery for arterial drainage to dredge and develop the canals. It will be much easier for them as a body to dredge and clean the canals out and do a good job. I have great confidence in them because during my term with that Department I visited the Shannon on a couple of occasions and went cruising on that river and considered that the Office of Public Works have done a tremendous job on the Shannon. With the necessary finance, they will do just as good a job on our canals.

I hope that there will be a satisfactory transfer of staff and that they will enjoy the same conditions as they have at present and will be suitably compensated for any loss of status. The Minister mentioned this and I hope that in future negotiations the staff of CIE who are attached to the canals will be made quite happy. With my colleague, Deputy Wilson, I met these people some time ago and had a discussion with them. They were then very perturbed. I ask the Minister of State to have a discussion with them with a view to satisfying them on the transfer to the Office of Public Works.

We are very lucky to have such an important amenity as these canals. They are of benefit with regard to cruising, boating, fishing, canoeing and swimming. Now that people work only five days a week, they need recreational facilities and the canals will fill that need in the future.

Hear, hear.

Those of us who live in coastal counties do not appreciate the advantages which the canals afford to those living in inland counties. Certain amenities such as canals should be made available to those who do not have the advantage of living by the sea.

I am quite sure that the Office of Public Works will do a tremendous job on the development and management of the canals, but much will depend on the availability of finance and resources. A good job cannot be done unless the finance is made available. I hope that in two years time, perhaps three, the Grand and Royal Canals will be as fine for navigational purposes as any canals in the world.

I should like to welcome the introduction to the House of this Bill. It is most important since it at last sets out a course whereby the canals and their environs will be taken out of the limbo in which they have rested for a number of years. I do not necessarily mean that to be a criticism of anybody. Quite simply, for a long time the difficulty in relation to the development and maintenance of the canals arose from the fact that CIE, the national transport sompany, were the owners and obviously were not in the business of doing anything other than maintaining what they had as best they could. In the case of the Grand Canal, they have done a reasonably good job, with much local assistance. In the case of the Royal Canel, which is very close to where I live, they were not so successful, simply by virtue of scarcity of funds.

The major element in this transition will be, as the last speaker has indicated, the availability of funds. While responsibility for the canals will be handed over to a very responsible Department that take a great interest in our national heritage and have done tremendous work of restoration in various fields, nonetheless the important feature will be the provision of necessary funds to carry out the works, particularly under the powers listed in the Bill in section 6. These powers are very broad and if they are to be exercised it will undoubtedly mean that a considerable amount of expenditure will have to be incurred.

The introduction of this Bill must surely be an answer to the prayers of those who have been involved on a voluntary basis in the maintenance and restoration of the canals over the last ten to 15 years. I am thinking of people like Dr. Ian Bath, who became involved in setting up the Royal Canal restoration committee and the Royal Canal amenity group several years ago. Were it not for the vision of such people and the dedication of those who became involved in the committees, probably we would not have, particularly in the case of the Royal Canal, the asset we have today. At least the bones of the structure are still in good working order. It has been maintained because of the tremendous efforts of the Royal Canal amenity group. We should not forget that for quite a long time voluntary subscriptions and voluntary effort did a lot to ensure that today we have something to hand over to the Office of Public Works.

Under the new system the matter of financing the canals will be most important. Like other speakers, I have been a member of the local authorities committee that was set up to co-ordinate the efforts of various authorities who had an involvement in the canal system. From that we were able to gain experience from what took place not only in our own areas but also in other counties. For instance, we were able to recognise the efforts of Dublin Corporation at an early stage in the restoration process where they were in a position to make grants available and did make them available. In relation to the Royal Canal, county councils in Kildare, Meath, Westmeath and Longford made contributions that were most valuable in helping to keep the structure intact.

Two or three points immediately come to mind and they were mentioned by other speakers. One such matter deals with finance. Deputy McEllistrim said that a special allocation should be set aside in the budget each year for the development and maintenance of canals and I agree with that. An extra allocation must be made available to the Office of Public Works if they are to incur the responsibilities involved in this Bill. If they are to play a meaningful role in relation to this matter, obviously they will need extra money. Much work has to be done in the near future and the only way is to start off on the right foot by making a specific allocation to them.

Other speakers referred to fisheries conservation. The work that can be done here is unlimited. I should like to see an involvement on the part of the Central Fisheries Board or some similar organisation where they would have any input with regard to restocking and the control of fishing in the canals, along with the other voluntary organisations involved. Much time and energy is spent in seeking recreational facilities, particularly in the densely populated areas through which the Royal Canal flows. Here we have an obvious recreational amenity that has been available for a long time but we went close to allowing it to slip away from us because of lack of maintenance. Everything possible should be done to develop that amenity to the fullest extent. Other countries have recognised the value of such amenities a long time ago and they have done something about it but we have left it a little late. I am not talking about the voluntary organisations but about the statutory bodies who long ago should have given greater recognition to the importance of developing a canal system as an amenity. The fishing potential of such an amenity is a matter that has to be considered urgently.

Perhaps the Minister will give some clarification at a later date regarding the roads system, with particular reference to the Grand Canal. In that case there are roads that were not owned by the local authority — in some cases ownership was vested in CIE and in others no owner was found — but some means must be found to ensure those roads are maintained and developed. We have had such a situation for quite a few years in County Kildare. They are referred to as section 51 by-roads and nobody seems to have responsibility for their maintenance and upkeep. There is not much sense in having an amenity where the road alongside it becomes impassable and obviously it would be a waste of money to develop a facility in such a situation. Responsibility for those roads must be accepted by somebody and I should like the Minister to keep that point in mind. A rather sensitive issue in some counties is the fact that the lines of the Office of Public Works and the local authority may cross at times, literally and metaphorically. It might be wise if it were easier for a local authority to carry out road or bridge realignments and to accept responsibility rather than having two statutory bodies becoming involved in all the administrative difficulties that can and will arise. In the past a few local authorities did not consult with the other responsible bodies and they realigned a number of roads and bridges to the detriment of the canal system. In some instances the canal in the area in question is no longer navigable. It is a pity that was allowed to happen. I mention those points as something the Minister might keep in mind as fundamental to the success of handing over the canals.

Section 6 states:

The Commissioners shall have all such powers as are necessary for the performance of their functions under this Act and shall, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, have power to undertake the care, management, control, maintenance, repair, improvement and development of the canals and other canal property and to—

(a) dredge, widen, deepen, alter the course of or otherwise improve the canals....

That is sufficient indication of what we were talking about when we spoke about funds because all of that involves a considerable amount of funding. I should like to give an illustration of what I mean. In Kilcock two and a half years ago a local committee set up a canal restoration group. They had no budget but they had some people such as Mick Clinton who had some ideas and they had a number of dedicated supporters who considered the canal system should be reactivated. After a short time they managed to spend £15,000 and they did this wisely. They were also able to raise quite an amount of money. In the course of their work they found the banks of the canal had become defective and they had to undertake major dredging operations. They had to dig a trench along the canal and backfill it with the kind of clay used in such places to make the canal watertight. It was a major construction job and it could not have been undertaken without heavy mechanical dredging equipment. I know the Department of Labour did give some assistance towards that project. Under the heading of recreational grant schemes that Department should be in a position to give grant aid normally available for capital recreational and amenity works. That was a major capital work undertaken at great cost. Were that work not done the remainder of the operation would fall by the wayside because the canal would no longer remain a watercourse. That was one town only where an effort was made.

Right along the route of that canal there have been groups established in every town and village under the aegis of the Royal Canal Amenity Group. They have raised funds, and employed contractors with heavy plant and machinery to undertake the heavy work. They have become involved in youth employment schemes and now in team work schemes and others which have given employment. It has also given young people an indication of where their constructive efforts have gone, seeing the finished product, knowing that they have participated in its provision in a very real way. By being involved in that way, ultimately those same young people will have greater respect for the amenities they help to provide.

The amenity aspect of the canals system should not be overlooked. With present demands for recreational outlets the ones to which most attention should be devoted are those already in existence and the canals system constitutes one.

The Grand Canal has been more successful from its construction than its poorer neighbour, the Royal Canal. To date it has been more successful in that most of its course is navigable and used by native and foreign tourists. It is well populated by leisure craft in summer time. Its fisheries have been well developed, not without a considerable amount of local assistance. A great deal of credit must go to people like the late Fr. Murphy who was involved in Robertstown Muintir na Tíre——

Paddy Lalor's brother-in-law.

That is right. He did a wonderful job, managing to imbue the local community with the kind of spirit required. He helped them recognise that they had something which should not be allowed slip from under their hands. He did tremendous work there for which he is rightly fondly remembered.

In the last couple of years a considerable amount of work was undertaken by a local group, with the assistance of Naas Urban District Council on the section of the canal into Naas. I do not know whether it is a matter of coincidence but in the midst of a recession, when the general boom period of the sixties and seventies receded, there has never been greater awareness of the importance of that kind of amenity. The resurgence of interest is laudable and the dedication of the various committees in the course of their work over the past five or six years has been tremendous. I hope it will be maintained.

I might reiterate an earlier point in regard to funding. When the canals system is handed over under the provisions of this Bill I should like to see a system obtain under which local voluntary groups might themselves be able to qualify for grants. I see no reason why there cannot be full co-operation between the Office of Public Works and the voluntary groups that have been involved for so long and who made many sacrifices when it was not popular to do so. I remember approximately ten years ago attending a meeting organised in Maynooth by Dr. Bath and his colleagues. Some person at that meeting suggested that the canals should be filled in and roads or footpaths made of them. Those committees had to overcome all of those kinds of difficulties.

There are a few Philistines around yet. One has to watch out.

That is right, we will keep an eye on them. Those voluntary groups had to overcome all of those problems in difficult times. Now that they have done so they should be eligible for some type of grant aid from central funds. We should continue to reward consistent local community effort with the kind of financial recognition it deserves.

I hope, Sir, you will pardon me now for being somewhat parochial. In my town of Maynooth there is a very active restoration committee established in the last year or year and a half. It is comprised of young people who have been employed under the youth employment or AnCO scheme, working under a local co-ordinator, an offshoot of the original community council. They have been tremendously successful in carrying out the necessary works there. They undertook a task that seemed impossible in the beginning, that of clearing the canal banks for three or four miles on either side of all the bush and rubble that had grown over long years of neglect. For the first time last summer, and hopefully again this one, people have been able to walk along the banks of that canal, the first time in 15 years. I visited them on quite a number of occasions and I was most impressed with the way they remained on the job, even in the depths of winter when the weather was very inclement and when many less dedicated young people might have felt it just as easy to remain on unemployment benefit or something else. We should be prepared to continue to give them some type of grant aid each year in the same way was done by local authorities but to a greater extent in order to reward their consistent efforts.

Considerable works have been carried out in Leixlip in recent years. Kildare County Council assisted in the restoration of the spa situated alongside the canal adjacent to the local Louisa bridge. Kildare County Council, of which I am a member, have been somewhat hampered in this area through lack of funds. All bodies have suffered from the same malady and Kildare has been no exception. Nevertheless, each year they saw their way to make some kind of grant available, giving heart to the groups who were attempting to maintain and restore the canals on a voluntary basis.

In the future Bord Fáilte could have an important role to play, I think Deputy McEllistrim also mentioned this. If all of our objectives are realised, then in the case of the Royal Canal we shall have a waterway restored to full navigation. The next step will be to ensure that its facilities are properly marketed and utilised throughout the entire year. There should be no difficulty in doing so.

There is an obvious need for the provision of water sports and it would be a shame not to develop the Royal Canal to cater for that, to the same extent at least as the Grand Canal. That is not to say that the Grand Canal should be allowed to remain as it is. We must continue to improve and extend.

I welcome this Bill. On Committee Stage we will go into a number of areas in greater detail but I compliment the Minister for introducing this legislation and I would emphasise the importance of the Minister and of his colleagues in Government ensuring that the finance required to do the job will be available as the need arises. We must not fail to give recognition to the voluntary groups who have, over the last number of years, continued a lonely struggle to maintain and develop the canal system as an amenity.

We have had a very pleasant afternoon of gentle history. It has made a welcome change from our often acrimonious debates. I welcome this Bill which allows for the transfer of ownership of the Grand and Royal Canals from CIE to the Commissioners of Public Works.

Voluntary groups have worked for many years to preserve the canals and they were often unheralded and unsung, as Deputy Durkan said. They often worked in the face of stiff opposition. For the last couple of years there has been general recognition of the amenity value and the very worthwhile environmental value of the canals and canal banks. Amenity groups in towns and villages along the canals have endeavoured to safeguard the canals as a valuable amenity. About ten years ago this was not the case. I remember being at a meeting at which it was vehemently advocated that a stretch of canal be covered in for use as a roadway, a skating rink, a school or other projects that people had in mind. Many sane, sensible people agreed with this type of proposal and the people who wished to maintain the canals as amenities were regarded as being cranks with little on their minds except this silly project. It is odd how with the passage of time values change and now there is a huge contrast between crowded streets, pollution, vandalism and the ills which beset society today and the great concentration of people's minds on environmental values and on what they can save in their neighbourhoods. The canals and their surroundings will benefit from this shift in attitude on what is worthwhile in life.

The Minister in introducing the Bill said that the Government had decided that adequate resources would be made available to the commissioners to implement the provisions in this Bill and that the first task of the commissioners on taking over the canals would be to make a thorough assessment of the structural condition of the canals and their potential for development. In winding up the debate on this section would the Minister of State say if he proposes to impose a time limit during which the commissioners will undertake a feasibility study of the existing structures and a planned programme of what would be necessary to carry out the desirable works on the canals? This is very important. The transfer of ownership is largely a legalistic process which must be implemented by legislation here but there is a danger that work which needs to be carried out on the report on the condition of the canals and so on will be put on the long finger. Deputy McEllistrim was loud in his praise of the Commissioners of Public Works, and of course they are admirable, but big bodies move slowly so I would like the Minister to implement a time scale to ensure that the necessary works will be carried out in a reasonable time. When this legislation is passed I am afraid that people will breathe a sigh of relief, go back to their desks and leave the work to the voluntary groups. The voluntary groups welcomed the introduction of this Bill. In my constituency there are various amenity groups involved in the preservation of the canals, and the Westmeath County Council are part of a coalition of local authorities who have come together to discuss how the canals and their surroundings impinge upon the work of the local authorities.

The Minister said that he is making arrangements for the settlement of workers who had been employed by the railway companies down through the years and who are now going to be transferred to the commissioners. It is only right that the Minister should do so. I met with groups of those workers in Athlone and here in the House and Deputy Wilson, our spokesman in this area, will keep in touch with them to ensure that the arrangements which have been worked out are as they had hoped. I am glad that the Minister has provided that safeguard for those workers. The Minister also said that the Government had decided to establish a special liaison committee between the Office of Public Works and the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. That is an agreeable suggestion but the Minister should also set up a liaison committee between the commissioners and the group of local authorities who have responsibility for the canals and their surroundings. Local authorities have been involved particularly with regard to roads, canal banks, bridges and so on. It would be useful if there was liaison between the Office of Public Works and the local authorities involved. Those authorities have already formed themselves into structures, a ready-made umbrella body. The work of voluntary groups cannot be stressed enough. At one time they were regarded as semi-cranks but now they enjoy the utmost respectability and many people are anxious to join them.

I was struck by what the Minister and Deputy Wilson said about the need to compile the records of the canals and keep them safely. So often such records are lost. We must remember that history is not only about battles of long ago. It also concerns how people lived long ago, what they ate and how they amused themselves.

It was always mutton on the Grand Canal.

I was disappointed that the Deputy did not mention wine. I recall that when teaching history I read a description of the viands served on the Grand Canal. The compiling of a history of the canals dealing with the people who used them, the types of barges involved, the effect on them of the introduction of the railways as a mode of transport, the threat to do away with them, the erection of ridiculous bridges across some stretches and the efforts of the voluntary groups to revive interest in them is essential.

The study of the canals is fascinating. It is amazing to think that the idea of a canal was mooted almost 300 years ago. I accept that it was almost 100 years later before people cruised on the canals. We are participating in an historic debate. Throughout the world water has played a huge role in civilisation. The history of towns that were built along the banks of canals is fascinating. Towns like Athy, Kilcock and Ballinacargy in County Westmeath come to mind. Those towns progressed because they had a waterway on their doorstep. Thousands of years ago wherever there was water there were settlements of people. The canals have cut out their own niche in our history.

The Minister should consider establishing museums in some of the towns along a canal. I accept that some amenity groups have established museums but the Minister should give special responsibility to a particular group to establish a museum and prepare a history of the canals. The history should trace life along the canal to the present. I hope amenity developments will continue in the future. I accept that the points I have put are small but they arise out the genuine interest I have in the canal system from an historical point of view and from my work on a local authority in County Westmeath.

When the Bill is passed we must not rest on our laurels. We will be putting forward positive suggestions for consideration on the appropriate Estimate for amenity developments along the canals. Almost daily I pass the stretch of canal at Kilcock, referred to by Deputy Durkan and I note that improvement works have commenced there. It is unusual to see the railway line, the public road and the canal alongside each other there. This morning at an early hour canoeists were going up and down that stretch of water and I have no doubt that as the weather improves young people will be swimming and diving in the canal. The progress on that stretch of water is an indication of what can be done. Such developments are taking place in all counties through which the canals flow. I am enthusiastic about the canals and I hope the Minister will adopt the idea put forward by Deputy Wilson and produce a plan for canal development. I suggest that the Minister produce a White Paper or Green Paper on such development. Perhaps a Green Paper would be appropriate bearing in mind the words of Patrick Kavanagh about the canals, "so stilly green". I welcome the Bill.

Like the last speaker, I welcome the Bill. This is one of those quiet, uncomplicated and non-acrimonious Bills that passes through the House almost unnoticed although the consequences will be a change in Irish life in a positive way with more significance and reality than many of the Bills that arouse so much acrimony and controversy. I do not feel well qualified to speak on the Bill because, unlike other Members who have contributed, I do not have a canal running through my constituency.

We will excuse the Deputy.

However, I was born and grew up in the town of Bagenalstown which has a beautiful stretch of canal. One of my earliest memories of national school is of the canal boats travelling on the canal to deliver Guinness, I believe, something I did not have much interest in in those days. I remember well the sense of excitement which the arrival of the canal boat caused to us in junior infants. We were always allowed out to see what was happening. This debate brings back to me very vividly the important role the canals played in our transportation system. That was not all that long ago — longer that I may wish to think — and they were an important means of transport. They played an important part in the normal pattern of the lives of the towns on them.

Like other Members I welcome the Bill. It would be very difficult to oppose it but, like other Members, I cannot help wondering why it has taken us so long as a country to get to the stage of handing over the canals in the hope of implementating a proper canals policy in a rational way. It is extraordinary and a source of regret to us all — we cannot take any pride in this — that our canals are only now being seen clearly and explicitly as a national amenity. One cannot help wondering if some of the other European countries had the man-made canals and those sections of canalised rivers we have what they would do with them. I have no doubt that they would be the centrepiece of the transportation system and a large section of the tourist system. I suspect, and I regret, that from the point of view of transportation there is not a great deal of future for our canals. It seems to be the conventional wisdom that the capital cost of the barges, the building of new piers and the bringing in of new equipment for the docks, would be so enormous that any benefit from the cheaper form of transportation would be outweighed. That is the conventional wisdom but I hope the study which is to be undertaken by the OPW will include the possibility of the canals being used for transportation.

It is strange to contrast the way in which canals are used on the Continent. The large canals and the Rhine have an almost unending stream of large barges transporting oil, gravel and all sorts of material. People still find it efficient and cost effective to use even the smaller canals and backwaters for transport. I hope that the feasibility study will include the possible use of the canals in the transport infrastructure. Anything which would take some of the burden off the roads would be very welcome.

A definite time scale should be established for the completion of this study. The matters involved are too important to be allowed to linger on because money is needed or because important, hard decisions have to be taken. I am a great believer in giving all Civil Service Departments targets and timescales for the completion of these types of study so that we can have the possibilities and the answers stated at an early date.

The main point of the Bill is to develop our canals under a new system. It is extraordinary that is has taken us so long to get to this stage. CIE were telling us long ago that the canals were no longer commercially viable and one can have a great deal of sympathy with them in the role they have had to play during the past few years. In spite of their financial difficulties, CIE were left with the responsibility of maintaining the canals at a usable level without the resources and encouragement from Government or the capital to do so in a proper way. When I say that our canals have been badly neglected I am not putting the blame on CIE. This neglect is not just in those areas where the canals have fallen into disuse and buildings are in such a state of disrepair that they can never be used again. The biggest loss of all is in those wasted years when many developments could have taken place and the sort of planning to which we are now looking forward could have been undertaken so that the full potential of the canals could have begun to be realised.

There is a growing realisation of the important role our canal system can play, especially in the areas of tourism and amenities. There is a great deal of local goodwill for the Office of Public Works. It is also very clear that the scale of the problem is massive and the amount of money needed will be enormous. I wonder if it is worth passing this Bill if there is not to be a fairly substantial commitment of public resources to carry out the intentions behind the Bill. Nothing would be more counterproductive than to hand over the canals to the Office of Public Works and then to starve them of the resources necessary to make the operation worthwhile. The Minister has said it is the intention that the canals should continue to contribute to the wellbeing and development of the community but in new ways. Perhaps the Minister has some ideas as to what these new ways will be — whether for fishing, navigation or otherwise for the enjoyment of the public. The Bill is designed to give the canals this new role and to enable the commissioners to attain these objectives.

While fully supporting the intentions behind the Bill, I would raise the question of whether the Office of Public Works are the body best suited to carry out these objectives. I do not have the answer to this question and I am certainly not proposing that we go to the expense of setting up a new State board to meet these objectives. I agree with Deputy McEllistrim and other speakers that the Office of Public Works do first-rate work. Their standards of workmanship are usually way above what can be found in the private sector, although I suspect that if the private sector had the same financial cushioning they could probably reach the same standards. All Deputies have dealings with the Office of Public Works and we know they are a slow and cumbersome organisation. Probably of necessity — although I do not accept it — they are over-centralised. They are not particularly responsive to local pressures, demands and needs.

If our canals are to become the major national amenity the Minister spoke about, much of the input and imagination must come from local communities, be they tourist organisations, development committees or the local authorities themselves. We have heard from speaker after speaker examples of how these local organisations have, at great cost to themselves but little or no return, ploughed energy and money into the development of the canals in their area. These are the people who have a strong vested interest in seeing the development of the canals and seeing them integrated into the overall amenity facilities of their own area. They have shown in the past that they have the enthusiasm, the ideas and the commitment. It may well be the intention of the Office of Public Works to capitalise on the availability of local expertise and enthusiasm. My past experience of Government organisations is that, generally speaking, even when the political direction comes from the top they are slow to enter into partnerships of this kind with local bodies. The partnership is rarely one of equality. Government organisations simply do not work that way. There will be all the usual bureaucratic safeguards which they, perhaps rightly, insist upon but which hinder communications between the OPW and the local bodies and certainly slow down the decision-making process. This slowness can put a great damper on the enthusiasm of local bodies. Unless the Office of Public Works are prepared to enter into some sort of partnership based on equality with the local groups, then the intention behind this Bill will not be realised as fully as the Minister hopes and much of the potential will go untapped.

The Office of Public Works in their new role will certainly be called upon fairly frequently to adjudicate between various local bodies who have a claim on the use of the canals. There will be times when there will be conflicting interests, for instance between angling and boating interests, between those who want to develop the canals for some limited mode of transportation and those who see this as being in conflict with tourists. I hope that from the beginning the OPW will establish a proper consultative mechanism whereby all local interests can be heard and where as far as possible reasoned decisions with full consultation will be the order of the day. It is essential for the success of the Bill that the Office of Public Works be instrumental in setting up a series of regional users' councils for the canals, to bring under regional umbrellas all those with an interest in the development and working of the canals. If this can be done in an orderly way the local interests will be heard, new ideas will emerge and a sense of partnership will be established. I cannot labour the point strongly enough that the potential and the goodwill is there but the last thing needed is the dead hand of officialdom handing down decisions from some remote office in Dublin, telling local enthusiasts that this is the way it must be done. I am sure that is not the Minister's intention and it would not be the intention of any elected politician in this House. We are responsive to local interests.

The only way in which the legislation can be effective is by way of consultation with local communities and by having them participate in whatever is being done. I am fearful of the Civil Service in this regard. I fear that once the responsibility is handed over to the Office of Public Works there will be a feeling among them that with their expertise, their background and their fulltime professionalism, they know best and that consequently there may be a tendency to override or ignore genuine local interests. Therefore, from the beginning I should like the Board of Works to embark on their new responsibility with a strong sense of the resources and the goodwill that are available in the local communities and to try to build up a situation of genuine partnership with local bodies; but, if the Office of Public Works adopt a we-know-best attitude and if they try to impose decisions, there will be problems. By and large bureaucratic bodies think they know best. They may be on their guard occasionally, when they suspect they are being watched, to appear to be democratic; but it is against the nature of bureaucracy to behave in an over-consultative or over-democratic way. In this case unless the Office of Public Works are seen to behave democratically and unless the Minister keeps a sharp eye on what is happening, it would be better that the Bill were never enacted.

Both Deputies Wilson and O'Rourke have referred to the question of local records. As has been said very well on the Opposition benches today, history is not merely about old and happy far-off days, about battles of long ago and battles usually lost. History is about the sum total of the lives of the people. The canals were an extremely important part of the history of the development of a large section of the country. I am heartened to hear that there are records in many parts of the country in this regard and that it is the intention of the Minister to ensure that these records are gathered together safely and made available to scholars, be they full time historians or local historians, so that our understanding of that era may be deepened. There is in the preservation of our records a manifestation of a new and very welcome interest on the part of the public and of the State. The National Archives Bill, which is at present before the other House and which we hope will be before this House soon, will represent a major breakthrough in the professional preservation of our records. I trust that the example to which the Minister has referred in terms of this Bill today will encourage other large organisations to preserve their own records instead of throwing them out.

While I welcome the Bill, I have major reservations about whether the Office of Public Works are the best agency to undertake this operation. However, I have no alternative suggestion to make. Consequently, I appeal to the Minister to urge the Board of Works to effect the greatest partnership and consultation possible with local interests so that the full potential can be developed, not in a centralised way but with each area knowing what is best in its interest and therefore being in a position to contribute fully on that basis.

I, too, welcome the Bill but I must ask why such a long period of time has elapsed in bringing before the House a Bill to deal with such an important amenity. I initiated the legislation in 1980. I appreciate the mapping difficulties and so on in regard to putting the legislation together, but five years is a long time to have had to wait for the Bill. Deputy Manning raised a valuable point in that regard.

The same Deputy posed the question as to whether the Office of Public Works are the right agency to operate the legislation. I do not share those reservations because I am confident that the Office of Public Works have the engineering expertise and the manpower necessary to undertake such a task. Their only problem would be a lack of the proper financial allocation to enable them to do what is necessary.

The purpose of the Bill is to secure the future of the Grand and Royal Canals as an amenity for the benefit of the public. The Bill provides for the transfer from CIE to the Office of Public Works of responsibility for those canals, and in this context I wish to pay tribute to CIE for the energetic manner in which they spent the very minor amounts of money allocated to them in respect of the maintenance of those canals.

I recall during my time as Minister for Transport an occasion in Guinness's Brewery when I inaugurated one of the very laudable schemes organised by Dr. Bath and the Canal Amenity Group. Guinness's also played a significant part in that scheme. The purpose of the scheme was the restoration of the lock gates that had rotted. At that time the organisers were trying to find someone who would put the lock gates in place and I recall making a commitment on behalf of the Department and CIE to the effect that CIE would put the lock gates in place according as they were made by the young people concerned. As recently as the past four or five months I checked to find if that commitment had been honoured and I was glad to learn that lock gate No. 17 had been reached and was fully restored. Regardless of the criticisms that may be levelled at CIE in various respects from time to time, it is only fair to put on record that they honoured that commitment and played an important part in that very worth while scheme.

I have a soft spot for the canals. As a boy, I learned to swim in a canal. However, I cannot boast about Longford local authority in this regard because in our county we did a lot of damage by destroying fine bridges and replacing them with culverts. Perhaps in the stringent economic situation at the time that was the cheapest way out but in hindsight it was a mistake. Neither Deputy Wilson nor I know what the circumstances were in the early sixties but there is a major job to be done in Longford in relation to making the Royal Canal navigable again.

Thirty miles of it are dry.

There are five major jobs to be done there. I have heard references to a sum of between £4 and £5 million. That sort of money might well be needed to deal with those 30 miles alone. Obviously, then, the work would have to be done over a period of time. I join with Deputy Wilson in saying that the way to approach the task is by way of a national plan for the development of the canals, but any plan is only as good as the money allocated to it. I welcome the commitment from the Minister in regard to the Government providing adequate funds for the development of the canals. For far too long we have underestimated the value of the potential of our inland waterways. Both the French and the British have ensured that their inland waterways yield maximum return. In both France and Britain this is one of the great moneyspinners of the tourist industry. By comparison our inland waterways are very underdeveloped. With proper development boats could come in at Dublin and go right through the inland water system. If the Ballyconnell Canal were linked with the Erne, which in turn could be linked to Belfast Lough, one could envisage boats coming in at Dublin, going through the whole system and finding their way out at Belfast or, alternatively, coming in at Limerick and finding their way right through the system.

The most important factor to bear in mind is that the holding capacity of that inland waterway system would be approximately six weeks. The canals system in Britain or France cannot compare with that holding capacity. We have at our disposal the greatest holding capacity of any inland waterways canal system in Europe and that should be taken as the objective of any strategic or national plan in exploiting our inland waterways system to its maximum potential.

For a country that depends so much on foreign earnings and which needs jobs so badly a two-pronged approach is necessary, that is, developing the canals system and making it navigable and developing it as a local amenity for fishing, boating and so on. All that would provide a significant number of jobs and would help with the crisis in unemployment. This area would pay for itself over and over again in the years ahead and priority financing should be directed towards it. Are we getting value for money from the £160 million administered by the Department of Labour in their many training schemes? Are we not turning out thousands of young people with nowhere to go at the end of those schemes? It would be better to direct priority spending to this area which would enhance a national asset. Unfortunately, the potential was ignored in the sixties when other economic developments probably overshadowed it. It would be a great attraction for tourism and for foreign earnings. On a cost benefit analysis this area should rank high in any Government's priority spending. I hope it gets the attention it deserves.

We could also avail of the non-quota section of the EC when we talk about restoring the Ballyconnell Canal. We could maximise the amount of money if we had a strategic plan, although this would not happen overnight. There should be an annual commitment to it, as other speakers suggested. The canals in Britain and France are great money spinners and, if we did our job properly, our canals could be just as popular. This will play a major part in our tourist policy document which is being prepared by our spokesman on tourism, Deputy Flynn, and I hope that the Government, in tackling this on a planned basis, will reflect some of the ideas put forward here. Much of the work carried out so far would not have been done but for the unselfish involvement of the voluntary groups. Tribute has been paid here to Kilcock and anyone driving down that road can see why. We have a very active voluntary organisation in the Ballinacargy-Abbeyshrule area of County Longford and they have done more than their bit in relation to it and are very happy to carry on this work.

I know, as Deputy Manning said, that when you are trying to get co-operation between public and voluntary bodies somebody has to be the decision maker, but that is to be expected. We appeal to the Office of Public Works to make full use of the commitment of the voluntary organisations. If a national strategic plan were produced all the communities along the canals would be motivated to get involved in their own areas. There is a great amenity lying there untapped and it should be developed. For many communities it could even provide an opportunity to learn to swim.

Deputies Wilson and Manning referred to the fact that records of the canals are still available and it is marvellous that this is the case. I have some records also containing timetables, fares and merchandise rates and, although they are prized possessions, I should be glad to make them available in the interests of having full records. The history of the canal system was ably recounted here today by the Minister and added to by one of the great historians in the House, Deputy Wilson. I will not venture into the historic aspects of the canal system except to say that I have a personal interest in the development of canals. I see them as a marvellous amenity. I welcome the Bill and I will give it all the support I can in or out of Government.

I welcome the Bill and I am sorry that it did not see the light of day sooner. As the Minister is probably aware, Dublin Corporation have a canals committee who wrote to him when the Bill was going through the Seanad. He accepted one of their suggestions, incorporated it in the Bill and I wish to pay tribute to him for accepting the suggestion of that committee of local representatives.

I should like to see a canals committee in every local authority area through which the Royal and Grand Canals run and I hope that the Minister might suggest to each local authority that they should form a canals committee. At the instigation of the Dublin Corporation's committee all the local authorities along the line of the canal have nominated members of the authorities to a committee. That committee have been meeting and putting together a policy for the canal which I hope the incoming caretakers, the Office of Public Works, will have regard to. I am sorry that the local authorities are very late in getting themselves organised in trying to defend this great amenity. Local authorities in certain areas have vandalised this amenity and have allowed themselves to be pushed into a development of roadways which has totally ignored the use of the canal and handicapped it to such an extent that it could only be considered an act of national vandalism. It is all very well now to say that there were certain priorities in the sixties. However, the necessity to provide roads did not give a right to vandalise facilities which cannot now be put to right except by the expenditure of vast sums of money. People who make such decisions and members of local authorities who vote for them should be held to account for their act of gross national vandalism. It is a disgrace to see this facility abused in such a way.

I am glad that all of the nonsensical suggestions which have been made — particularly the suggestion that the Grand Canal in Dublin should be turned into a roadway — have been dealt with as they should be: they have been totally ignored. I want to see this waterway, which is a central amenity in my constituency, developed properly.

Deputy Reynolds said quite correctly that many people learned to swim in the canal. However, fewer people, because of the dirty, untidy and unsafe state of the canal in certain places, will do so. A great effort has been made to develop parts of the Grand Canal in Dublin. The corporation have been instrumental in getting the fisheries board to stock the canal with fish and have organised competitions for school-children during the summer. They are from deprived areas and might not otherwise have an opportunity to learn the skill of fishing without travelling great distances and having a licence, which most of them could not afford. That kind of development could take place on a more permanent basis.

I should like to see facilities provided adjacent to the canal in order to encourage swimming and the development of other sports. For example, showers could be provided. Anyone who has travelled abroad will note that some of the seashores are badly polluted, especially in countries such as France. However, a shower is provided on the beach and people can wash. It is composed simply of a pipe and a showerhead. People could use the canal for swimming, subaqua sports, water safety training, rafts for children as well as fishing, boating, canoeing, training in mariculture, breeding fish, walking along the banks and so on, but people will not go near the canal because they are afraid of contracting disease from dead dogs and a generally unhealthy environment. I would like to see this facility used. Showers should be provided adjacent to the canal. Shower houses are not needed. People are quite capable of making their own arrangements for changing. If such a facility is provided people could learn some of the skills I mentioned which at present are only available to a select group in society. Would it not be wonderful to see people from the inner city and deprived areas of my constituency having an opportunity of being trained in some of these sports which they see on television?

In developing this amenity it is essential that OPW do so to the same extent as they have developed St. Stephen's Green or the Phoenix Park and ensure that dirt and weeds are removed regularly with the exception of those weeds which affect fish life. I recommend to the Minister that there should be a specific hefty fine for anyone who disposes of dead animals, pigs, dogs, cats or anything else in the canal. It is wanton vandalism and an unsocial act to dump dead animals in the canal.

In the last century the pigs used to breach the canals and the company got the people to shoot the pigs.

The Deputy will have a greater recollection of the last century than I. If dirt and weeds are removed from the canals, if animals are not drowned and left to rot in the canals and if minimal shower facilities are provided, then the canals can be used, without any great cost to the State, in a way which will be beneficial to the community. I hope the Minister will consider having an annual canal week which would highlight the uses of the canal. I am delighted that the Bill is before the House. In the not too distant future, when OPW are in control of the canals, the relevant Oireachtas committee might have an opportunity to discuss the development of the canals with them. I hope the Minister will ensure that OPW consult regularly with the local authorities on the development of the canals as an amenity for people who live alongside them.

I welcome the Bill mainly because it touches on an environmental topic. One seldom gets an opportunity to say anything in relation to the environment either inside or outside the House mainly because very few people are interested in environmental matters. That is a sad reflection on the people who frequently praise the natural beauty of our country. When tourism is debated in the House there are a large number of speakers because that affects every area of the country, but they are not really interested in subjects such as the environment. It does not require very much imagination to see what the populace think of the environment when one travels around the country and sees dumps outside every town and village and in every beauty spot, dip and vale. All local authorities seem to think they are for is for filling up with rubbish.

The canals give us an opportunity to examine the environment and the relationship between the people and the environment. I pride myself on being an environmentalist but have been saddened by being one for the last 20 years. It is a painful experience to be interested in the environment when one witnesses the total destruction that local authorities and the people inflict on the environment every day. It is painful to see the neglect, the poisoned rivers, lakes and canals. When I was growing up in Dublin the local children used to swim in the canals. A common illness children in Dublin suffered from was rat poisoning which they got from the canals. There was no attempt to keep them in good order. We have so little respect for the environment that we dump litter and rubbish from the boots of our cars into the ditches and byways of our countryside. It is sad that, every time Dublin expands a little into the country, the first thing that happens in the surrounding countryside and in the lanes and roads around the new estates is that they are littered with plastic bags, old prams, beds, tyres. At the dead of night sneaks pull up in beautiful country lanes, open the boots of their cars and dump rubbish.

The Deputy is inclined to wander from water to land. Perhaps he would stay on the water.

The story of the canals is a sorry saga. It tells us a number of things about the people who lived in the eighteenth century. They invested about £1 million in one canal and £1,500,000 in another. These were enormous sums of money invested in the future. They would be the equivalent in today's money of investing tens of millions of pounds in modern transport such as a subway system or a rapid transit system. Instead of that we have witnessed the destruction of the environs of Dublin due to this massive expansion. This is to be seen in the report which suggests the building of four new towns around Dublin to turn it into a sprawl such as London to the detriment of the living city we have at the moment.

The underprivileged and the less well off children could not afford to go to the seaside in the past two decades. They used the canals for fishing, boating and swimming. It is a commentary on the neglect of some people that the canals were not taken care of properly. I am interested in fishing. Any child living around Dublin who wants to learn how to fish starts fishing in the canals. They fish the canals for a couple of years and then they find that the locks have been closed off and emptied. The feeding grounds for the fish are destroyed and what they had built up over a few years is gone and they have to start off again. Nobody gives any consideration to the cycle necessary for fishing.

I do not think the fact that the care of the canals is going from CIE to the Commissioners of Public Works will make much difference. The record of that Department would not shake the world. It has been suggested that people should be patient about the way in which the canals will be tackled. In the past few years a number of voluntary societies got together and tried to clean sections of the Royal and the Grand Canals so that they would have pleasant places to walk or that people could learn to fish and to canoe. At the moment 6,000 youths are using the river Liffey every week for canoeing. That is not encouraged as is evidenced by the scandalous decision of Dublin County Council to turn the Liffey valley into a massive rubbish dump for Dublin city and county.

The canals go from the Shannon to the River Liffey basin and out into Dublin Bay. Dublin Bay is a sewer. There is only one mechanical plant in Dublin city, with a population of over one million people, treating sewage. The rest goes into the bay. It is important to remember that the canals have been treated in the same way. We can take no bows for the manner in which they have been maintained or not maintained over the past 200 years. If people could have even the beginning of an awareness of the importance of our environment, there might be some merit in debating this Bill. My experience over the past 20 years has been that Irish people are totally disinterested in the environment.

Deputies come into this House and debate tourism and tell us how important tourism is and how devastating the 23 per cent rate of VAT is for the hotel industry. Every little hotel or tourist spot advertises three things usually as attractions for tourists: golf, fishing and pony trekking or horse riding. Whether unwittingly or not, we have set out systematically to destroy fishing and water sports and water activities through our neglect and our culpable, meaningless and ignorant disregard for future generations. There will not be a tourist industry here in the 21st century if we carry on as we are carrying on now. We are polluting every lake and river.

It is not correct to praise or laud the manner in which the canals have been maintained. The Royal and Grand Canals in the environs of Dublin city are filthy and dangerous places for children. They are overgrown with weeds. There have been many drownings. The water was poisoned. God knows how many children suffered from illnesses from which they died as a result of swimming in the canals. We have not maintained them. There is never enough water in them to keep a water flow. They usually stagnate in the summer time and the water becomes putrid. Small, innocent, uneducated, deprived children use them because they have no one to bring them to the seaside. If we had any consideration or love for our children we would try to do something about this. Deputy Mitchell said that the penalties for infringements should be more severe. I agree. They should be very severe. Fly tipping is a phrase used in the trucking business by haulage contractors or truckers who are going around with loads——

The Deputy is getting away from the canals.

I will not stray very far from the canals. Everything I am talking about is related to the canals.

A general discussion on the environment is not in order.

It is a pity that a general discussion on the environment is not in order because this House needs one very badly. I accept your ruling.

No doubt the Deputy will have ample opportunity to make a speech on the environment.

I doubt that. This House is crying out for a debate on the environment.

I suggest to the Deputy that he should keep an ear open for the Estimate on the Department of the Environment.

Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle. I appreciate your advice. I grew up in Dublin and I used the canals myself. My brother, who is now a medical doctor, got rat poisoning from the Grand Canal. Many other children in the district suffered from the same malady. It was all to do with neglect of the canals. This indicates our total lack of concern for the environment. The Minister said that the purpose of giving the canals into the control of the Commissioners of Public Works is to provide an amenity. If they are to be an amenity this has to do with the environment. If we are talking about the canals which link the Shannon to the Liffey we must be talking about the environment. The Minister is suggesting that they will be used for entertainment, sport and boating. That has to do with the environment. We are not talking about a strip of water which will be used for commerce. The Minister has made it quite clear that the original purpose of the building of the canals was for commercial use, a need which has now passed. As proof of what I am saying, in 1960 during the debates in this House, it was suggested that the canals be used for roadways and there was an outcry in Dublin that the canals might be used as a fast roadway out of the city. It is very valuable to have a connection between the Shannon and the Liffey. If this were properly developed, many people would make the journey between those two rivers. That would constitute a great asset.

I must remind the House of the amount of money spent on building these canals 200 hundred years ago. I am trying to use the opportunity of this debate as a reminder of past sins, perhaps unknowingly, perhaps through ignorance, against those who use and live along the canals. It is not sufficient to have neglected stretches of water running between the Shannon and Dublin. If they are to be developed, let us develop them properly and, more important, let us raise the consciousness of the people to the environment. So much of our future and so much of our earnings depend on that environment.

If for no other reason than the enjoyment of those who live here, we should take better care of that environment. I would hope that the laws could be strengthened with regard to damage to the environment and that anybody who is seen dumping or throwing rubbish into the canals would be fined very heavily. That kind of damage is done as a result of a deliberate act by people who sneak out at night time or when nobody is watching. They deliberately destroy something which belongs to us all. They should, therefore, be punished accordingly.

I would also hope that as a result of efforts made by the commissioners in taking over the canals an example will be set on their use. I have seen this happen when CIE cleaned up certain sections between locks on the Grand and Royal Canals which had been full of junk. They regularly dredged them and trimmed the banks and people respected what they had done and took better care of these places.

It will be necessary to have a good flow through of water in order to ensure that there will not be stagnation and that children will not be prevented from using the canals or have to be prohibited from swimming in them. I do not like the part of the Bill which mentioned that the commissioners can do what they like to certain sections of the waterways because this would prevent proper fishing. I maintain that tens of thousands of children learned to fish as a result of catching perch and pike in the canals. I do not think that this country has ever suffered from rod fishermen, or that the laws have ever been really broken by them. They are the salt of the earth and one meets the most pleasant type of people fishing. This should be encouraged and the Commissioners of Public Works should not be allowed to shut off the water flow so that the fish die and it takes years to restock. This means that the children have no chance of catching a decent sized fish for perhaps five or six years.

I welcome the attention being given to the canals. I am glad that somebody will be responsible for them but I am unhappy that there does not seem to be any money available for their maintenance and running. Something should be done about the culverts running across the Royal Canal, especially in Longford, blocking through-passage. The Minister has mentioned that they are permanent features and that nothing will be done about them.

I would remind the House that the amount of money expended in the 18th century, £2½ million and £3 million or more, on the building of the canals is in today's terms a phenomenal amount. To build such canals running 80 or 90 miles now would cost a fortune. We should take advantage of that expenditure and use it to the full. We should be able to bring life from the Shannon and other parts of Ireland back to Dublin. Some of the canals in Britain have been used very successfully in this way. Voluntary groups have been very successful in the past few years in removing rotten lock gates, rebuilding them and restoring them. Like the railways, there is a great affection for the canals. It is very pleasant to walk undisturbed along the banks of the canal out of the city for a few miles. However, one of the most depressing features is the stagnant water that creates unpleasant smells. Neither is it a pleasure to walk along the banks when the water level has dropped.

I welcome this Bill for what it proposes to do, namely, transferring responsibility for the canals from a body who tried to do a good job, even though it was not their business, to an office who will have as their responsibility the care of the canals, as they have with regard to ancient monuments. I hope they realise the importance of the job they have been given. If the job is to be done properly it will cost a lot of money.

The canal is serving a city that is four or five times the size it was when the canal was first constructed. It can provide valuable amenities for the people. It is the only waterway that goes out into the countryside from Dublin. Many sports can be enjoyed on that waterway. Artificial lakes and ponds can be constructed and stocked with fish. Not only in the time of Joyce but even in the late fifties and the sixties families spent Sunday afternoons on walks by the banks of the canal. In that time people thought nothing of walking for eight or nine hours, either up in the Dublin mountains or out in the countryside. I should like the Office of Public Works to have regard to all of this when they take over the responsibility given to them. In terms of the present, the sums of money invested originally in the canals would build subways in Dublin.

I wish to commend the Minister and the Government on the decision to put the canals under the aegis of the Office of Public Works, transferring them from CIE. From an environmental point of view it is one of the most imaginative decisions they have made. The Office of Public Works are a most suitable organisation to look after the national canal network. I hope they will bring the canals as an amenity to the same level as some of our national parks. There is a growing interest in waterways in Europe and continental tourists enjoy them greatly. There is a good future from the point of view of tourism if we exploit them sensitively and intelligently.

I should like the Minister to clarify the area of responsibility. I am a member of Limerick Corporation and we are often frustrated in our attempts to find out who is responsible for the canals. We are told the ESB may be responsible for the fisheries aspect, the Office of Public Works for the banks and CIE for the actual water. I should like the Minister to clarify whether the Commissioners of Public Works are responsible now for the maintenance of the banks of the canals. Some of them have been allowed to deteriorate during the years.

In Limerick there was considerable property on the banks of the canal belonging to the Shannon Navigation Company and the Grand Canal Company. There were some beautiful houses there but because of public vandalism by public authorities those lovely buildings were allowed to fall into disrepair. The Minister might look seriously at the prospect of restoring those houses that are so beautifully situated on the banks of the canal. In particular I refer to the house of the late Dan Troy who worked for the Grand Canal Company in Limerick. There is a house there that the local restoration company were anxious to use for their boats and the implements they used for the restoration of the canal. I should like to compliment the Canal Restoration Committee in Limerick for doing a wonderful job on the stretch of water between the Shannon and the entry to Abbey river at Limerick.

One of the unintended bad effects of the ESB electrification scheme in 1929 was that they diverted the waters of the Shannon at Killaloe to make a new canal which became the headrace for the ESB scheme. While that was a magnificent development at the time it had one sad by-product. The Mulcaire river and the stretch of the Shannon below the Black Pipes in Limerick are two of the finest salmon rivers in Europe. However, when the water was diverted at Killaloe the flow in the main Shannon river before it came into Limerick was lessened. As a result there was a pile-up of sand underneath the water which had been washed down into the Shannon from the Mulcaire river. As a boy I remember spending my youth in that area, swimming, fishing, camping and hunting. It was then a beautiful stretch of water with a very small island. As a result of what has happened, the Shannon there has almost become blocked up with sand islands. For generations families such as the Frawleys, the Crowes and the Shanahans had made their living clearing the sand.

Debate adjourned.

A Cheann Comhairle, might I draw your attention to the fact that the clock in front of you reads one time, the clock behind you another and that the clock in the Library is idling to the extent of ten minutes?

The Deputy will appreciate that I cannot see the clock behind me and I go by the one in front of me.

Top
Share