Deputy Charles Flanagan gave me notice of his intention to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter as to the clarification of responsibilities for the unkeep, maintenance and repair of canalside roads between the Office of Public Works and local authorities.
Adjournment Debate. - Maintenance of Canalside Roads.
I would like to thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, and the Minister of State for coming into the House tonight to clarify a number of points on an issue of considerable importance, and one that is causing deep concern in the midlands, particularly in my own constituency of Laois-Offaly. I would draw the Minister's attention to the fact that in County Offaly alone there are over 50 miles of roadway flanking the Grand Canal. When one considers the history of our canal network one can say that today the uses of the canal from a commercial point of view are far less than heretofore. Nevertheless, there has been considerable settlement along the canal banks in the midlands. From time to time people sited commercial industries there and a number of houses are built.
Times have changed and the canals are now being used primarily as leisure and tourist amenities. Some years ago responsibility for the canals was transferred from CIE to the Office of Public Works but a number of very serious problems still remain. Notwithstanding the transfer of responsibility for the canals, there remains the very important question of responsibility for the roads which serve people who built houses in the area. In County Offaly there are 200 houses along the canal banks between Edenderry and the Shannon. The people living there permanently find it extremely difficulty to traverse the roads daily because of the very bad state of repair into which they have fallen. The county councils have difficulty taking many of these roads in charge; the Office of Public Works do not want to know about them and, to the best of my knowledge, some roads are still under the jurisdiction of CIE.
People living on farms, particularly outlying farms, have no other access than the canal lines. I am sure the Minister would be in favour of expanding our canals from a tourist point of view. There are cruisers and canoe halts along the canals. The development of the tourist industry will be considerably flawed until the roadways serving these canals are taken to hand. Many of the canal roads in County Offaly have become through roads from parish to parish. This has been ignored by the Office of Public Works and by local authorities. From a tourist point of view we are talking about making available more facilities for anglers. If access to our canals is denied we are doing ourselves a disservice.
The Minister might clarify whether the Office of Public Works or the local authorities are responsible for the roadways adjoining the canals. I understand that a formal handing over of some roads along the canals was made from CIE to the Office of Public Works but a number of roads still have not been handed over. I believe that a certain technical difficulty arises as far as Grand Canal By-Law 51 made on 7 April 1942, is concerned. I will quote from the by-law, which I believe to be of importance. The object of the by-law was to protect canal embankments, especially those over peat or poor foundations, from the effects of modern vehicular traffic. By-Law 51 states:
no person shall lead, ride or drive any vehicle other than a bicycle or a cart ... carrying a load of not more than ten hundred weight .... along certain streches of canal bank.
I believe there are areas of County Offaly where this Grand Canal by-law is still being enforced. The by-law is outdated and has absolutely no relevance. The people who have built houses along the canal bank are not entitled to bring vehicular traffic, such as the family car, down these roads. this is a big problem. How relevant is by-law 51 today? I know there are areas the by-law does not cover, but until such time as it is done away with, certain difficulties will remain.
By way of parliamentary question some time ago I attempted to elicit information on this matter and the reply was that the roads along the canals, particularly the Grand Canal, were to be used as tow paths and for animal drawn traffic, presumably to facilitate the passage of barges through the locks. That will not wash in this day and age when more than 100 people have been granted planning permission for the building of the houses, when people are encouraging the growth of the tourist industry in these areas and when we are seeking to attract people to engage in fishing activities. The fact that access will be denied to these thoroughfares must be redressed.
I am talking about areas stretching right across the midlands — from Edenderry through hamlets like Ballycommon, Tullamore, the capital of County Offaly, west of Tullamore through Rahan, Pullough and Belmount, leading to the Shannon at Shannon Harbour. People have been accustomed to using the roads along this 50 mile stretch. Offaly County Council cannot afford the maintenance of these roads. They are obviously anxious to wash their hands of the matter, as are the Office of Public Works, and the road structure is falling into disrepair in many of these areas. There is an administrative jungle as far as responsibility is concerned. Are CIE responsible? Are the Office of Public Works responsible. Are the local authorities responsible? I take it that some of these roads have been taken in charge by the county council, and the Office of Public Works are abdicating their responsibility in this regard. The county councils do not have sufficient funds to deal with the regional and county roads and it is a bit much to expect them to be in a position to take charge of these canal banks and provide the necessary funding to make the roads passable.
I understand that in recent times the Office of Public Works refused to meet a deputation from Offaly County Council. I hope the Minister can now accede to that request in the hope that dialogue can take place which would benefit the people in the area, people who are very much inconvenienced. I cannot understand how one arm of the State, the planning authority, can justifiably grant planning permission to build houses and set up commercial concerns in the area while another body are abdicating responsibility entirely when it comes to taking in charge the roads.
In 1979 the Inland Waterways Association in a document entitled Strategy for the Development of the Grand Canal System urged the paving of canal tracks up to the requisite standard where the track is used by cars, not associated with canal upkeep. Similarly they recommended that paved canal roads be taken in charge by all local authorities and that the canal organisation, local authorities and residents' associations co-operate in the maintenance of the canal verges and road signs in the area. I find it very difficult to understand how——
I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy, but I must remind him that the time available to him is exhausted. Perhaps he would now bring his speech to a close.
Would the Minister clarify whether the roads will be for the people who are living in the area; whether they will be preserved for the use of horse drawn vehicular traffic; whether he will turn back the clock on the matter; and will he comment on the safety aspect of having roads and thoroughfares without benefit of railings and the necessary safety guards in the area? I hope in the time available to him the Minister will state what his responsibilities are in an area that is giving rise to serious concern.
I think we should grant to the Minister now the time available to him.
The roads along the Grand and Royal Canals are a significant part of the property transferred to the Office of Public Works under the Canals Act, 1986. They were originally constructed as canal towpaths for use by horses in the days of horse-drawn boats and for use by pedestrians and for canal maintenance purposes. They were never intended to be public roadways for use by vehicluar traffic, nor were they designed for this prupose.
Over the years, however, certain stretches of the towpaths have developed into roadways used for access between bridges and to groups of houses built alongside the canals. In such cases, before the Office of Public Works was given reponsibility for canals, where it became obvious that this use would continue and where the canal banks were considered capable of taking the traffic, the towpaths were given into the charge of the local authority for the area, to be surfaced and maintained. Ownership of these towpaths/roads remained with the canal undertaking.
The Canals Act, 1986, gives the Office of Public Works responsibility for maintaining and managing the canals and canal property as public amenities for enjoyment and recreation. The towpaths in general have significant amenity potential and to allow those now under the control of the Office of Public Works to be used indiscriminately as public roadways would not be in keeping with their amenity potential. In addition, there is the possibility of damage to the stability of the canal banks in some areas if they were to be used constantly by vehicular traffic.
Nevertheless, certain further towpaths have been examined with a view to their being given into the charge of the local authority. These are towpaths identified as having been used regularly for vehicular traffic and their structural stability has not been adversely reduced by such traffic. In such instances the Commissioners of Public Works are amenable to their being taken into charge by the local authority. Negotiations are in hand with one local authority in this respect. Towpaths have been identified and proposed to the local authority and the administrative procedures necessary for the transfer are proceeding. It is envisaged that the local authority will assume responsibility for their maintenance while the commissioners will impose certain restrictions regarding the vehicle use. I should point out that the commissioners are not disposed to a wholesale transfer of towpaths to local authorities for vehicular access as such use could both damage the structure of the canal and reduce the amenity value of this important resource.
I appreciate that this is complicated. We have been discussing canals throughout the afternoon. If the Deputy has particular grievances I am prepared to meet him. The first I heard of any request for a deputation from Offaly County Council is tonight. If he and the other Deputies from the area wish to arrange such a deputation I will discuss their particular problems. These towpaths were never meant to be roadways for vehicular traffic. We already had a major breach in Edenderry which cost us well in excess of £2 million.
It was not caused by a car.
It is a complicated area. I would be more than willing to discuss any grievances with the local authorities. It is not our intention to put hardship or difficulty in the way of any local communities and we would be prepared to discuss the matter with them.
I thank the Minister for his reply.