Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Feb 1985

Vol. 107 No. 3

Canals Bill, 1985: Second Stage.

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

It is with great pleasure that I commend this Bill to the House and I am particularly pleased that it has fallen to me to introduce this Bill and to introduce it in the Upper House. The transfer of the Grand Canal and the Royal Canal to the Commissioners of Public Works equates the canals as a public amenity, with the national parks, the Shannon Navigation and other major heritage items already under their expert care. At the same time, the transfer will relieve Córas Iompair Éireann of a burden totally unrelated to their essential function as public transport provider nationwide. The transfer of the canals is thus a further important step in the fundamental reorganisation of Córas Iompair Éireann proposed in the national plan. It is for those reasons that the Government wish to have the canals transferred quickly after enactment of this Bill.

The two canals involve more than 250 miles of waterways and have been in existence for about 200 years, much of the time as vital transport arteries. The canals have significantly benefited wide areas of the country, less obviously in recent decades, perhaps, with the ending of commercial traffic and some deterioration of facilities.

The intention now is that the canals should continue to contribute to the wellbeing and development of the community, but in new ways as a public amenity, whether for fishing or navigation or otherwise for the enjoyment of the public. This Bill is designed to give the canals this new role and to enable the Commissioners of Public Works to do what is needed to attain these objectives.

It is gratifying that there is general public welcome for the transfer of the canals to the Commissioners of Public Works. The Grand Canal is the older of the two, having been begun in 1756. It was actually proposed over 40 years earlier, in 1715, as part of a comprehensive plan to improve navigation and drainage throughout the country. However, little construction work was done until 1772 when the Company of Undertakers of the Grand Canal, as the company were so quaintly named, comprising major landowners and other notables, were formed by statute to undertake the construction of the canal from the River Liffey in Dublin city to the River Shannon near Banagher, County Offaly, and began the work in earnest. It took more than 30 years to complete the construction, about 1805, before boats could complete the 80 miles from Dublin to the River Shannon. In the meantime, an alternative link with the River Liffey in Dublin city was provided in 1791 at Ringsend, instead of the original link from James's Street, and extensive docks were constructed at Ringsend by 1796, at very considerable expense. As well, lengthy off-branches to the main line of the Grand Canal were provided to Ballinasloe, Killbeggan, Monasterevin, Mountmellick and Naas, and eventually the Grand Canal was linked to the River Barrow at Athy. Navigation on the River Barrow from Athy to St. Mullins, County 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 that company were dissolved by Act of Parliament.

In all, the Grand Canal system, comprising the main line and off-branches and the Barrow Navigation, involves more than 160 miles of waterways. It appears that over £1 million, an enormous sum of money at that time, was spent on the construction of the Grand Canal system, much of it from private sources. The Company of Undertakers of the Grand Canal were restructured in 1848, losing their grandiose name, to form The Grand Canal Company. The new company operated until 1950 when they were dissolved and the Grand Canal system was transferred to Córas Iompar Éireann by the Transport Act, 1950.

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.

The Royal Canal Company, comprising major landowners and other notables, undertook the construction of the canal in competition with the Grand Canal, which was already well under construction and open to traffic for some distance. 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 Royal Canal system.

The Royal Canal Company experienced considerable financial and physical difficulties in undertaking the construction of the Royal Canal and, despite repeated parliamentary assistance, 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, who completed the link to the River Shannon by 1817. They were replaced in 1818 by the new Royal Canal Company established by Act of Parliament.

The new company took over the completed waterway and made a modest success of its undertaking yet 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 in County 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 ironic as in 1792 Parliament authorised the Royal Canal Company to construct Spencer Dock as part of the Royal Canal system, and had grant-aided the company for the purpose. The work could not be done by the company because of the difficulties referred to. 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 Éireann under the Transport Act, 1944.

The main relevance of the foregoing brief historical picture to the Bill is that Córas Iompair Éireann have owned the Royal Canal system since 1945, and have owned the Grand Canal system since 1950.

Commercial traffic on both canals continued to decline and became negligible. 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. Some Senators may recall that in the early sixties proposals were advanced to construct new roads over long stretches of both canals in Dublin city. There was considerable public objection to such proposals. Happily those proposals were not implemented and this Bill provides against such developments.

The virtually unbroken continuity of ownership of the canals for about 200 years means that there is in existence a considerable wealth of records relating to the canals and surrounding areas which would be of general public interest. Like the canals themselves these records can be classified as a national asset giving us a fuller picture of the social and commercial life of the period. In my capacity as Minister of State with responsibility for Arts and Culture, I have a special responsibility for the preservation of important records and, as far as is possible, making them available for inspection by the public. I, therefore, propose to discuss soon with Córas Iompair Éireann and the Commissioners of Public Works how best to deal with the records relating to the canals before their transfer to the Commissioners of Public Works.

I return to the community development aspect to which I referred earlier. Many imaginative suggestions have been made as to how the canals might assume their new role as a public amenity and generate worthwhile local employment. I have no doubt that the Commissioners of Public Works will welcome and carefully consider all such suggestions and any suggestions which Senators may wish to make will be welcomed by them.

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

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. The Government have decided that adequate resources will be made available to the Commissioners of Public Works to implement this Bill.

I now turn to the general provisions of the Bill itself. The purpose of this Bill is to transfer the Grand Canal and the Royal Canal from Córas Iompair Éireann to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland. The Bill gives the commissioners the responsibility to maintain the canals as a public amenity, whether for navigation, fishing or otherwise for the enjoyment of the public. The transfer of the canals will mean that the commissioners will be taking over the ownership and care of more than 250 miles of waterways together with the canal banks, towpaths, lockhouses, docks and harbours.

As regards the actual date when all this will happen the choice of vesting day, to be appointed under section 18 of the Bill, for the actual transfer of the canals to the Commissioners of Public Works, this will depend primarily on when the Bill is enacted, and also on the completion of any practical arrangements for transfer. For the reasons which I have given, the earlier the transfer takes place the better, so that the canals can assume their new role as a public amenity and be cared for and fostered as such.

The Grand Canal and the Royal Canal need a new and flexible legislative framework in which to flourish. I believe the Canals Bill provides such a framework and guarantees that their future will be assured by the Commissioners of Public Works for the nation. Therefore, I look forward to the support of Senators in securing early enactment of the Bill.

I support the moves that are being made to rationalise the operation of the canals. Indeed, there is hope in this Bill that not alone will rationalisation take place but that there will be co-operation between various bodies in this country to see that the canals are used to the maximum benefit to all interests, whether they be commercial or for pleasure purposes. For too long our canals have been neglected. Even though there have been hundreds of Bills enacted on various aspects of the operation of canals the canal system has been run down but not because of any lack of interest on behalf of the people who have been working on the canals. We should compliment them for the excellent work they have done in their professional capacity and for voluntarily going along to committees, giving information about the canals and how best they might be used.

The canals have played a very important part in our transport system for very many years. It is said that the first canal was built in Galway in the year 1200. Since then we have seen throughout the length and breadth of the country attempts made to link up north, south, east and west by a canal system, initially for commercial purposes for the transport of goods from one place to another. It was only with the running down of the canal system that people began to understand that the canals could be used for other than commercial usuage, that they could also be used for amenity purposes.

The 18th century seems to have been the time of greatest interest in the development of canals in Ireland. It is significant that in the statistical survey of County Kilkenny, which is one of the best statistical surveys of any county that was carried out by William Tighe in the years 1800 and 1801, there is more space devoted to canals and their development than to any other aspect of life in Kilkenny during those years. If one reads the history of canals one will find too, that it is not only in the last couple of years that there have been overruns in public expenditure or the misuse of public money in the development of a public amenity. Indeed, one of the things that forcibly strikes one when reading about the attempted development of canals in the Kilkenny, Carlow, Laois and Kildare areas is the amount of money that was voted for the development of canals and, indeed, the lack of progress in this development.

The area that I have interest is in the Barrow system and it is significant that tolls on the Barrow in the year 1797 came to £767.14.11½, in 1798 £742.16.7½ and in 1799 £1,511.1.11½. Those figures are significant because in 1800 the average wage for a man was £5. If one considers that in 1797, £1,766 was taken in in tolls it gives an indication of the importance of canals on the Barrow. There were 60 boats belonging to the town of Graiguenamanagh in 1790. In 1800 there were only 40, but these were of a larger size. When one considers that there is not in Graiguenamanagh at present any boat of reasonable size except boats used for pleasure one can see that the usage of canals has dropped enormously. The statistical observations said that to establish a navigation from Kilkenny to the sea had been long considered an object of importance. Much money was once expended in the attempt, many plans have been proposed but none adopted. All information therefore under this heading may be useful as the subject is still under consideration.

At that time the gentlemen of the area were considered to be the merchants, farmers and inhabitants of the county. In 1755 grants were given of £10,000 towards the development of canals, in 1759, £4,000, in 1763, £1,500, in 1763, £3,000 and in 1767, £2,750, giving a total for the Barrow of £25,250. If we could bring the £25,250 up to present currency values I reckon that would be far in excess of what has been expended by CIE on the Grand Canal Company since the State was founded. In those five years more was expended in the Barrow area alone than has been expended on the complete canal system. With regard to the overruns and failure to carry out public works, the statistical observations stated that in 1775 £3,000 more was granted but nothing had been done. A sum of £3,000 was granted in the session of Parliament of 1775 of which, it was stated, £558 was still due to the contractors and that no part of the £2,750 granted in the session of 1776 to the commissioners for "carrying on the inland navigation of this kingdom to be done has been expended but the whole of said sum remains to be applied or accounted for".

In other words, typically, somebody got the money and ran.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Could I ask the Senator what he is quoting from?

The Statistical Survey of County Kilkenny in the years 1800 and 1801 sold by Archer, Commercial Buildings, bookseller to His Excellency, the Earl of Hardwicke. What the Earl of Hardwicke had to do with it I do not know. I want to make the point that throughout the mid and late 18th century moneys were given by the Parliament to people with names which have historical conotations. The Rothes of Kilkenny, who are very well known in the historical context, got money and it would seem it was misappropriated. The Collis family, who are very well known because one of them was the first man ever to treat the fracture now known as the Collis fracture also got money. I came across the information in an appendix, that there was an estimate of £14,344.10.0 in April 1793, which was spent for the navigation from Thomastown to Inistioge, but that stretch of canal was never built. According to Tighe, the next estimate of the probable expense of the navigation from Thomastown to Inistioge is founded on the plan and observations made by Mr. Lanigan. I am certain that Mr. Lanigan, at the time, was quite capable of misdealing with money and plans as certain Lanigans might be at present.

There were a number of canals proposed at that stage. There was a canal from Monasterevan to Castlecomer and there were canals throughout the midlands. The up-to-date situation is that the canals — I would say due more to lack of money than anything else — have been allowed to fall into disrepair. However, in the last few years, because of the interest in amenity use, the canals seem to be coming back into their own. It would be foolish of anybody to suggest that the canals will ever again be used for commercial purposes. In the future it would seem the canals will be used mainly for amenity.

Amenity use of canals can create problems as between the various interests which can become involved. We will have the interests of people who are involved in boating in conflict with people who are interested in fishing. We will have the people involved in fishing possibly in conflict with people who want to use the canals for amenity use in terms of swimming. Therefore, there are a number of conflicts that could arise. Section 5 (1) of the Bill reads:

... it shall be the duty of the Commissioners to undertake the care, management and maintenance of the canals and other canal property as a public amenity for use by the public for navigation in such parts of the canals as are open to navigation from time to time for fishing or otherwise for the enjoyment and recreation of the public and the Commissioners may designate particular parts of the canals and other canal property for particular purposes including purposes incidental to such purposes as aforesaid.

Section 5 (1) is very vague:

the care, management and maintenance of the canals and other canal property as a public amenity for use by the public for navigation in such parts of the canals as are open to navigation from time to time ...

Does this mean it is intended that the canals will be closed to boats from time to time? How does the Minister envisage these closure orders being made so that the canals can be used for a particular purpose? I can foresee the situation arising where somebody might want to hold a major fishing competition on the canal and during the time that fishing competitions was being held you might have somebody coming up the river in a boat which could create more than tension in the area.

The principal thing the Bill fails to do is to give the 75 employees of the canal the protection they need. In every other Bill I have seen coming through the House — where workers are being transferred from one semi-State or State body to another — the workers' conditions have been laid out in full and the workers have known what their status would be in terms of remuneration after the change-over. When one considers the canal situation, the Transport Act, 1950, made it quite specific in section 37 (a). It reads:

... an officer or servant of the Board, shall be deemed to suffer a worsening of his conditions of service as an officer or servant of the Board if, by reason of the transfer effected by section 36 ... he suffers any direct pecuniary loss or is in a worse position in respect of the conditions of his service as a whole (including tenure of office or employment, remuneration, gratuities, superannuation, sick fund or other benefits or allowances, whether obtaining legally or by customary practice and whether applicable to himself or his widow or children or other dependants) as compared with those obtaining in respect of him before the transfer;

One of the anomalies of this Bill is that that guarantee is not being given to the workers on transfer from CIE to the Board of Works. If this Bill is to have the support of this side of the House the Minister must spell out in detail what the conditions of service of the people currently employed are going to be. The current situation is that there are two executives, five supervisory people and the rest are general workers. Some of these workers have varying degrees of perks which go along with their jobs. These perks were granted to them by virtue of the fact that they were negotiated perks, they were negotiated through their trade unions. I cannot see why the guarantees which were given to workers who were transferring from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to Bord Telecom Éireann and An Post cannot be given to the workers who will be transferring from CIE to the Office of Public works and why the same protection is not being given to these workers as was given under the Transport Act, 1950,

It is my information that this Bill has taken approximately four years to draft and that the section which would give protection to the workers was in this draft Bill right along the line until the Bill itself was published. I would like to know why the protection of workers should be taken out at this stage. It may be that the Minister will say that the commissioners will sit down with these workers and negotiate after the vesting day. I do not think that is satisfactory. Any worker in CIE at present, who will be transferred, should know exactly the conditions under which he will be transferred. He should know that he will not suffer any direct pecuniary loss, including remuneration, gratuities, superannuation, sick fund and other benefits. There is no doubt that there are substantial benefits accruing to the canal workers in CIE at present which it would seem they will not have when they transfer to the Office of Public Works.

It seems also, since the number of people involved is much smaller than the number of people who were transferred on the break up of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, that the amount of money involved should not be such that it would inhibit the Minister from putting into the Bill the same statement as that contained in section 37 of the Transport Act, 1950. There is no need for me to run through the actual gratuities, the overtime, the travel concessions, the various other things that are at issue. It would appear, even though these are points of issue with the workers, that the workers welcome the transfer in the sense that it might give them an opportunity to be involved in an exciting development of the canal system. One of the reasons why these workers were frustrated to a degree over the past number of years was that even though they were under the aegis of CIE and their conditions of employment were quite good, the canal system was not getting the amount of money that it needed to provide any type of amenities.

I sincerely hope that when this Bill becomes law the main thrust of the development will not be towards the Shannon only and that the Barrow and the midlands area of Kildare down to south County Carlow, into Kilkenny and down to New Ross and St. Mullins, will all be areas which will be given the attention they deserve.

Of course there are a number of different types of canals or different types of navigation systems. From Lowtown to Athy you have a man-made canal. From Athy to St. Mullins you have a canalised river, and from St. Mullins down the estuary you have an estuary type of waterway. To many people canals are man-made river systems that go through relatively flat countryside which is, generally speaking, uninteresting. Anybody who travels on the Barrow system from Lowtown or Robertstown down to Cheekpoint or New Ross will see a canal system which is of tremendous beauty and which goes through many many different types of countryside.

I am glad the Minister said that it is going to be an all-embracing development and that there will be consultation with people other than the Office of Public Works and that there will be cooperation because when I look at the area with which I am most familiar, we have the Barrow Awards Scheme which has been going now for a number of years and which has been of tremendous benefit to small towns and villages in County Carlow, Kilkenny and up to County Kildare. I do not think 20 years ago anybody could have foreseen that in places along the Barrow we would have mooring points, that at Goresbridge in County Kilkenny there would be a crafts shop which is there because the River Barrow is being used. We have a restaurant development in Leighlinbridge, and it is hoped that very shortly there will be a marina behind that restaurant. We have a boat slip at Bagenalstown which is of tremendous use. The river has given to St. Mullins a life that it had not got until there was a certain amount of development in the last ten years. Anybody who has been to St. Mullins will consider it to be one of the most attractive and most unusual areas of antiquity and historical value in County Carlow or in the south-east. I suggest that it is because of the development and use of the Barrow valley that this interest in and knowledge of that area are being developed.

These are only some of the developments that have taken place. You have a small boat building enterprise in Goresbridge, County Kilkenny, and also in Bagenalstown. The tourism interests are well catered for and the scenery from New Ross up to St. Mullins, on the one side, and up to Inistioge in County Kilkenny on the other side, with the development of the Galley restaurant, has given to many people a further interest in developing their knowledge of the waterways of Ireland and indeed has possibly given an impetus to bringing in this Bill to try to ensure that our canal system will develop.

We should not forget the great value that the canals and the inland waterways can have in the development of fisheries. Thousands of people have come from Great Britain and from all over the world for the coarse fishing, for eel, bream, roach, tench, pike, trout, the various fish that are generally available in our canals. I hope there will be a further development over the next few years in this aspect of usage of our waterways. We must ensure over the next few years that the local authorities, who have a major input into how the canals and waterways will be developed, will get sufficient funds to ensure that they will be creating a pollution free water environment because apart from farm effluent the major source of pollutants in the canals has been pollution coming from small towns which have not yet got sufficient funds from central Government to instal proper sewage treatment plants.

I am glad to see that the Carlow town sewage treatment plant is virtually in operation and that will play a big part in helping to alleviate the problem in that area. We will be tabling an amendment for Committee Stage suggesting that the employees will be protected fully in regard to their remuneration and gratuities and in every aspect of their employment.

Section 6 of the Bill reads:

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——

It does not mention that the commissioners can join with other bodies in such developments. I think that is a weakness in that section. I feel that included in it should be that the commissioners should be able to join with bodies such as Bord Fáilte, the Barrow Awards Scheme people, or whoever, to undertake works which would benefit both the canal and the amenity value. Section 6 also states that Commissioners will have power to:

close to navigation any part of a canal not required for navigation and reopen and declare navigable any part of a canal previously closed to navigation;

The old Act was specific in this in that if the canal was not used for three years CIE had power to close it. This created a lot of hassle in the sixties. That section gives the commissioners a good deal of power without defining what the power is. It does not state the conditions under which the closure can take place. It does not say that it can be closed because it has not been used at all. There is no specific reason given or there is no set of values which might pertain to the closure.

I would like the Minister to give us an indication as to what exactly "not required for navigation" means. If the Minister is going to allow the commissioners to close any particular stretch and he does not give us the specifics he should at least be able to tell us to whom an appeal should be addressed or in what circumstances an appeal might be addressed to somebody. The whole section is extremely vague and it gives the commissioners powers which I think they should not have unless the Minister specifies the extent of these powers and equally what right anybody might have to appeal against these powers.

In section 7 we have by-laws concerning care, maintenance and control and the regulation of the use of canals. I do not think anybody would disagree that fines of up to £1,000, and for a continuing contravention, fines not exceeding £100 a day, should be imposed on summary conviction and that the £5,000 together with the continuing £500 a day or imprisonment should be imposed for damage that might be caused to the canal perhaps by people driving along beside the canal on the towpaths, or dumping deleterious matter into the canal, or leaving boats there and so on. However, the section also provides for summary conviction for anybody who might bathe in the canal without having permission. It does not seem right to me than somebody who bathes in the canal without permission should be under threat of the imposition, on summary conviction, of a fine of £1,000. I can understand the closing to navigation, the opening to navigation, the alteration of water levels but the regulation of bathing in canals surely should not be one of the things in that section. In many cases the people who use the canal for swimming do not have any place else to swim. In many cases they might not have any place else to have a bath. I do not think you are going to get them to go along to the commissioners to get permission to swim in the canal. Section 7 (1) (e) should be changed or removed. Possibly a summary fine of £5 could be imposed if it is found that a small amount of damage is done to the top of a lock or a lock gate, or something like that.

The development of canals can play a major part in the future development of our tourism industry. The Minister has, in the main, the right attitude towards this development. I believe he will get the co-operation of the legislators, of the various tourism and cultural bodies in the orderly transfer from CIE to the Office of Public Works, but he will only get that if the rights of the employees are protected to the fullest.

We should not allow this Bill to pass without paying a tribute to CIE for the work they have done in the past years in trying to protect our waterways as best they could in a situation where they were not getting adequate funding. On the transfer to the Office of Public Works success will only be achieved if sufficient funding is given to the canals section of the Office of Public Works. Under the financial constraints we have at present value for money does not seem to be the criteria by which money is spent. Government cuts are made willy-nilly. There are cuts in staff; people who are essential to the development of particular areas are not replaced. It is no use making this transfer and making a lot of pious platitudinous noises about it unless there is sufficient money given to allow the development to take place in a reasonable fashion.

I can see the excellent work that the Office of Public Works have done around the country in the restoration of old buildings. The craftsmen involved in the Office of Public Works do fantastic work but the work is being done under financial constraints. I sincerely hope that when this Bill is passed we will see an extra input of moneys into the canal section of the Office of Public Works to ensure that our canals will be of the greatest use to the greatest number and that they will not be allowed ever again to fall into the state of disrepair that they have been allowed to fall into over the past years. I welcome the Bill with the proviso that the staff situation should be looked into and resolved.

I should like to welcome this move to transfer the ownership of the Grand and Royal Canals from CIE to the Office of Public Works. The canals represent to me a valuable amenity which can be of tremendous value environmentally and socially across Ireland to both city, town and rural village alike. These cities, towns and villages stretch along the route of the Grand Canal which is totally navigable and the Royal Canal which, in many places, is in a sad state of disrepair and therefore not navigable.

Coming from Westmeath and knowing other speakers will have specific interests in the canals I will address my contribution to the area of the Royal Canal. The Royal Canal in my view should be regarded as a potential national park comprising as it does some 1,000 acres of waterways, banks and towpaths stretching for 95 miles. To fulfil the prime role of the canals' restoration to navigation is also desirable. The Royal Canal could provide and has provided in areas where work has been carried out, valuable recreation and leisure facilities for rambling, nature studies, fishing, swimming, canoeing and so on.

I welcome the fact that the Bill charges the Office of Public Works — as is outlined in section 5—to "undertake the care, management and maintenance of the canals ... as a public amenity for use by the public for navigation in such parts of the canals as are open to navigation from time to time: or fishing or otherwise for the enjoyment and recreation of the public."

Like Senator Lanigan, while I welcome the fact that the Bill charges the Minister in charge of the Office of Public Works to perform specific duties, the section outlining his duties is very vague. It is especially vague in that it does not establish the priority in terms of the role of the canals. I might say that in Longford-Westmeath failing to establish the priority role of the canals can cause problems. I will give you an example. In County Longford plans for a new bridge with full navigational clearance, have been prepared by the roads engineer. There are no engineering reasons why such a bridge should not be built. Yet the point has been well made that as the Royal Canal in County Longford has already been culverted at six other road crossings, the extra cost of this bridge might not be justified. That is a valid point. In Westmeath, on the other hand, you have a situation where Westmeath County Council have completed the construction of the new high-level road bridge over the Royal Canal at Ballinea. They have planned for a full navigation-clear bridge on the Mullingar-Lanesboro road at Shandonagh. There is an obvious concept here in that one cannot justify, for example, building another culvert in Longford while at the same time building these more expensive bridges in Westmeath or, on the other hand building expensive bridges in Westmeath as opposed to culverts.

I would like the Minister to establish exactly what the priority of the canal should be. If it is to restore it eventually to navigation, then the section is not strong enough; if it is to go into the fishing amenity area, it is still not clear.

The section does not clarify at all that the Grand Canal is regarded as navigable. Under the law, the Grand Canal is open to navigation, but there is a change in the section whereby the Minister can at no specific time—or no specifics are given— close any of these canals. We do not even know if the Minister can make a decision to say; "Close the canals for navigation". It is not clear. I would look for a further commitment.

The Royal Canal which was closed to navigation in 1961, was not totally abandoned in that CIE carried out limited repairs and maintenance, particularly in the eastern section between Dublin and Mullingar. They carried out repairs to upper gates of locks which were in a state of disrepair and cleared a certain amount of weeds and other materials. Short stretches of bank are now the responsibility of local authorities. The western section of the canal, however, is in a rather worse state of repair, the main problem being, as I have already mentioned, eight culverts—six on the mainline and two on the Longford branch—which have effectively closed off the Royal Canal to navigation.

There are many works — this is the difficulty in terms of establishing whether we are talking about the canals as a navigable entity or not — that would need to be done. For example, lock replacement, dredging, the repairing and clearing of banks, landscaping, the repairing and cleaning of lock chambers, repairing harbour walls and other retaining walls, the removal of minor obstructions from navigation, for example, cattle passes and low level footbridges are all matters which require attention.

Perhaps at this stage it might be worthwhile having a look at what has happened over the last five years in the context of the Royal Canal. The Royal Canal amenity group in particular have, on a voluntary basis and with the help of CIE and local authorities, carried out a considerable amount of restoration work on the canal. In addition, they have received the full co-operation of AnCO in organising community youth training projects. Indeed, one such project involved the construction of new lock gates, repairs at various canal structures, including building bridges and harbours. The success of all these projects has clearly demonstrated that the restoration in part at least of the Royal Canal might well be achieved by combining voluntary work and youth employment training, for example, and also obviously involving the local authorities. Of course, with the co-operation of the OPW and with this transfer I expect that there will be considerable co-operation from the OPW. In a relatively short period it is possible that the Royal Canal will become navigable in part. The longer term view, of course, would be that the problems which exist in Longford could be sorted out, but I know that at this stage they are well in the future.

It is only fair to elaborate more fully on works carried out within my own county. The works which I have seen carried out there demonstrate three different approaches and exemplify what commitment and interest from different groups of people can do. If anybody has driven through Mullingar lately he will have seen that there has been considerable improvement and upgrading of the canal with the assistance of an environmental works scheme grant. The grant which was given specifically for youth employment on the scheme converted the canal from what it was previously regarded as, and indeed was, a dumping place for all kinds of accumulated rubbish dumped there by people driving into the town, by residents, or whoever. The project converted what was in effect a dump to a local amenity.

The value of this local amenity is that it is being used more and more by the local inhabitants. You can take a trip down there and you will see old people out walking; you will see families strolling with their children and they are doing it in peace and without fear of being pushed off footpaths or of children running out on roads. The other activities which are taking place down there and which are of immense value to the community include fishing and there is liaison with the local VEC to organise at a later part of the year activities like canoeing and so on.

I take the opportunity to congratulate the officials of Westmeath County Council on their initiative and for their commitment to restoring the Royal Canal, if not to navigation then certainly to a very important and useful amenity status.

Eight or ten miles from Mullingar we have a small village called Ballinacargy. Ballinacargy could best be described by saying that it is on the back road from Mullingar to Longford. Therefore it does not have large numbers passing through. Ballinacargy, on the other hand, has a harbour of its own. With a grant of £1,000 the local community in Ballinacargy spent £10,000 clearing out that harbour and providing for the first time there an amenity of value to the children and to their parents. It has become the focal point of community activity and of community functions. This was done basically and in the main as a result of hard work by individuals on a voluntary basis. There was a very small commitment in terms of grant aid, but amazing work was done.

In Killucan, County Westmeath, you had a combination of factors. The initial happening was that the Royal Canal Amenity Group formed a branch. The reaction from young and old alike again was tremendous. Before the meeting took place the comment was, "Who is interested in the Royal Canal?" But there were over 100 people in Killucan who were interested enough to join the branch of that organisation, to give up their evenings and to do what could best be described as hard graft in terms of pulling weeds and cleaning debris and so on. The young and old were there, children, teenagers and so on. There was general and committed community involvement. AnCO were also involved at Killucan in that there is a community training project which is involved in repairs to the walls and to the locks and so on. The local authority is also involved in that in recent times it allocated a grant of £2,000.

What I am really saying is that in so many different ways, by a community of its own in its own interest, or with the help of local authorities, or with the help of the Department of Labour, much can be done without any major allocations of money.

Having listed the difficulties which do exist in terms of the Royal Canal and its ultimate restoration which I personally would like to see, I am very strongly of opinion that many of the problems which now face anybody intending to restore the Royal Canal occurred because of lack of planning. If you drive from Dublin to Mullingar you will see in areas like Kilcock, Enfield, Killucan, Mullingar etc. that works are going on. There is no liaison between one group and another. While the works are well worth doing and are to be admired it is absolutely vital that planning should occur so that the works are done in conjunction with one another. I, therefore, appeal to the Minister who is present — it is a bit awkward appealing to the Minister because the Minister here today is losing the canals and the Minister who will receive the canals is not here — to pass on to the other Minister what has been said and ask for an assurance that despite the existing difficulties that in the long term interest of the Royal Canal no further hinderances will be allowed in the context of navigation. That is absolutely vital.

I also feel that it is vital that a liaison group be set up within the Office of Public Works. This liaison group should certainly include representatives of Bord Fáilte, the Office of Public Works, the local authorities, the Department of Labour and the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. The IDA could have an input in it. Harbourwise, there is no reason why if one wants to be optimistic one could not see harbour development in the form of small enterprise centres. Relevant voluntary and community-based groups like the Inland Waterways Association and the Royal Canal Amenity Group should also be facilitated with a place within this liaison group. It is a credit to these voluntary organisations that so much that has been done can be accredited to them.

The picture I have painted seems bleak in terms of the Royal Canal being fully restored. I believe that with more co-operation and liaison with various Government Departments much could be done. For example, there is no reason why further community youth training projects could not be initiated, and there is no reason also why the social employment schemes should not be used to full advantage. The Labour Party have taken the initiative on the youth side to secure some lasting value of this social employment scheme. We have asked Labour councillors in the five counties through which the Royal Canal passes to submit this motion at council level for adoption. The motion calls on the manager and the county engineers to prepare a programme of work to bring about the restoration of the Royal Canal in the functional area of the local authority by the following measures: to establish direct contact with the Board of Works and the Inland Waterways Association; to outline the works required; to establish an ad hoc group representing the six local authority areas through which the Royal Canal passes and to establish contact with the National Manpower Service to tap into this social employment scheme. While the question of finance is obviously a thorny subject there is no reason why local authorities cannot take up this scheme to put scarce funding into the works.

I now come to the difficulty which has already been outlined by Senator Lanigan relating to section 3 and the transfer of staff. The section which provides for the transfer of canal staff to OPW does little more than that — simply provides for the transfer of staff. In the interest of good labour relations and in the interest of the people involved it is not enough to say that we will transfer you to what is in effect a new boss without telling you what the terms of your employment are going to be. The terms of employment — if one examines the situation which exists within the OPW and for the current staff of CIE who will be transferring to OPW — are somewhat different. In some cases in the OPW conditions are better. Likewise, with some CIE employees certain advantages make their conditions somewhat better. It will have to be clarified and included in the Bill that the staff are assured that they will not have less beneficial scales of pay or conditions than those they presently enjoy. That is a reasonable approach, and it is one that the Labour Party would support strongly in view of our most recent work in this area in the transfer of Post Office workers. I ask the Minister to recommend strongly that that section be amended to include such provision.

In the Minister's speech it was stated that the Government have decided that adequate resources will be made available to the Commissioners of Public Works to implement this Bill. I am back again to my point of establishing exactly what the prior role of the Bill is. Is the prior role of the Bill to establish the canal as nothing more than an amenity per se, ignoring its prime role, which is navigation? If the Minister is in a position to assure me that the Bill is committed to the restoration of navigation to the Royal Canal then I am delighted. I am sure the county manager in Longford will be delighted to see that the Government have decided that adequate resources will be made available to the commissioners to implement this Bill. I would like clarification of that.

I see also that fishing and navigation seem to have equal standing within the Bill. I would say that there could be a clash of interests here. To avoid such difficulties arising as to who has rights and who has not and what is the purpose of the Bill and the canals, the role of the canals should be established.

The powers of closure are referred to in section 6 and also in section 7. It is not quite clear for what purposes such powers of closure would be required. Is it for permanent closure? One could think that the three-year regulation which was there before is no longer contained in the Bill. Section 6 (e) and section 7 (b) make reference to closing to navigation. Perhaps that could be clarified.

I welcome the spirit in which the Minister presented the Bill to the House. I am sure that the Minister in the interest of promoting one of our most extraordinary and valuable amenity areas, will have sympathy for the points that I have made and perhaps ensure that they are acted on.

It can be said that as a people we are very strangely shortsighted in recognising our national assets in a way in which they should be exploited for the national benefit. I do not have to remind the House that we import vegetables in huge proportions, while at the same time much of our land remains unused. We poison our lakes, like Lough Ennel and Lough Sheelin. Some of the finest fishing lakes in the world have been totally destroyed through sheer carelessness on our part. The list is endless. We could go on with many other examples. If you like, a Chathaoirleach, in this context the Canals Bill, 1985 is to be welcomed. Here we have a plan to save the Royal Canal. The Royal Canal has been dead for years. It was closed in the sixties by CIE. Any work to save the canal must be seen as a welcome development. As Senator McAuliffe-Ennis said, for far too long it has been used as a dumping place for dead dogs, bicycles, prams and so on. I believe that with some imagination, some hard work and some Government cash it can be made a worthwhile tourist attraction and it might well repay the cost many times over.

The campaign over the five counties through which the canal flows by various people involved in the environment and by various community groups has at long last been recognised and approved by the Government. We all know that this has been on the cards for many years with different Governments and different groups. We all welcome the publication of the Bill which came to us some two weeks ago. The plan is to restore the canal. It will be restored with the help of unemployed youngsters. That Bill has been promised by the Minister for Labour, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, regrettably we have not yet seen it but we know that this type of scheme will form part and parcel of that Bill.

In the sixties, CIE saw it as a waterway providing a means of commercial transport. Regrettably when it ceased to be this, CIE lost interest. Hopefully, the Office of Public Works will see it as a major tourist attraction, where stretches of the canal can be developed for boating, fishing and other water sports, swimming, canoeing and so on.

My own view is that it will be almost impossible to make it totally navigable. Unless finance of huge proportions is given by the State for this work, it will never be navigable. Even in County Longford alone to remove the bridges and make the canal navigable could cost from £5 million to £7 million. However, despite the engineering problems and despite the economic reasons why I think it might never become totally navigable, much worthwhile work can be done. Work is being done. For example in my own County Westmeath, I would have to welcome the general clean-up that is taking place. I would like to welcome this and congratulate the officials of Westmeath County Council. The question I would ask is: are we going far enough? I would hope that we would go for a long-term plan. This would mean a commitment in millions of pounds to take away the bridges. Rather than just clean the canal we would need to go to the basin of the canal to remove the two or three feet of mud that is there, clean it away, put it on the side of the banks to make proper footpaths suitable for walks for the people of this country and for tourists.

I believe that with a long-term plan, backed up by a commitment of cash from the Government, much important work can be done which over the years will be repaid. Again let me come back to this possibility which is very much in my mind, that it will never become totally navigable. As I said many stretches of it can become worthwhile. This is eventually what I believe will emerge. It can become very important for boating, fishing and for water sports. For every one boat on the Royal Canal there are as many as 90 or 100 fishermen. With a bit of work and foresight it could become a fisherman's paradise. With so much leisure time on our hands, fishing will always be a pastime loved by the Irish people and by tourists. Although other European canals are no longer used for commercial purposes, they have proved to be major tourist attractions. A restored Royal Canal could generate employment and much-needed tourism in the areas I have mentioned.

The Grand Canal is different. Many people feel it is as good today as ever it was. While it needs dredging, it is totally navigable from Dublin to Shannon. We should encourage more boating on this canal. At the moment it is used in the early part of the year to get boats onto the Shannon and then bring them back in the autumn for repair or to be locked up for the winter months. We should endeavour to have it used more for boating. It is quite close to the River Shannon and people like to get out onto the bigger waterways. I hope more and more such efforts will be made.

I mentioned the question of dredging, and in the area of the Royal Canal this is very relevant. CIE have not got the dredging machines necessary whereas the Office of Public Works have. Dredging both canals under the control of the Office of Public Works is very appropriate and could be done at little cost. The Office of Public Works are the proper authority to deal with these two canals. It seems that CIE have not the interest or, indeed, the money and they see themselves as not being in this business any more. It is a pity they have adopted that approach, but we must not forget that we have a very good canal staff. While the CIE staff have expertise in the navigation and in the drainage of the canals, it seems a logical step to transfer the operation of the canals to the Office of Public Works. If the canals are ever to be totally navigable many millions of pounds will have to be provided by the Government.

I do not know what the Minister meant when he said: "The Government have decided that adequate resources will be made available to the Commissioners of Public Works to implement this Bill." That is not spelled out sufficiently to my way of thinking to satisfy us that a worthwhile navigation job will be completed. We should be told exactly what kind of money we are talking about. Another criticism is that in the Bill the staff have been forgotten, and natural justice demands that they should not be forgotten. It is well known that in the draft Bill some months ago provision was made for suitable staffing transfer arrangements. Section 3 refers to "after consultation with the Commissioners." To me that is extremely vague. I would not like to be one of the staff transferring over with that section hanging around my neck, as it were. I would feel I was entitled to far more knowledge of what was about to take place. I do not know why it was taken out of the draft Bill. I do not know who took it out. Perhaps the Minister would comment on that.

When An Bord Post and An Bord Telecom were transferred, transferring staff got their full rights. I wonder has this anything to do with the future developments we hear talked about in CIE. To me it is a very worrying feature of the Bill.

The Transport Act, 1950, provides in section 36:

Every person who immediately before the establishment date was an officer or servant of either dissolved undertaker shall as from the establishment date be transferred to and become an officer or servant of the board.

Other sections of the 1950 Transport Act deal with the transfer of approximately 500 staff from the Grand Canal Company to CIE. In the Act the conditions of service of the Grand Canal Company staff were fully protected under sections 36 to 38. Many of the employees who made the transfer then are still with CIE. In 1985 with so much talk of rights transferring staff should have the same conditions as they have in their present employment. I ask the Minister in his reply to say whether the existing staff who are affected by the transfer will be fully compensated for the loss of conditions which they presently enjoy. It is a very reasonable question. Will the Minister present, or the Minister for Communications, or the Minister for Finance who is responsible for the Office of Public Works, pay that compensation? As I said, the staff appear to be forgotten. There is not sufficient emphasis on how much the whole operation will cost and where exactly the money is coming from. Generally I welcome the Bill. It is a straightforward Bill. It is a logical step to transfer the canals from CIE to the Office of Public Works.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an mBille seo. Tá a fhios agam go maith gur thosnaigh sé cúpla bliain ó shin nuair a bhí Rialtas eile i bhfeidhm agus theip orthu é a thabhairt ós comhair na dTithe anseo. Tá áthas orm gur éirigh leis an Aire é a thabhairt go dtí an Teach agus tá áthas orm freisin gur cuireadh fáilte roimhe go ginearálta.

It is nice to see legislation coming through which is changing the old system and to find that in general it is welcomed by the people involved. While there are certain worries, I find in discussing it with different people that the Bill seems to be a good piece of legislation. I welcome it. It sounds logical to me that the Office of Public Works should be in charge of the canals. CIE did good work for the canals under their own system. They are basically concerned with transport. The canals are not used for transport and we now regard them as an amenity which is very important for the country but which is not a concern of CIE.

The people involved in the maintenance of the canals have done a good job. I was talking to some of my friends who were involved in the boating scene and they were very complimentary about the way people had managed to do the dredging and keep the weeds at bay with weed cutters, and even bushes. I hope that with the Office of Public Works managing the canals and the River Barrow, we will not have any deterioration in the standard of the waterways. I hope that with the skills the Office of Public Works have and the facilities they have, they will make sure that things will improve.

One Senator spoke about the amount of money which was pumped into the canals 100 years ago. That is understandable. They were setting up the canals. They were of commercial value at that stage. The demand for a commercial canals system no longer exists. While I have every sympathy for the people of Longford, where the bridges have taken away the usefulness of the canals, we must not blame engineers who were building roadways when the Royal Canal was of no use. We should not condemn the people who made those decisions. As I was listening to other speakers I thought of people who threw out pieces of old furniture long ago thinking they were useless. If they had them back now they would be delighted because of their antique value. The canal is much the same. It has a lot of value now because of the people who use it. The canal system has a tremendous value from our tourism point of view. People like to come here. I was delighted to hear about a man who was born in Belfast but lived in Chicago for years. He and his wife and daughter-in-law took a 33 foot boat across the Atlantic and arrived at St. Mullins, at the mouth of the Barrow, and decided to come inland and see the country. He came through the Barrow, the Shannon and down through Limerick. The canals have the advantage that they open up the internal part of our country and people who are lucky enough to have the time and facilities, in the words of the song, to go messing about in the river can enjoy the pleasure of boating. They can see the country as they go along and can do it slowly. If some politicians, including the Minister, could take an odd weekend away from clinics and go boating on the rivers, we would be saner and able to see things in a much better light.

Many speakers took us on trips to different countries. Coming from Carlow I consider that the River Barrow is very important. St. Mullins is a place of beauty and a joy forever. It is renowned. It is the start of the inland trip for those who come in from the Atlantic and want to come through the Barrow. There is an award scheme for the tidiest place on the River Barrow. People deserve our thanks for keeping going a facility that is very important to us. We want to cater for leisure and for visitors and, above all, we want to cater for our own people. Many of the people who go boating on the Barrow and on the canals are Irish people taking a break.

The question of the workers has been raised. Workers' rights have always been taken for granted. The Minister will be dealing with that on Committee Stage. It would save a lot of worry if the wording was there explaining that they will be protected in the normal way and that they will not be at a disadvantage. Even if it is the Minister's intention that they will not suffer any disadvantage, it would be foolish to leave that out. It would be advisable to get advice from the Inland Waterways on sections 6 and 7. While they may not have an overruling say, they could be consulted. The other problem is the question of fines. One solicitor with whom I was speaking thought that the fines were slightly absurd. On Committee Stage we can discuss these things.

We are dealing with a Bill to transfer responsibility for running the canals from CIE to the Office of Public Works. That has been accepted. I am glad it is being done. I welcome the Bill and I thank all those who have made boating on the rivers and canals possible. Many did it of their own free will. Some of the people on the boats got out and cut the bushes themselves. I hope we will have an improvement in the canals now that they are being taken over by the Office of Public Works.

My contribution will be brief on Second Stage. Like other Senators I welcome the Bill. I am sorry we did not have more time to study the Bill, because there is a wealth of information and published works on canals. In the time we had it was impossible to go into them in any great depth. When making any study of this subject, one very important work is the Report by the Canals and Inland Waterways Commission which was presented to the Minister for Industry and Commerce in 1923. The terms of reference of the inquiry are:

To inquire into, and report on, the utilisation of inland waterways for purposes of transport, with particular regard to:—

(1) the service rendered to the community at present;

(2) conditions and rates of employment incidental to upkeep and operation;

(3) measures necessary to secure maximum utility, having due regard to:—

(a) sound national economy;

(b) the relation of the waterways to other means of transport;

(c) their functions in respect of drainage, fisheries and power.

The conclusion was a very positive one. I will quote from it:

To revert to our terms of reference, we feel as the result of our examination of the general question of utilisation of inland waterways for purposes of transport, that we are fully justified in recommending the adoption of a definite policy having for its object speedy and active development of this economic factor.

The report went into all the aspects and included very comprehensive maps. It stated at one stage that where speed was not an important factor canals would be less costly than other means of transport. In situations where speed was important the railways would win out. Indeed, who could foresee at that time that, in a very short period, even the railways would become obsolete?

The Minister gave us a very comprehensive report on the canals. I should like to quote from a paragraph in the report regarding the Grand Canal:

An Irish Act of 1772 authorised the Commissioners of Inland Navigation to open a subscription of £60,000 for carrying on and completing the navigation begun by them about the year 1753, from the City of Dublin to the Shannon, or so much therof as should seem expedient to the Commissioners. The subscribers were authorised to be a "Company of Undertakers of the Grand Canal" and to carry on and complete the canal and make connections with the River Liffey and the navigable parts of the River Barrow. They were also authorised to undertake the navigation of the Barrow from its sources to the Bridge of Athy and to make a junction with the River Boyne if they thought fit. All the powers, privileges, advantages and authorities of the Commissioners in respect of the projected navigation were transferred to the Company. They were authorised to take water from the River Liffey above the ford at Millicent, County Kildare, for the purposes of navigation only, and to sell redundant water for industrial or other purposes. The soil and water of the canal, together with the banks, were vested in the proprietors of joint stock.

This is the introduction to the Royal Canal:

The Royal Canal, 96 miles in length, including a short branch to the town of Longford, connects with the Upper Shannon at Tarmonbarry, provides a fairly direct water route between Dublin and the mineral area of Lough Allen, and connects Limerick by water with Longford, Mullingar, etc. It was constructed under the provisions of a Charter granted to a joint stock Company in 1789. The formation of the Company is said to have arisen out of the dissensions of the Grand Canal directors (of whom there were originally forty-one) and to have been actuated by motives of competition for the traffic between Dublin and the Shannon.

The history of this Company is similar in many ways to the early history of the Grand Canal Company — a series of mistakes, ineptitude, maladministration, frequent Government grants, and payment of dividends out of capital. The Grand Canal Company persistently opposed the work throughout its progress by way of petitions and protests to the Government. In 1813 the Royal Canal Company was bankrupt and the canal was taken over by the Directors-General of Ireland Navigation, who completed its construction.

Like all other Senators who have spoken I believe that the implementation of this Bill will be a great help to tourism. In the area of fishing after the netting of salmon at sea and in the estuaries of our rivers, the fish is sold for perhaps £4 or £5 per lb. and then fetch a price of perhaps £30 or £40. When we consider the value coarse fishing has for the country through tourism, the equivalent value could be £1,000 when we take into consideration the money spent by tourists, on boat building, in provision of fishing tackle, and value to our hotels. Fishing in all its aspects, particularly coarse fishing, is very important for tourism.

I can recall going outside my home in Kells in the spring or summer and seeing cars passing early in the morning with boats and fishing tackle on their roof racks. They were on their way to the fishing areas of County Cavan.

The leisure and boating aspect for our young people who have time on their hands is important. It strikes me that in winter when the canals are frozen over, we might be able to extend the pike fishing on Lough Caragh which seemed very enjoyable and attractive to look at. The only objection I have to it is that it seemed to include sex discrimination. There were males of all ages taking part, and no females. However, I suppose this could be overcome.

Like other Senators I should like to pay tribute to the voluntary workers who, over the years, have done tremendous work on parts of our canals. I wonder what will happen where we have low culverts, low bridges, where roads have interfered with the proper functioning of the canals. I hope that the transfer of the employees will be looked after in a proper manner. I also hope that finances for maximum benefit will be available.

The Royal Canal runs through parts of County Meath but I feel the Bill could be perhaps extended to take in all our canals. In that report also there is a full list of all our canals as follows: Shannon Navigation from Limerick Harbour to Lough Allen, including branches to Scarriff, Strokestown and Boyle 157 miles; River Maigue, from the Shannon Estuary to Adare, County Limerick, nine miles; River Blackwater, County Waterford, from Youghal Harbour to Cappoquin, 18 miles; River Bride from the River Blackwater to Tallow, seven miles; Suir Navigation from Waterford Harbour to Clonmel, 29 miles; River Slaney, from Wexford Harbour to Enniscorthy, 19 miles; Boyne Navigation, from Drogheda Harbour to Navan, 19 miles; Lough Corrib Navigation, from Galway Harbour to Lough Corrib piers and quays, about 50 miles; Grand Canal, including Barrow Navigation, 208 miles; Royal Canal, 96 miles; Ballinamore and Ballyconnell Canal, 38 miles. There were three which were not included in the report: Tralee Ship Canal, 1½ miles; Lismore Canal, 1¼ miles; and River Nore, 16 miles.

I notice two things from that. The total mileage of the Grand Canal, including the Barrow Navigation and the Royal Canal, is 304 miles. The Minister told us in his introductory speech that the extent of these two canals to be taken over is over 250 miles. I presume that the Barrow Navigation section is not included. Also included in that list is the Boyne Navigation. This is referred to very briefly at the start of that section as follows:

The Lower Boyne Navigation, from Drogheda to Slane, was commenced by the Commissioners of Inland Navigation in 1759. After the dissolution of the Commissioners, Irish Acts of 1788 and 1789 incorporated the River Boyne Company and conferred thereon all the powers, privileges, benefits and advantages in respect of the Boyne Navigation that were vested in the Grand Canal Company by their Act of 1772. It was stipulated that unless the Company, within five years after the navigation had been completed up to Navan, extended it to Trim, the Lower Boyne Navigation from Drogheda to Slane should revert to the Government. The extension to Trim was not completed, and a projected branch to Athboy, through Kildalkey, and a canalisation of the River Blackwater from Navan to Kells — to which the inhabitants of the latter town were prepared to contribute — also failed to materialise.

I would dearly love to see the Boyne Navigation included in this scheme.

The River Blackwater has been dredged and cleaned between Navan and Kells and many people feel that the only difference now to its appearance and a real canal is that it is not possible to use it for boats because the banks are very steep and the bed has been interfered with. As I said, fishing is most important and I hope that the spawning beds will be restored as soon as possible because fishing has been interfered with. I know that the work has been carried out in a very efficient manner and that hundreds of acres which until then grew nothing but rushes have since grown first class crops. I ask the Minister some time in the near future to look at the situation with the Boyne Navigation and see if this could also be included in a similar Bill.

I want to make a brief contribution to the Canals Bill, 1985. First of all, I want to welcome the principle involved in the Bill, that is the transfer of responsibility from the Department of Transport to the Office of Public Works. I welcome it in view of the fact that Senators who are fortunate enough to have the facility of a canal in their area realise that it is a tremendous amenity. I am not fortunate enough to be one of the Senators who have the privilege of having that amenity. I know the Leas-Chathaoirleach looked at me to see if I had water on the brain suddenly when I was——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I was puzzled.

I was aspiring to reflect the views of the previous Senators who enjoy the beautiful amenity of these canals. It is a tremendous amenity. For that reason I welcome the fact that the Government made a conscious decision that because of the amenity value of the canals their transfer to the Commissioners of Public Works was a desirable thing to do. That decision was based, first of all, on the confidence they have in the Office of Public Works to maintain this tremendous amenity throughout the country. Those of us who have had dealings with the Office of Public Works, no matter how slow and tedious at times we consider their work is and how difficult it might be to get them to move in to do a job, know that once they attempt to do a job they do it admirably. The end result is always something that all of us can be very proud of. To hand the responsibility in this area to such a responsible authority as the Office of Public Works is something to be welcomed by all sides of the House.

I want to put on the record of the House today my tribute to Córas Iompair Éireann who dealt with the canals over many years. It is to their credit that in spite of various pressures that had arisen from developing authorities, particularly in Dublin city, they did not accede to the pressures in relation to the closing of canals particularly in Dublin. The Minister of State, Deputy Nealon, whom I welcome to this House, mentioned that even though the commercial traffic on both canals continued to decline and become negligible the result was that the Transport Act 1958 gave CIE the 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. The Transport Act, 1960 also gave power to CIE to close the entire Royal Canal to navigation. We all recall the tremendous concern that was expressed by the public in case this happened and that through some decision of any authority these canals would be closed, they would be drained out and be used for either roadways or laying of pipes for gas, water or other things. I am delighted that either CIE or those responsible did not take what they had the power to do, to go and misuse what I consider a tremendous amenity.

That leaves us then with a whole network of waterways throughout the country which are a tremendous amenity for boating, fishing and bathing. I am sure the Commissioners of Public Works will keep this in mind and that we want them not alone to maintain the canals but to improve the facilities that are there and make them available to more people who would want to use them. They are a tremendous national asset. They have a cultural asset which the Minister of State recognises by his presence with us today. In addition to that we hope that, because they will be still in public ownership, the public will have the right of access on to them without in fact infringing in any overall rights that the Commissioners of Public Works might want to maintain. I am sure the sections of the Bill that deal with fines for the abuse of them are intended to be a deterrent to people throughout the country who tend to use waterways as areas of pollution. It is a tragedy that during picnics and other outings of people areas like this tend to get polluted. I hope the local authorities, with the powers of the 1981 Water Pollution Act, will ensure that is implemented to protect the amenity of our canals. I do not envisage for a moment that anybody who wants to swim in them except possibly in the nude — then perhaps some of the councillors in Dublin will want to put an order on sections of the canal to have nude bathing — will be prevented. I do not think Senator Lanigan should have any worries about having £1,000 fines initiated on somebody that might want to use canals for that amenity. People use these waterways for that purpose. I have no doubt that the Commissioners of Public Works will maintain that amenity.

I want, having complimented CIE for the way they have maintained the canals in spite of the changes that have taken place in their usage, to put on record particularly the appreciation of this House to the staff involved in that section of CIE. It is in that regard that, following discussions I had with members of the staff and members of trade unions representing the staff, I had a discussion last week with the Minister for Communications and his Minister of State, Deputy Nealon and pointed out the reservations I had about various sections of the Bill which did not include the existing rights of the workers involved there to transfer to their new employer with existing conditions. It is imperative that any legislation that is enacted in this House should reflect the existing rights of workers. I, representing the Labour Party in this House, am quite confident that our wishes will be met by a suitable Government amendment to this Bill.

I concur with Senator Lanigan, the Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party, and indeed with Senator McAuliffe-Ennis, who has done a lot of work in the preparation of her contribution on this Bill, that it is essential that the workers' rights are protected. It is a minimum requirement in the Bill. I know that in previous legislation members of my party ensured that existing workers and their rights were protected by legislation in the transfer to various other semi-State bodies or indeed as in the case of An Post or Bord Telecom we put into legislation the protection of workers in those areas. Experience in the meantime has proved how imperative it is for the workers that their future conditions are enshrined in the legislation that we enact here in the actual transfer.

I know that in the preparation of this Bill and in various stages of preparation of the heads of the Bill for Government this particular regulation was written in and it was only for some reason at the eleventh hour that they were not included in the final draft by the parliamentary draftsman. It is because of that that I decided to bring to the Minister's attention our disquiet at the exclusion of this very important section and to ask him in his response to the Second Stage of the debate today that he might put on record the fact that what I have said is true, the reservations I have expressed and his own views on this particular subject. I have every confidence that this problem can be properly dealt with by amendment, and I have no doubt that when we come to deal with Committee Stage we will be able to deal with this aspect of the Bill, which is one of the few remaining contentious items in the Bill.

There are about 75 people involved and they are quite pleased with the new challenge that will be given to them in the enactment of this Bill. The fact that there is Government commitment to ensure that sufficient funds are available to do the job properly gives them a new dimension to their future employment under their new employers. Even though they are still working for the State they will have a new direction. The Bill from that point of view is welcomed.

There are some areas in the Bill about the protection of fisheries. I am quite sure consultation will take place between the relevant Ministers in this regard and that there will not be an incompatibility but the fullest possible use will be made of the canals, and there is no reason to believe that any boating, swimming or fishing will interfere with one another. The only area that I could ever envisage an interference with fisheries is if there was a major dredging or anything else taking place in the canal. I have no doubt that consultation will take place then with the Minister for Fisheries who has a responsibility in this area to protect fish stocks. That section is in the Bill, and it gives me pleasure to know that we are also conscious of that amenity. I do not think any particular amenity should have a superior right to another one. Consultation is important to overcome any particular problems that might arise in the area of fisheries.

This is a good Bill. It is certainly to be welcomed by people like local authority members who are involved in protecting amenities like this throughout the country. I have no doubt that the Minister will get widespread support in this House for the Second Stage of the Bill. We look forward to discussing with him our amendments so that we can proceed to Committee Stage of the Bill at another date. I want to welcome the broad outlines of the Bill and commend it to the House.

I would also, like the other Senators who have spoken, like to welcome the contents of this Bill. The intention of the Government in introducing this Canals Bill, 1985 is a follow through of the announcement by them as far back as 1978 that the transfer of the canals would take place and the present management of the canals by Córas Iompar Éireann would become the responsibility of the Office of Public Works. I have some doubts, although I am prepared to accept that the correct decision was made in 1978, that in fact it has been the right decision to transfer these canals to the Office of Public Works. That is not to say that the Office of Public Works are not responsible in many areas of our national life from our national parks to the restoration of buildings like the Royal Hospital in Kilmainham and elsewhere.

There are very commendable works on public buildings, parks and areas of leisure but I am inclined to think — I know this is shared by others — that perhaps the best solution might have been seen in the programme of reform of local government and in returning the canals to the management of the local authorities who are responsible or at least whose areas these canals are in. If some co-ordinating authority had been set up to manage the canal system as a whole that might have been a preferable decision in the interests of the canal system. That may be a somewhat academic point in that I am certain there will be considerable consultation with the local authorities who will have an interest in the development of the canals over the coming years. I feel sure that the Office of Public Works will use their position under this Bill to the fullest extent.

A number of things occur to me in relation to the canal system as I have known it. Senator Ferris in his contribution mentioned that he was not one of the lucky ones who live close to a canal. I live within about two minutes walk of the Grand Canal. Seemingly more Senators live by the banks of the Royal Canal than by the banks of the Grand Canal. I cannot fathom why that is happening, but certainly there seems to be much more knowledge of the Royal Canal.

The Grand Canal system, the one I know best, is, of course, the earliest of these and, commercially, was the most viable of the canal systems built some centuries ago. It was only commercially viable for a period of about 30 years. In more recent times we had the closing of the Royal Canal to navigation. In the case of the Royal Canal the commercial viability was even more shortlived than on the Grand Canal. One thing that strikes me as extremely important from a public emphasis point of view in this whole transfer, is that it is not just a cosmetic exercise of changing the management of the canals from one public body, CIE, to the Office of Public Works. It is also an important time when a marker should go down to the people of Ireland and, in particular, to the people of Dublin, about the way in which they make use of the canals and the way in which they appreciate the canal system.

I will not reflect on the activities of CIE and Dublin Corporation who have been working together to try to look after the canals within the Dublin area in recent times. There is a marked contrast in the way in which the Grand Canal and other canals are treated. For example, if you visit Amsterdam or other European cities you will see the canal system is such a major area of attraction in its urban life. We seem to be quite happy to throw virtually everything that is not of any use to us any longer in the home into the canal. You will see frequently in parts of the canal that are not as conspicuous to the vast majority of the public the number of old bedsteads, mattresses and rubbish that ends up in the canal quite indiscriminately. It also happens on disused railway lines, an area where legislatively we will have to start acting in the near future as to who is responsible for many of the old railway lines that have been closed and which receive very little maintenance in terms of giving a tidy appearance environmentally.

The experience has been that far too much indiscriminate dumping has been going on by people living in Dublin and by people living elsewhere into our canal system which, at the same time, I suppose, is to be contrasted against the increasing number of people who use the canal system for enjoyment and for pleasure. The number of people using the canal system for various areas of leisure and pleasure has grown enormously. The boating potential of the Shannon system, just to name one figure, is of the order of 1,500 boats at present using that system. The number of young people who use the better known parts of the Grand Canal, for example, through the areas along from Huband Bridge right up to Inchicore, has increased over the years. The number of people who use that now for boating and indeed for canoeing is a very pleasant sight, particularly during summer weekends. The potential in this area is enormous.

From the tourist point of view, with the possibility of connecting into the much larger river and canal system throughout the country it must lead to enormous benefits to our people. The fact that Bord Fáilte are able to record a figure of £30,000 earned in the area of Prosperous, County Kildare in one year from those who engage in fishing and the coarse fishing potential of the canal system are things to be highlighted. Dublin Corporation last year encouraged a competition for young men and women interested in fishing who decided that they had sufficient interest to get out on the canals. Some 353 youngsters, based in Portobello and Phibsboro, took part in a very interesting and well run competition in the height of last summer.

It is also fair to say that the growth in interest in fishing on the canal systems in the United Kingdom and in Europe generally brings large numbers of people of all ages to the canal banks. It is said that 3.7 million people in the United Kingdom have an interest in the coarse fishing activities that are available in the canal system there. There are some 12 million people who have a particular interest in fishing in the canals that are near to their homes and which give a great potential for leisure and pursuits such as coarse fishing and the boating potential that exists there also.

The future of the canal system is, of course, one of the major themes of the Bill which is before us today. I have no doubt that the Commissioners of Public Works will be consulting and co-operating with Bord Fáilte, with the central and regional fishing boards, with the local authorities and with those who have an investment already in the canal system. I hope at the same time that we will come up with ways of developing the canal system that will appeal, not just to the areas that are known to us already but to much greater areas of scope in terms of use for leisure and pleasure and for developing the canal system as an amenity and particularly, as far as I am concerned, in urban areas.

Those who live in rural areas have many attractions, be they the seashore or the outskirts of the village. When you live in a city one of the few ways of getting away from urban life and having a break is to walk along that canal, it is fundamental that we see the canals with the kind of potential that I believe they have. It must be possible in the foreseeable future for us to develop something similar along the banks of the Royal and Grand Canals within the Dublin region to what Dublin Corporation have developed along the banks of the Tolka and the Dodder in the form of walkways, which will provide a much greater amenity for those who want to use them for walking and for cycling. It is not inconceivable that one side of the canal could be available for those who are walking or fishing, and the other side of the canal could be available for those who are cycling.

There is an enormous increase in the number of cyclists in our community in recent times. I gather the figure from An Foras Forbartha is something of the order of 900,000 bicycles in this country at the moment. Some of those are not used so often. But certainly the experience in Dublin in the last five years is that there is a greater degree of interest in cycling. It is not just because of the heightened consciousness of healthy pursuits, but because people are leaving their cars at home and are much more concerned about having facilities laid on such as parking areas for bicycles and the development of cycle ways. The corporation and county council are under some considerable pressure now to get on with developing facilities for cyclists. One of the most appealing developments they could have within the Dublin region is to see the canal system worked into the cyclist programme and worked into a very healthy outdoor pursuit which could be availed of by so many.

I mentioned earlier the extent of coarse fishing that could exist along the canal system. I would also like to mention in this regard that the National Coarse Fishing Federation of Ireland have a membership of 2,500 people, and some 5,000 people who would not be exactly sleeping members of the federation, but would not be as active as fishermen as they were in the past. There are nonetheless between these two figures a considerable number of people who would have an interest in the development of the canal system and in the close working together of the Office of Public Works and their interests in relation to the development from a fishing point of view.

I understand one of the concerns they have in recent times has been the use by Córas Iompair Éireann of a herbicide called "casserone G" which is used to deal with weeds within the canal system. I understand also that whereas this may be used to clear the central passage of the canal for boating purposes, it has the effect of working its way into ruining a lot of very important biological and ecological life in the canal system. It is harmful to fish life.

Many of those who know this area feel that the degree to which the Office of Public Works in the future can use these chemicals must be dictated by an all round understanding of the range of values the canal system has. It is not just that walking and fishing may be under some threat due to the use of this important drug from Holland, which is supplied in this country; there is also the important value, which I mentioned earlier, of boating and the importance in all of this of getting some kind of understanding with all those concerned. This would mean an adequate degree of consultation with the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry.

When we come to Committee Stage I intend to move two amendments and to consult with the Minister in relation to them. These are in relation to section 5 (2) which reads:

Where it appears to the Commissioners that any works of improvement or development of the canal property would be likely to seriously affect fish stocks in the canals they shall consult with the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry.

I propose that it should be something along the lines of:

The Commissioners shall consult with the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry on all matters that relate to fishing, fisheries, management of the canals at all stages of work in the improvement and development of the canals and canal property.

They seem to have, in the drafting of the amendment, a form of words that would give the Commissioners of Public Works a way out in many instances. The words used are, "would be likely to seriously affect fish stocks..."

It is not up to the Commissioners of Public Works to decide what will affect fish stocks. It is up to the Department of Fisheries and Forestry on any matter relating to the fishing and fisheries management that they should, as a matter of course, be consulted and that is clearly brought under the control of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry in that regard. I give notice of an amendment that we could be dealing with at a later Stage in this Bill. Under section 7 (f), which arises somewhat later, we have:

the regulation of fishing in the canals (other than matters in respect of which the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry may make by-laws under section 9 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959).

What I am suggesting is that:

Other than matters in respect of which the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry may make by-laws under section 9 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959 the regulation of fishing and fisheries management shall be the responsibility of the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry and shall include water quality control, biological, ecological and fish stocks management and to regulate and control fishing.

In this area where there is a considerable level of interest and vast numbers of people of all ages using the canal for coarse fishing and with the enormous potential of this as seen by many of our European neighbours we have to get into the business of using the expertise that is available in the Department of Fisheries and Forestry not on a may, may, may basis but on a basis of understanding that they have a very major role in the future development of the canal system and must be consulted at all stages where fish or fish management come into account. That is a matter for another day.

I would like to raise this with the Minister and perhaps he in the course of his reply could give some indication as to the level of capital support that the Office of Public Works may have available in the development of the canal system. The canal system is, as the Minister outlined himself in a very comprehensive introduction, a system of waterways, canal banks, towpaths, lock houses, docks and harbours. There are certainly over 250 miles of canal. There is a great deal of masonry, there is a great deal of maintenance in all of this. Córas Iompair Éireann spend of the order of £1 million annually in maintaining this system. If we are to get into the business of delivering these canals into an area of major potential from the point of view of tourism — leisure pursuits, boating, coarse fishing, cycling, walkways — the millions of pounds you could spend on that seems to me to be endless.

Nobody expects the Minister to open a box that has been discovered in the Department responsible for Arts and Culture to be released somehow to the benefit of the canal system. Our national finances are stretched. Does the Minister envisage the Office of Public Works coming up within a period of time — he might be able to specify the time — with some indication as to the programme of development of the canal system and the extent of finance that in the long term, over the next ten or 20 years, might be required to develop that system to the full? I would also like to know the Minister's view on the important area of developing this system by way of using the social employment scheme announced by the Government recently and in particular in the national plan, Building on Reality. It seems to offer in many areas of the country a great potential of rebuilding the canal system which was developed a number of centuries ago. The Grand Canal system was developed in 1756 and the Royal Canal in 1789. In the interval perhaps it is fair to say that beyond maintenance very little has been done towards major improvements to that system. We have seen the loss of hotels that existed on it. Some of them have now become prosperous again in parts of Kildare and elsewhere. I hope that a programme of development of these canals could be considered and some date given as to when the Office of Public Works in conjunction with all the other public, statutory and other bodies in the country can get down to the business of dealing with it. I emphasise within the city of Dublin which, pro rata of the population, would have the largest number of people living on the banks of the canal. Being almost a canal dweller myself I would hope that the development within the city of an environmental use of a major leisure development such as Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council have done in relation to the Tolka and the Dodder could be seen as part of that programme. In doing that they would release a new opportunity to very many hundreds of thousands of people within the greater Dublin area who could use this canal and who would then be — to get back to my opening point — motivated to take care of that canal, to refrain from dumping into the canal and to see it as a major potential for development of tourism and leisure facilities. With a plan of that kind we can look forward to many centuries ahead of the canal system.

I would have had some different views in 1978 in relation to the Bill and the change to the Office of Public Works. Like many things that happen in the public area when the train goes on the rails there is very little you can do. It is very hard to disturb it. The train went on the rails. It was decided to have this system delivered to the Office of Public Works. I hope that they will, in the fashion to which we have become accustomed — we saw it in the opening of the Royal Hospital in Kilmainham recently — do us proud in the work ahead. I wish them well in their reign of responsibility for the canal system.

I wish to thank Córas Iompair Éireann for the way in which they have conducted themselves in the laborious and not very glory ridden period they have had. It has been a pretty thankless task, managing a canal system which has not exactly been funded or spirited from the State generally. It is a miracle that the canal system has survived as well as it has to this day. I will take the opportunity of coming in at a later stage on this Bill. I have given notice to the Minister of two areas relating to fish and fish management which could be improved upon by way of amendment, with his co-operation, at a later stage.

I wish to thank the Senators for their very interesting and positive contributions throughout the debate. I have absolutely no doubt that the Commissioners of Public Works will carefully consider all that has been said, because it has been said in a very positive manner, imaginative ideas coming forward during a very limited period. It goes to demonstrate the enormous potential that exists in our canals. We all look forward to the canals flourishing again under the expert stewardship of the Commissioners as they have proved many, many times in the past over such a wide variety of areas connected with our heritage.

As far as the Bill itself is concerned, I have carefully noted all of the points that have been made. That is the proper approach as far as a Bill of this nature is concerned or indeed as far as most Bills are concerned, because anything that has been said was with a view to making a better Bill and ensuring a better future for our canals.

Senator Lanigan, Leader of the Opposition, mentioned the possible conflict of the users' interests as far as the canals are concerned. It would be a matter for the Commissioners of Public Works to decide the best use to be made of these, the best way in which they can be operated and safeguarded. It would be wrong if we went into too much detail on a Bill of this nature. The Bill is left intentionally wide to give the commissioners the necessary flexibility in their tasks and in regard to new developments that may come forward which we cannot envisage at this stage. In this respect it is based on previous Acts with which the Office of Public Works are concerned. A good example of this is the Phoenix Park Act. There is a great deal of flexibility there and this is thought to be the best approach in this kind of Bill.

As far as the actual powers in the Bill are concerned, in implementing the various duties they have, the commissioners will be entitled to make by-laws specified in a specific section of the Bill.

Senators Browne and Lanigan, and in a different context, Senator Ferris, mentioned the range of penalties. Both Senators Browne and Lanigan thought that they were excessive. These penalties are modelled on the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act, 1977 because of the need to safeguard our waterways. Only parameters are mentioned here and it will be a matter for the various courts to decide the actual level of fines. Unauthorised swimming, which was mentioned, could create major difficulties in certain areas.

Senators McAuliffe-Ennis and Lanigan and a number of other Senators talked about the powers the Commissioners of Public Works have. As I have already stated, the Bill is intentionally wide and avoids unnecessary detail. As I stated in my opening speech, the first job of the commissioners will be to assess the entire network, in excess of 250 miles of waterways, in varying conditions, to see what work has to be done. They will have to examine the very basic structural condition of the canals. In regard to any developments, they will take into consideration the local interests and have consultations with them, as is the case at the moment as far as the navigation of other areas is concerned, the Shannon Navigation, for instance. The Office of Public Works have great experience in this area, as they have in most areas of preservation of our heritage and making maximum use of it in modern times.

The improvement and the development of the canals will be tackled by the Commissioners of Public Works in the light of the assessment they will make of the structural conditions and depending on the available resources, including assistance from local groups. There is no way they can tackle the whole lot all at once. Obviously that type of finance is not available in present conditions. However, they will have a definite plan of operation; they will have a programme. First of all, they will assess the situation, the condition of the canals, the potential development, and they will then work out a detailed programme. The Government will make their decision at the appropriate time as to what funds will be made available to the Office of Public Works. The Government have decided that adequate resources will be made available to the Commissioners of Public Works in order to implement this Bill. There is no use in saying that this will happen all at once. It is a massive task.

It might be wise if I gave some indication of the kind of work which needs to be done. Take the Royal Canal, which was mentioned in considerable detail by Senator McAuliffe-Ennis. It stretches for about 90½ miles, and approximately 30 miles are dry, mainly through the County Longford area. Six culverts have been built across the Royal Canal at the dry stretch. Permission was given to CIE in the Transport Act, 1960, to close the Royal Canal to navigation. This gives us some concept of what is involved. There are other areas in difficulty also. There is an enormous amount of work to be done. There is no point in saying it is going to be tackled all at once, that suddenly everything will be put right. The Commissioners of Public Works will have to work out a programme to which they will work. This is a public asset. Everyone realises it is. It is there to be protected, safeguarded and enhanced. This will be the approach of the Office of Public Works. All we have to do is to examine the record of their achievements, most recently in regard to their incredible restoration of the Royal Hospital in Kilmainham, which has come under my aegis now in the area of Arts and Culture. I have every confidence in the canals being entrusted to them. I have every confidence in them in relation to this task. They are dominated in their thinking by the necessity for preservation and also they make the maximum use of whatever facility they have in modern conditions. I should not like to minimise the task but it is going into very good hands, to people with a caring approach and a view to preservation and maximising the great potential which the House has heard outlined by several Senators.

Senator Alexis FitzGerald, Senator McAuliffe-Ennis and a number of other Senators spoke of the potential of using a variety of means so that the work of preservation and structural work would not become a major burden on the State, for example, the youth employment scheme and the social employment scheme. All of these are imaginative ideas and they will be taken into consideration by the Office of Public Works.

Mention was also made of the variety of purposes for which the canals might be used. In this short debate we had several contributions with new ideas of what might be done. As the debate develops and this responsibility comes under the aegis of the Office of Public Works and as a new interest will be shown in the canals, then those ideas will flow. I have no doubt there will be a welcome reception for them in the Office of Public Works.

From what I know of the structural conditions of the canals the approach of the commissioners following their assessment may have to be tackled on a three-pronged basis — the Grand Canal, the Royal Canal and the Barrow Navigation. These canals are in different conditions and will need a special type of attention. I imagine they will be tackled separately because of the necessity for urgent action in particular cases. All of this is a matter which can be safely entrusted to the Office of Public Works.

Senator Lanigan, Leader of the Opposition, and Senators Ferris, McAuliffe-Ennis, and FitzGerald, all referred to the question of the transfer of staff from CIE to the canals. At present there are approximately 70 to 80 canal staff with CIE, some at the highest level and some have other duties in addition to canal work. The detailed terms and conditions on which CIE staff would transfer are matters for negotiation between the staff and the employers, CIE and the Office of Public Works. The Transport Acts and the P & T Services Acts, which were involved in the transfer of staff between the canals and CIE and the more recent transfer, in Posts and Telegraphs, are not directly comparable to this. In this case we have people moving from a semi-State into a State body, whereas in the P & T service it was all from the State. The Transport Acts were between private companies at that particular stage. They are not directly comparable in that particular respect. As I have said, all of these details have to be worked out. I have noted very carefully what several Senators, in a very positive manner, have said about the transfer of staff. This is something that will be considered by the Minister and by myself between now and the Committee Stage.

I am extremely grateful for the positive manner in which this was received and for the ideas put forward and for the expressions of thanks to CIE for keeping the canals going under extremely difficult circumstances. I thank all of the Senators. I think that the only limitation now to what can be done with the canals within the context of waterways is imagination and local initiative and above all co-operation with the Office of Public Works in preventing vandalism and also co-operating and improving the waterways. This is an extremely interesting and an extremely exciting development for the canal system. Some of it is in fairly good shape and some in rather bad shape. There is a lot of work to be done but overall, we must view it, even though it was originated, and enormous amounts of money were spent on it, as a means of transport. Though that has disappeared to a great extent, it is still a great asset. It is an inheritance from the past. It can be of great benefit. I believe that with the introduction of this Bill a new era has been inaugurated for our canal system.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 20 February 1985.
Top
Share