Mr. John Dolan:

We were never promised a stand-alone Bill. We campaigned for it and sought meetings with the Minister, but we never obtained one. We did have a meeting with the Department while the Bill was in the Seanad. A stand-alone canals Bill would allow time for stakeholder consultation. It would allow time for engagement with the communities along the canals and with those who use the canals to see where the potential lies for developing the canals. Some of those communities, especially in rural areas, have been hard hit economically. We could not afford to build these canals now and we cannot afford to lose them through poor legislation and by-laws either.

It is appropriate that a canals Bill such as that would look at the needs of the requirements in respect of bigger cities, towns, villages and residential areas. There is no one-size-fits-all recommendation. With respect to the committee, it has been said to us by many people within the Houses and by the public that the percentage of discussion on the canals that has been achieved indicates that this is not the right Bill in which to deal with the canals issue. It does not mention canals in its Title and it struggles to get at the forefront of the agenda in the discussion on any legislation as it goes forward.

To sum it up, the simplest thing to say is that if a tyre is deflated, we do not reinvent the wheel. We do the best we can to inflate it and bring the tyre pressure back up to a performance level. This is what is needed with the canals. We do not need to reinvent the wheel with a whole new set of legislation and bye-laws, especially with regard to licensing agreements. For something that should be as simple as taxing a car, a person has to fill out a nine page document, get four signatures, two witnesses and a seal of office. It is crazy. A fit-for-process, user-friendly and stand-alone canals Bill is required, with the legislation and canal bye-laws that would come out of this.