John Whelan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Jimmy Deenihan, to the House. I am grateful that he is taking my question. I have a great grá for the canals system in this country. I was fortunate to grow up in Monasterevin, along the canal, and have fond recollections of fishing and swimming there and encountering champion pike, roach, perch and bream. I spent many school summer holidays watching the barges and leisure craft going through Coughlan's lock, Moore's lock and the famous aqueduct in Monasterevin across the River Barrow.

This is, therefore, of particular interest to me. I commend the Minister and his predecessors because the canal systems and inland waterways have in many respects come in from the cold, from an era when they were disused and derelict, and used as dumping grounds. To my horror in the 1960s whole tracts of the canal were filled in and lost forever.

We do not put the same store and stock in the canal and inland waterways resource here as people do in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. That is very unfortunate. Spurs of the canal to towns such as Mountmellick and Portarlington, which would now be a huge asset and resource for tourism and leisure activity have been lost forever. As the Minister knows, the canal system has been immortalised in ballad, verse and poetry. There are concerns that we are about to take some retrograde actions. If at all possible will the Minister extend the Waterways Ireland period of consultation for the proposed new canal by-laws? The consultation period is due to expire on 3 February. It was only a month, which is too short. There is too much at stake for us to rush into this and put into legislation any measures that would curb or prohibit the use of the canals or be a retrograde step.

Inland waterways associations such as those in Offaly, Tullamore and other towns such as Edenderry, Rathangan, Monasterevin, Vicarstown and Athy are grievously concerned about this and the Minister’s intervention would be most helpful. We want to be positive and constructive but it is vital that we do not bring in any new by-laws that would impede access or impose prohibitive costs on leisure craft users and boaters, or would in any way impinge upon the tourism asset and discourage tourists from using the fabulous canal network which comes from the capital in Dublin through the Royal Canal and Grand Canal to the midlands, where I come from.

Jimmy Deenihan (Kerry North-West Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Waterways Ireland is undertaking two public consultation processes at present. The consultation process on the draft corporate plan, to which the Senator refers, will be open until 31 March 2014. The corporate plan, once finalised, will provide the strategic planning framework which will guide Waterways Ireland's operational work programmes over the next three years. The other consultation process relates to proposed by-laws made under the Canals Act. That Act empowers Waterways Ireland to make by-laws for the care, management, maintenance, control, regulation and use of the canals.

Our waterways make a vital contribution to tourism, attracting visitors from around Ireland and from abroad. There are over 14,000 registered boat owners on the seven waterways managed by Waterways Ireland. The proposed by-laws are intended to support the investment already made by Waterways Ireland in new infrastructure and facilities along the canals. They will enhance Waterways Ireland's ability to manage, care for and maintain the canals and to help to develop them as a vibrant recreational and tourist amenity for all waterway users.

There will be new by-laws for the management of house boats and the charging regime will also be modernised. In particular, there will be further provision for the care, management, maintenance, control and regulation of the use of the canals, and moorings on the canals, and their use by the public for recreation and navigation purposes; an amendment to the schedule in the 1988 by-laws relating to tolls and charges, described in the first schedule to the draft amendment by-laws; provision for the care, management, maintenance, control and regulation of the use of the canals and moorings on the canals by houseboats; and a fixed payment notice procedure for alleged offences for breach of the by-laws. The consultation on the draft by-laws which commenced on 6 January is open to the public for a period of 21 working days in accordance with the Canals Act 1986. This public consultation process closes at 3 p.m. on 3 February.

I am informed by Waterways Ireland that the main stakeholders, which include the Inland Waterway Association of Ireland, the Heritage Boat Association, the Royal Canal Amenity Group and the Irish Boat Rental Association, have been contacted individually and invited to meet with the chief executive and the senior management team of Waterways Ireland prior to submitting their consultation responses. At this meeting these groups will be given the opportunity to express their views, opinions and any concerns they may have in relation to the amendments to the by-laws. All current permit holders on the Grand Canal have received individual written notice and have been given the opportunity to respond within the consultation timeframe on an individual basis.

During this public consultation period, anyone, including those who have any concerns on the proposed amendments to the by-laws, should make written submissions to Waterways Ireland during this 21-day consultation period which closes at 3 p.m. on 3 February 2014. The draft by-laws and the draft corporate plan 2014-2016 may be inspected and downloaded from the Waterways Ireland website at waterwaysireland.org. Alternatively, they may be inspected by arrangement by visiting the Waterways Ireland offices and headquarters at Enniskillen. The draft by-laws may also be inspected by arrangement at Waterways Ireland's eastern regional office, Ashtowngate, Dublin 15.

Following completion of the consultation period, Waterways Ireland shall then consider all written responses before finalisation of the approach it intends to take to the new by-laws. From a safety, environmental and best practice point of view, it is appropriate that Waterways Ireland would consider whether the current by-laws are fit for purpose and should be modernised where appropriate. It is also appropriate that it would consult with users before making changes to the by-laws. This is the process which is under way.

John Whelan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer. I urge him, however, to use his influence and good offices as the Minister with line responsibility in this area - I know that he has a strong interest in heritage and tourism - to urge Waterways Ireland to extend the consultation period. What harm or hurt could come from that? Some 21 days is not sufficient. There is too much at stake. There is an element within the proposed by-laws of over-bureaucracy and bureaucracy gone mad. We should be encouraging people and voluntary organisations such as inland waterways associations to use the canals, to develop them for the benefit of local communities, for leisure craft users and to develop tourism. A period of 21 days is far too short and I urge the Minister to meet me half-way on this, to use his good offices and influence to have this period extended so that some outstanding areas of concern can be addressed in a constructive manner to everyone's benefit.

Jimmy Deenihan (Kerry North-West Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I said, the consultation on the draft by-laws which commenced on 6 January is open to the public for a period of 21 days in accordance with the Canals Act 1986. If that can be extended I will certainly suggest that but if it is within the restrictions of the Act that may not be possible. If it is possible I will certainly consider it and enquire whether there is flexibility within the Act. If there is I see no reason why it could not be extended. Maybe the short timeframe is due to the Act. If it is possible I will consider that.