Brendan Kenneally (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and wholeheartedly welcome the Bill. The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources is to be congratulated on bringing forward this legislation which represents a decent effort to curb activities of mechanically propelled watercraft and which will regulate an element of our leisure sector which needs to be brought into line with modern thinking and living.

This problem has grown over the years in part because people are looking for more adventure in their leisure time, have extra leisure time to spend and have the resources to purchase and maintain expensive craft of a wide variety of designs, from speedboats to personal watercraft, better known as jet skis. Everybody is entitled to do that but this sector must be regulated in the interests of safety and for the enjoyment of the majority given the many incidents, some fatal, in the recent past. I am not enthusiastic about regulating every element of our lives but where health and safety is concerned, where the environment is at risk and where people feel they can do what they like without regard for others, we have not only a right but also a duty to step in and make rules.

While they will come within the scope of the Bill, I am not sure that those families, angling friends or boating enthusiasts, who set out regularly in the summer for a few hours mackerel fishing or exploring otherwise inaccessible parts of our coast, will have anything to fear from this measure. Anyone who currently uses common sense and has regard for the safety and enjoyment of others will have no difficulty in complying with the provisions of the Bill and the regulations and by-laws which will emanate from it.

The time is long overdue when a discipline which has not emerged naturally must be imposed on the use of fast, mechanically propelled craft. The sooner this legislation is put on the Statute Book the better. There are far too many people abusing our leisure waters. I will not point the finger at young or old, male or female, because this malady goes right across the board. A high percentage of people who operate these jet skis do so with little regard for others. Some put people's safety at risk with their high-powered demonstrations of macho skill while most impinge on people's enjoyment of the beach or riverside with their incessant noise.

There is very little to recommend these machines in the close quarters in which they are often used and nothing to recommend them when they put at risk people's lives by near criminal behaviour. I hasten to add that those who engage in such activities are few enough, but in the context of general water users, they represent a reasonable percentage.

Perhaps the one vessel, which causes people most problems is the so-called jet ski or personal watercraft. Surprisingly, it dates from as far back as 1973 so regulation of its use is not before time. An increasing number of authorities around the world are meeting the growing danger and annoyance of these craft and have introduced stringent by-laws to regulate their use. Others have taken the more drastic step of banning their use in their jurisdictions, though I would not advocate such radical measures here.

One town on America's west coast, which some might call the home of water sports, came to following conclusion:

The ban is integral to the protection of the coast from the pollution and noise from personal watercraft. Sailors, windsurfers, bird watchers and wildlife will be grateful for this decision in years to come.

America is not the only country to find these craft to be intrusive. A constituent of mine who lives in a house overlooking a beach recently told me it was sometimes like having a motor-cross race in one's front garden.

When I initially read the Bill, I wondered about the size of the recreational craft covered by its provisions, between 2.5 m and 24 m. I assume vessels above this size are already subject to regulation under other legislation. I am concerned that we should also cover craft under the 2.5 m limit. Personal watercraft may well continue to diminish in size, just like scooters and Segways, which are self-balancing, self-propelled scooters for the street that are no bigger than the space in which we stand up. I note that the definition of personal watercraft in the Bill relates to craft that are under 4 m. As advances in technology usually reduce the size of things, I envisage that recreational watercraft will soon be below the 2.5 m mark. I hope account can be taken of the likelihood of further miniaturisation of craft. I ask the Minister of State to clarify this area and to re-examine the definitions of craft and their sizes.

It is natural that by-laws will have to comply with the provisions of the Act. By-laws can be made to specify the areas in which such craft cannot be used, the speed that is allowed in defined areas and the times of the day when they can be operated. If one looks around any harbour, one will see as many single and twin-masted yachts as there were mirror dinghies and lasers a generation ago. When I was young, it was rare to see a water-skier in a harbour or off a beach. It entertained us for an hour or two, but that time is long gone. Water-skiers, towed by a variety of methods from speedboats to parachutes, are a regular feature of resorts and bathing places.

Personal watercraft are a relatively recent but immensely popular addition to summertime leisure activities. Such craft have made it possible for people from all walks of life to enjoy fast-paced recreation on the open water without the encumbrance or expense of a full-sized boat. They were first developed in 1973 and have kept pace with improvements in technology, increases in demand and the greater availability of resources with which to acquire them. They have got larger and more powerful with each succeeding model, increasing from 400 cubic centimetres to three times that power today. Their popularity grew rapidly until they became the largest-selling watercraft in the world. In America alone their number is growing by an estimated 100,000 each year and a proportional increase can be detected in this country too.

Although wave-runners, jet skis and other personal watercraft are relatively new to our waters, experts have told us they have caused substantial damage to nature, wildlife and the environment. Such machines endanger and disturb wildlife with their high speeds, unpredictable movements and excessive noise. Most of them are powered by highly polluting two-stroke engines, which release up to 30% of their fuel and oil mixture directly into air and water. Their high power-to-weight ratio, coupled with the fact that the personal watercraft industry advertises them as machines built for speed and manoeuvrability, demonstrates that such craft are thrill craft rather than a legitimate form of water transportation. The machines range from 800 cubic centimetres for one-passenger craft, to 1,200 cu. cm. for three-person craft. The larger craft carry a fuel capacity of 15.3 gallons, which is more than one's average saloon car. Its promotional advertising states:

The 150 model has been a machine that defies simple explanation. At its best, it's a pint-sized rocketship, able to reach the upper echelons of the radar scale and slice a buoy to ribbons with surgeon-like expertise.

If that is how they are marketed, that is how they will be encouraged to be used. We need to disabuse people of such notions by one means or another. Legislation is the best curb.

Given that we do not allow indiscriminate car racing along our roads and crowded streets, I do not understand why people feel free to use the crowded waters off popular beaches for the reckless use of personal watercraft with impunity. We insist that new drivers of cars and motorbikes should take lessons and a stringent test before they take what can be a lethal weapon onto the roads. No such requirement exists for water-based craft with the same potential, however. Jet skis and powerful motorboats have the potential to be lethal in the same way as motorbikes and cars. People need to have been on a training course to learn how to use the craft properly. They should ensure they have the right equipment, such as buoyancy aids and wet suits. It is important that they should know what to do if they get into difficulties. I do not want to go too far down the road of the nanny state, but if such regulations are needed in respect of road vehicles, they should also apply to watercraft.

The machines about which I have spoken are fundamentally different from traditional boats. The American coastguard has given personal watercraft manufacturers a waiver so that the craft do not have to comply with the basic safety features required on other boats. This suggests that the craft are not boats in the conventional sense, used as a legitimate means of water-based transport. All water users should be treated the same in regard to safety. Identical requirements should apply to speedy craft and what I loosely describe as family Sunday afternoon boats. The US national park service has adopted a rule that permanently prohibits the use of personal watercraft in 66 parks. Five other parks adopted permanent bans in the spring of 2002. When allowing their use, authorities in the US must develop environmental assessments and special regulations to open their waters to personal watercraft use.

A welcome provision of the Bill is that local authorities can draw up by-laws to cover their functional areas. The imposition of blanket restrictions would not take into account local conditions and the differing topography of the coast. An area that is 30 m offshore might have a depth of several metres. In other coves and beaches, however, one can wade out a couple of hundred metres without being out of one's depth.

I welcome this measure from a political and functional point of view. There is a perception that powers are constantly being taken away from local authorities. We must promote local democracy where we can and be seen to do so. That is not to say there could not and should not be consistency between local authorities where possible. We should standardise when it is appropriate.

The Bill will draw ready support among the public, many of whom are tired of having their Sunday afternoons and holidays ruined by the incessant noise and disruption of fast craft in their bathing waters. They have to be constantly on the alert not only for the usual dangers to young bathers, but also for the imminent arrival of jet skis. In the words of the promotion I quoted earlier, such craft can "slice a buoy to ribbons with surgeon-like expertise".

Many other dangers have to be catered for in the course of a water-based holiday, or a day at the seaside. That accidents happen far too frequently was borne out in my home county in the past week, when three young men lost their lives in the waters off the coast. I extend my sympathy to the families involved. The grief caused by the passing of the men is felt by many more families than the three immediately concerned. Their deaths underline again the inherent dangers of water-based activities and how easily a light-hearted swim can go fatally wrong. Anything we can do to promote water safety, to highlight the dangers involved or, like in this Bill, to try to eliminate the reckless use of dangerous craft must be pursued. I do not hesitate in commending the Bill to the House. I know it will receive universal support.