Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Like all of my colleagues, I welcome the Minister, particularly in advance of his signing-off on these draconian laws, a term used by Senator John Whelan.

I commend the Inland Waterways Association of Ireland, of which my late father was an early and lifelong member. He proudly wore the inland waterways pin on his lapel throughout his life, mainly because he came from County Leitrim and was involved in the promotion of providing access to the Shannon waterway, which is not included in this proposal. If it were, I would have received many representations.

I cannot help but reflect on the fact that there was a time when people said the job of Minister for Defence was relatively easy, that the folio was non-contentious and that it was unlikely that he or she would have to declare that Ireland should go to war. One always assumed that the same applied to the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, that it was also a good news Department in which there would be no controversy. However, the Minister is in the eye of the storm in this instance. I cannot remember any issue that led to the receipt of over 2,000 submissions from such an important niche market as the tourism sector. Over 2,000 submissions have been received and I am sure the Minister's officials are having difficulty in working their way through so many. Perhaps the work has generated extra employment in his Department, which would be welcome.

I commend Senators John Whelan and John Kelly for initiating the debate. I know that Senator John Whelan injected a certain degree of righteous anger, rather than passion, when he spoke about what would result from these proposals. He said Waterways Ireland had to be sent back to the drawing board. He also made the following point - I quote from his statement of 3 February: "I cannot fathom how anyone could have contrived the draconian, punitive and prohibitive regime of charges, rules and fines for users of the Grand and Royal Canals."

Another Government backbencher, Deputy Anthony Lawlor, wrote to the Minister to say he personally believed the proposed changes to the by-laws would have a significant negative impact on the tourism industry. Even within the Government parties there is severe discontent and concern about the proposals made.

I wish to quote from a submission made by the Inland Waterways Association of Ireland about what it called the genuine letters of support and concern from communities submitted during the consultation process. It stated:

Navigation on the Grand Canal, the Royal Canal and the River Barrow will be drastically curtailed by the proposals of Waterways Ireland. The IWAI can confidently state that the proposed bye-laws do not put user requirements, tourism development and local communities at the centre of the regulations. The bye-laws proposed by Waterways Ireland are in fact a major threat to the community economic gain of boat travel on the Grand Canal, the Royal Canal and the River Barrow.

The association also quoted the mission statement of the Department of the Transport, Tourism and Sport, which states: "To ensure that the transport, tourism and sport sectors make the greatest possible contribution to economic recovery, fiscal consolidation, job creation and social development". That Department is similar to that of the Minister, Deputy Jimmy Deenihan, because it is involved in the promotion of tourism. The association also wants the Government to ensure "Tourism is a big picture topic". It continued: "Through these bye-laws, loss of boat traffic will result in the loss of socio-economic, heritage, cultural and tourism benefits". It conceded that "The boating community is not averse to appropriate management, facility provision, and access to waterways. But boats are key attractions, as the lifeblood of the navigations, and need to be welcomed".

As Senator John Whelan said - he quoted a number of international sources which had made submissions - Inland Waterways International which is based in Ottawa, Ontario made the following point in a detailed letter to Waterways Ireland:

It appears that there is a cumulative effect with the large increases across the board. Boaters will not only see increase in the cost of their fee to navigate and use the locks, but also an increase in fees for the mooring of their vessels. With no private or alternative options, users will either have to pay the increases, move their vessels off the canals or decrease their use of these impacted canals. It is our observation that in such a scenario, use decreases.

There is also concern about the cost for the dry dock use. It does deter those with heritage vessels from using the facility, because their repairs usually take more time.

The association also made the point that:

The ongoing difference in treatment of land-based visitors versus boaters is accentuated with these latest changes. However, the other users also represent a cost to the canal, albeit somewhat less than boaters, e.g. fishers, kayakers, canoeists, walkers and cyclists. How to collect from these users is always the key issue. Towpath permits, fishing licences, parking fees are some of the ideas that have been tried elsewhere. The point is that canals and canal authorities need to be mindful of the division that takes place when one group appears to pay for services and the other more or less ‘gets a free ride’. Boaters are easy targets because they are a captured users group, but canal operators need to put some time, effort and resources into collecting from the other users of these canals and these changes being proposed highlight the need to do this sooner than later.

It states finally:

It goes without saying and our observation, as we noted earlier, these changes will certainly have a dampening effect on use. The concern always is that over time there will be less use, then less maintenance because the traffic does not support the expenditures and again less use and the cycle slowly descends into an abandoned canal.

I am sure the last legacy the Minister wants coming out of his Department and he moves on and upwards in the scheme of things is that during his time canals were abandoned and ended up derelict after all the investment that has been put into them. I plead with him, as all sides of the House have done, to revise these charges and go back to the drawing board, as Senator John Whelan has said, and look at them because they are detrimental and negative and without any justification.