Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Minister mentioned a concern about amendment No. 1b that it would place natural heritage ahead of the other considerations. I do not believe it necessarily does so and that is why Senator Ruane and I tabled that amendment separately from the amendment tabled by Senators Humphreys and Ó Ríordáin. We had the concern the Minister expressed that natural heritage would be one part but that the other functions are equally important. That is why we seek to remove the phrase "where consistent with that objective".

I believe we have managed in amendment No. 1b to ensure that natural heritage, which needs to be visible, is visible. I do not believe anything in the original terms precludes us from making it visible and being appropriate. We tried to get that balance. If, however, the Minister were to propose alternative wording that she would be happy to insert we would be very happy to withdraw our amendment and resubmit alternate wording. It is essential to recognise that role in the duties of Waterways Ireland. It is not a change of powers, it is to protect the interests of natural heritage. It is crucial to put that alongside the other functions. We have heard that at length today. We have tried to address that point but if there is a wording the Minister feels would improve it, we will be very interested to hear that.

In respect of amendment No. 1e, what the Minister and others in the House have said about Brexit points, if anything, more to the necessity for this amendment. The amendment is very carefully worded. We leave it open to allow, "appropriate exception and allowance". We make sure that is there. We specifically state, "protection or proposed protection for natural heritage or used by species listed in Annex IV or V". We acknowledge the EU legislation but we are particularly and explicitly protecting the species listed under that legislation. That is important because, post-Brexit, there may be a question as to whether the EU directive will be enforceable in respect of the northern parts of the canal. We are copperfastening the list of species correctly addressed and recognised by the directive as ones that travel throughout our island, without regard to boundary. This list of species, put together at great length by experts in the Commission, agreed to by Ireland and other EU countries, would be a reference point for protection all along the canal.In fact, it future proofs those protections because while we hope it will be the case, we cannot necessarily rely on the fact that these EU directives will be enforceable, accountable or reportable in Northern Ireland. By inserting this amendment we take that list of indigenous species, some of which are very vulnerable, and make sure that the species therein are explicitly recognised and protected. In fact, in the context of Brexit, there is an even stronger case for the inclusion of amendment No. 1e and I will be pressing that particular amendment. I believe Senator Grace O'Sullivan has tabled a similar amendment but we must push to include this particular one.

The Minister referred to by-laws and said that she was accountable in respect of such laws in the context of amendment No. 1f. However, that amendment does not simply relate to by-laws. Senator Humphreys elaborated on that point so I will not go into detail on it. The amendment relates to any matters which affect or may affect fish life and fishing along the canal, which is also part of our heritage. It deals with "any matters", not simply by-laws. I would respectfully suggest that the Minister's power in terms of by-laws under the Act does not specifically address the concern that the amendment is attempting to address by ensuring the Minister is part of any conversation on fish stocks and fishing practices along the canal. It is not commercial but is, in many cases, a cultural, heritage and tourism activity. This is also an issue of importance in Galway.

Senator Ó Domhnaill spoke an amendment No. 1g but the objections the Minister made in reference to amendment No. 1c do not stand in respect of amendment No. 1g. That amendment is very practical. The Minister regards it as unnecessary but it is certainly useful. As there is no concrete reason to oppose it and it adds a clear narrative and reminder of the function of navigations, it should be supported.

There may have been some confusion in the House with regard to amendment No. 1h. I know that it was not the Minister's intention to disregard that amendment and perhaps she will have a chance to address it, dealing as it does with safety statements. The Minister spoke to the other amendment which deals with living on the canal, as I understand it. Again, I appreciate that the wording may not be ideal in terms of the rights of those who are living on the canal but we were trying to ensure those people are visible and included in the legislation. Perhaps the Government has its own suggestions in respect of the appropriate language to use in amendment No. a1h.

In respect of amendment No. 1h, which is about safety standards, the Minister did not get a chance to reply-----