Seanad debates

Thursday, 2 March 2017

Heritage Bill 2016: Committee Stage (Resumed)

 

10:30 am

Photo of Lynn RuaneLynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1h:

In page 4, line 29, after “canals” to insert the following:

“subject to agreed criteria for safety standards aboard a vessel and adjudicated upon by a suitably qualified person”.

In the course of my speech, I will refer to a number of the amendments that relate to Irish Waterways, canals and the communities at their heart.

I believe the Bill in its current form represents an attack on these communities, the public good and the services that Irish Waterways provides to Irish people. The canal network that stretches across the country plays a number of roles. It is a significant tourist attraction for those who wish to cross the country by boat. It serves many people who live on houseboats on the waterways and, as a result, is an example of a thriving and close community that should be encouraged and celebrated by the State.

The Heritage Bill 2016 will impact on houseboat owners in a drastic way. The issuing of permits and licences should be reconsidered. The consequences of permits and licences being too expensive will add further to an already inflated housing crisis. A sudden rise in the charges will put houseboat owners in a precarious housing situation. People from various backgrounds have houseboats on canals, professionals, students, those from lower wage households, the unemployed. The houseboat owners instead of being priced out of a place where they can live, should be encouraged to live on the canals. Keeping that heritage active will keep it alive and prevent it from falling into disrepair.

Amendment No. 1m, tabled in my name and that of Senator Alice-Mary Higgins, will protect houseboat owners from sudden and significant increases in costs. If this amendment is accepted it could prevent the introduction of by-laws under the Canals Act 1986 that would increase mooring costs for houseboats to as much as €3,500. The rich and thriving nature of canal communities across Ireland would be attacked and most likely would not be able to survive such a prohibitive increase in costs. Moreover with the sudden increase in charges, boat owners who use the canals may not be inclined to continue using them. These boats are as much a part of our heritage as the canals themselves. Therefore, we should be encouraging boat owners to use the beautiful Grand Canal and the Royal Canal.

In addition, the houseboat owners are entitled to have privacy and security like any other house owner in this country, therefore the issuing of warrants should not in any way differ from the issuing of search warrants for houses on land. Simply put, the same rules in regard to the issuing of a search warrant should apply to a home that is built on land or a home on the canal. This is to address the power given to Irish Waterways to gain access to boats on the canals and search them. I think that is the equivalent of giving Dublin City Council the privilege of being able to access a person's home.

The Bill proposes to give the granting of search warrants beyond the normal remit. The Garda Síochána, Customs and Excise, and the Revenue Commissioners are the accountable officials who grant search warrants and no other authority should have the power to grant search warrants.There is no good reason to grant another authority such powers. This simply does not make any sense. I do not believe it will do any favours for maintaining the relationship between those boat owners and Waterways Ireland if it becomes as authoritative as An Garda Síochána. If a search warrant is needed to enter a houseboat then the normal procedures should apply and this is why I have tabled amendment No. 1aaf. Ultimately, I do not believe that the Bill in its current form protects or strengthens our heritage in any way. Instead it challenges the rich history and community surrounding our canals.

I will speak briefly on amendment No. a1l regarding the water levels and the raising of the water levels. The amendment refers to the issue of no consultation with the boat owners being written into the legislation around when the water levels are going to be changed. I would imagine that is the equivalent of a person having a house on land and waking up to find that something has lifted the house up higher than when he or she went to bed the previous night. This lack of consultation has an effect on people's ability to access their boats and to know their boat, which is their home, is in a stable position each day with regard to the water levels. I ask that the Minister considers this amendment to allow for boat owners to be consulted and that water levels cannot be changed unless they have been consulted and have been part of that process.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.