Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Probably. I am certainly confused, and when one is confused, one is not able to get to the heart of the amendments. This section allows Waterways Ireland to make by-laws on, for example, the type and class of boats that can be used on canals, the issuing of permits and licences, the regulation of boats on canals and canal property, including homes, closing the canals to navigation, the fixing of fees, toll charges and the fixed-payment notices to be applied. These are wide-ranging powers.

I will address a number of amendments. Senator Norris touched on the premise of amendment No. 1h, which is to set strict safety standards aboard vessels. We do not want accidents or the loss of life on the canal network, so we want safety standards that are universally accepted after adequate consultation with all users.

The heritage boat issue is covered by amendment No. 1i. Senator Craughwell has an amendment in that regard, which I am happy to support. Boats have been using the canals for more than 200 years. The Bill should acknowledge and protect the existing dimensions of traditional heritage boats for which the network was originally built. There is a fear that this will not happen. For that reason, we have submitted this amendment.

Amendment No. 1j relates to subsection (c) on the closing to navigation of any part of the canals and proposes that this can only be done in the event of emergencies, within agreed procedures and on a temporary basis. Contrary to Waterways Ireland being allowed the unilateral power to open and close canals to navigation for any length of time, they would only be closed during what the Minister prescribed, namely, specific events or emergencies.

Amendment No. 1k is to subsection (d), which states, "the restriction or prohibition of navigation on the canals or any part of the canals at any time by any boat or type or class of boat". This is wide-ranging. The amendment addresses this excessive power by requiring that it can only be applied in exceptional circumstances and where existing by-laws "are not being adhered to on a continuous basis". In this way, there would be a lead-in to the restriction after a certain number of instances of non-compliance and there would not be a rush to apply a blanket ban to certain vessels.

Amendment No. 1l relates to permits and licensing. The Inland Waterways Association of Ireland has raised concerns about providing Waterways Ireland with this power. Waterways Ireland must modernise the charging structure, which was put in place in 1986. The fees relate to that time. All users fear that Waterways Ireland will increase the fees substantially. Given that this legislation will provide it with the tools to do so, no one can say what the new charging arrangements will be. That the cost should be appropriate to the intended use and linked to the rate of inflation is reasonable.There are other amendments also. Without going on, that covers the main thrust of the amendments.

I support amendment No. a1k, which is Senator Craughwell's amendment. The Senator is talking about consultation in the new section 7(1)(c) in terms of "the closing to navigation of any part of the canals". It also was discussed earlier, but the amendment provides that would only happen "after due notice to canal users' groups and local authorities ...", which is only right. It fits into the consultation. It may well be covered under the 90 days. I think the 90 days is more to do with substantial works and, therefore, I do not believe it would be covered under it. This is about closing canals. It is an important amendment. It is all part of that local democratic consultation process and having all stakeholders, particularly those who live closest to or who utilise the canal, treated equally.