David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Yes, like myself.

It will be a fairly restricted debate because of the constrictions on the number of times people can come in. This is a reasonable amendment to make, that they should be subject to the maximum dimensional criteria.

Amendment No. 8 is about the regulation of the canals, particularly with regard to closing. To ensure this is not done on an ad hocbasis it proposes to insert "in the event of emergencies within agreed procedures on a temporary basis". In other words, to limit the number of times these procedures can take place.

Amendment No. 10 is an amplification of what is in the Bill at present. The Bill mentions boats on the canals or other canal properties and this should be more targeted. The amendment proposes inserting "the canals or other canal property by all users. Any permits or licences issued should be set at a cost appropriate to the intended use and linked to the rate of inflation in the economy". In other words, it is the intention of the Minister and the Department to make the canals as accessible as possible to the general public. For this reason, I think it appropriate that permits and licenses be set at a rate that will have the effect of encouraging people to use these amenities. This is an argument that is very defensible. I do not see any reason against it.

I will leave Senator Ruane to speak on her amendment, but I may comment on it when I come back, because it would be impertinent of me to take up her amendment.

Amendment No. 12 is a continuation of the same section, and it proposes to insert "within agreed procedures on a temporary basis, taking into account with due diligence the safety of boats that may be on that stretch of the canal that could be effected by the alteration of water levels, that may need to complete the journey underway and notifying owners of same". This is a question of safety. If the water levels are being altered, the safety and welfare of boats that are already on that stretch of the canal need to be taken into account. In other words, it is to try to prevent a situation being created through lack of diligence whereby water levels could be altered and damage caused to boats. We need to ensure this does not happen. This is why I propose this amendment.

Amendment No. 13 is a Government amendment. Amendment No. 14 again is a question of safety. It proposes putting into the text of the Bill the whole question of "safety, security and access by the emergency services". We all accept that access by life-saving people, fire brigades and ambulances should not and must not be impeded.

Amendment No. 15 proposes to insert "prescribed for and detailed in the bye-laws" after "activities" in page 5, line 12. In other words, we want everything done by the book. We need to have provision for it made in the by-laws. The same argument goes for amendment No. 16. Amendment No. 17 is exactly the same, and then we come to Amendment No. 18, which proposes to insert "and only issued where there is failure to comply with warning notices as defined within the bye-laws". The question of notices is interesting, and I will come back to it in my reply because I have a note about it but I do not want to hold up the Seanad while I am rooting around looking for it.