Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Waterways Ireland regularly issues marine notices advising of the closing of a navigation. However, it is not practicable or workable to give due notice before closure of the navigations in an emergency situation. I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment No. 10 proposes that licences and permits would have to be issued to everybody who is using the canal. Everybody who uses the canal is not a boat owner. There are also walkers and cyclists, so they would have to have a licence to use the canal property. I am aware of what the Senator is trying to achieve in the amendment, but the amendment would not achieve what she seeks. Waterways Ireland and its predecessors traditionally have only charged boat owners on the canals. This seeks to widen the charge to all users which would not be practical, for example, with regard to towpath users walking or cycling and whose use and the benefit derived are recognised and supported by the local authorities and Waterways Ireland which are working together to create these off-road amenities. The amendment is over-restrictive.

I know what Senator Ruane is seeking in amendment No. 11 but the Residential Tenancies Acts 2004 to 2016 do not apply to Waterways Ireland. Section 7(1)(p) of the Heritage Bill already provides for the power to make by-laws for the charging and fixing of fees, tolls and charges in respect of the use of the canals by boats, including the use of locks and moorings on the canals and the taking of water from the canals. The Department's legal advice is that this provision would also include the powers to charge a fee for the issuing of such licences, so there is no need for the additional sentence at section 7(1)(e).

With regard to linking the costs to the rate of inflation in the economy, the canals are a public asset. In setting costs for boat users of the canals, such as permits for mooring, Waterways Ireland would set the costs having regard to the fees paid by boat owners for similar facilities on other navigations provided by the private sector. Costs and fees linked to the rate of inflation could be significantly higher than the modest increases currently being proposed by Waterways Ireland. The permits or licences issued by Waterways Ireland for boats and residential boats or houseboats are not tenancies. They are permissions to moor a boat, which could be a houseboat, and usually the boat is owned by the licensee. Waterways Ireland does not charge rent for moorings. A licence fee or toll is charged. As I said earlier, the Residential Tenancies Acts do not apply to Waterways Ireland. If one applied the inflation rate or the consumer price index since 1988 to the licence fees they would be approximately €300 at present, rather than the modest increase being proposed by Waterways Ireland in the revised canal by-laws of €4, bringing it from €126 to €130. If we had gone with the consumer price index it would have been much higher. That is the reason it is not included.

With regard to amendment No. 12, it is the Department's opinion that there is not need to put in primary legislation what will be in the by-laws. All of this detail will be in the by-laws and it is more appropriate to include it there. For that reason it is over-prescriptive to put it in the legislation. The by-laws will be brought before the Houses of the Oireachtas.This sort of detail would be better served in the by-laws and not in primary legislation. Amendment No. 13 is a Government amendment to delete the "Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources" and insert "Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment". The proposed amendment No. 14 would narrow the power to make by-laws in this area. Safety, security and access by the emergency services are considerations in everything Waterways Ireland does, so Waterways Ireland has to take account of that anyway. It is best not to put that in. Amendment No. 15 is unnecessary as it is a repetition of section 7(1), which is about the powers of Waterways Ireland to make by-laws. Amendment No. 16 is a repetition of section 7(1) and is unnecessary. Amendment No. 17 is a repetition of section 7(1).

Amendment No. 18 misrepresents the basis underlying the issue of a fixed payment notice. The fixed payment notice is issued in lieu of prosecution for an alleged contravention of the by-laws, not for failure to comply with warning notices. The form of the notice will be specified in by-laws. The notice will specify the alleged offence and by-law contravened. The by-laws will be subject to 90 days of consultation. That is something that I took on board from the recommendations in this House. The by-laws will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas, which will have 21 days to annul them if they are not happy about them. It would be better if those issues that I talked about there could be put into the by-laws. They will be consulted upon and the Senators will have an opportunity to have their views known on them.