David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

We have already spoken about substituting the words "boats may be used in the canals in" and the words "the canals and canal property may be used in" would merely broaden them slightly.

On amendment No. 43, the words "stop a boat that is under way" are too broad for me because there are safety issues involved. One must take into account the safety and seaworthiness of a boat. One does not want to involve oneself in a situation where one is causing danger.

Amendment No. 45 which seeks to insert the words "if this evidence is not available then an individual should be able to produce said evidence within a reasonable period of time as determined in the bye-laws" seems to be quite reasonable. In other words, if the evidence is not directly to hand, the individual concerned should be given a reasonable amount of time to produce it. I do not see any reason to be against this, but I will wait to be informed by the Minister.

Then there is the amendment which seeks "In page 9 ... to delete "A person to whom a direction is given, or a request is made" and substitute the words "Where there is an identified risk to safety a person to whom a direction is given, or a request is made, by a suitably qualified authorised officer...". As it stands, the Bill is too vague. The amendment would tie it down a little more and indicates a situation where there is an identified risk to safety.

Are we also discussing amendment No. 47 which is about fines? I would have thought it would have been much more relevant to group it with the other amendments.