Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage debate -
Tuesday, 30 Jan 2024

Proposed Changes to River Shannon, Grand and Royal Canals and River Barrow Navigation By-laws: Discussion (Resumed)

An Cathaoirleach

I welcome everyone to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage. Today, we meet to discuss the proposed changes to River Shannon, Grand and Royal Canals and River Barrow navigation by-laws.

We are joined today, from Waterways Ireland, by Mr. Éanna Rowe, who is the operations controller, and Mr. Patrick Harkin, the inspector of navigation. From the Royal Canal Amenity Group, we are joined by Mr. Derek Whelan, who is the director, and Mr. Niall Galway, the secretary; and from the Irish Residential Boat Owners Association, we are joined by Mr. Jerry Gleeson and Mr. Liam Finnegan. The opening statements have all been circulated in advance to us and we thank the groups for providing them for us.

I welcome all the people in the Public Gallery here today. I do not think we have ever had such a crowd for the housing committee. A lot of people are watching online today and there is a great deal of interest in it. There are other people outside the door who have not been able to get a seat so if anybody wants to leave at any point, we will not be insulted and he or she can offer up that seat to somebody else if he or she wishes.

I also welcome Ms Alice Giles and Ms Olivia Coey from St. Mary's College, Arklow. Arklow does not have a canal but they are two students who did some research for the BT Young Scientist Exhibition on the prospect of living on boats on canals. If anybody wants to talk to the two young student researchers there, I am sure they would be delighted for that opportunity.

I will read a quick note on privilege before we commence. I remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the place where the Parliament has chosen to sit, namely, Leinster House, to participate in public meetings. Witnesses attending in the committee room are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their contributions. This means they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. Members and witnesses are expected not to abuse the privilege they enjoy and it is my duty, as Chair, to ensure this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Members and witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

The opening statements we have received from the three witness groups will be published on the committee's website after the meeting.

Before I invite the witnesses to make their opening statements in the order of Waterways Ireland, the RCAG and IRBOA, I will say we met previously, on 21 September, as they will remember. It was Deputy Flaherty who had raised the issue about these by-laws. We only had that opportunity for a one-hour meeting. I want to assure the groups that we have the full three-hour slot available for them today and there will be no need to rush anything. Many of the people who are here in the Public Gallery and many emails have come in to us raising questions and concerns. We will get an opportunity to raise all those questions and have plenty of time. We will do so because I expect members other than members of the committee to contribute today, in six-minute slots. We can come back again in a second round, if there are further questions to be answered. There are six minutes to ask the question and to receive the answer as well.

I will invite the groups to make their opening statements. I call Mr. Rowe, on behalf of Waterways Ireland.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

A Chathaoirleach agus a baill den choiste, gabhaim buíochas as ucht cuireadh a tabhairt dúinn arís inniú chun teacht in bhur láthair agus dréach fó-dhlíthe na Sionainne agus na Cánálacha a phlé libh. I thank the Chair and members for the opportunity to return to the committee to update it on proposed changes to the canal by-laws and the Shannon by-laws.

I am the operations controller in Waterways Ireland. I am joined by my colleague, Mr. Patrick Harkin, inspector of navigation.

Respecting the time restrictions, we have provided a more expansive briefing document, which provides additional information about our remit and the Deputies and Senators should have that with their papers.

By way of introduction, Waterways Ireland was established 25 years ago under the British-Irish Agreement Act. We are a cross-Border navigational authority responsible for some 1,100 km of inland navigable waterways across the island of Ireland. Our statutory function is to manage, maintain, develop and restore specified inland navigable waterways, principally for recreational purposes.

Over the last 25 years we have achieved a lot. We have completed the restoration of the main line of the Royal Canal, with our colleagues in the RCAG, from Dublin to the Shannon, crossing counties Dublin, Kildare, Meath, Westmeath and Longford. We have doubled the mooring capacity on the Shannon, increasing berthing at numerous locations and catering for over 3,000 visitor berths.

We have established new boating destinations on the River Suck to Ballinasloe in County Galway, the River Boyle to Boyle in County Roscommon, Cleighran More on Lough Allen in County Leitrim and the River Inny to Ballymahon in County Longford. Through investment, development and on-site works, we have transformed many waterway assets, including Meelick weir, which connects east Galway to west Offaly, the castle and Connaught harbours, Portumna, County Galway, Killaloe marina, County Clare, Carrick-on-Shannon and Leitrim village, County Leitrim, Lough Key marina, County Roscommon, Athlone, County Westmeath, Cloondara, County Longford, the Round O, Enniskillen, County Fermanagh, and many more. We have also developed and promoted more than 600 km of greenways and blueways in counties Dublin, Kildare, Meath, Westmeath, Longford, Offaly, Leitrim, Roscommon, Cavan, Fermanagh, Clare, Tipperary and Galway. We create social, economic and environmental well-being, valued at over €600 million annually, for the public good of the people of Ireland and Northern Ireland. As many committee members are aware, we are undertaking the restoration of the Ulster Canal. This is a transformative project of scale and significance that will link navigation from Lough Erne to Clones.

My colleague, Mr. Harkin, and I appeared before this committee on 21 September to engage with it on the proposed changes to the by-laws. At that meeting, members made a number of observations and suggestions about the public consultation process and the substance of the proposed by-laws. As agreed, we considered those issues and the 933 submissions that we received during phase 1 of the consultation. One of the first suggestions made by many of the members was to consider an extension of the public consultation. To recap, we commenced the public consultation on 19 June 2023 with the intention of concluding it on 2 October, which would have been a period of 108 days. Following engagement with this committee and with the consent of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, we extended phase 1 to 133 days. We are pleased to report that the concern raised by the committee that people would be confused by running the consultation on the canals and the Shannon together did not come to pass. We received 933 submissions in total. A clear distinction was identified, with 733 submissions relating to the canals and 537 relating to the Shannon. Three hundred and thirty-seven related to both sets of by-laws.

A second suggestion from the committee was that we enhance our public engagements and hold additional one-to-one stakeholder meetings. Following our appearance here, we broadened and deepened our public and stakeholder outreach with many of the groups suggested by committee members. This included all relevant local authorities, chambers of commerce, local tourism groups, State agencies and sports and recreational groups. We also increased our social media reach and frequency with information on the by-laws. Over the period of phase 1, we held public meetings in eight locations. These were attended by more than 600 people. We held 24 meetings with relevant stakeholder groups and local authorities. In addition, we announced that we would carry out a second phase of the public consultation process. We communicated with more than 2,500 stakeholders on 15 January to let them know that we had commenced phase 2. It will conclude on 26 February.

Informed by the 933 submissions, we published a detailed report on phase 1 of the public consultation on 15 January outlining the revised draft by-laws. Many of the concerns raised by committee members are addressed. A copy of the consultation report is included in the information we sent to the committee. In the briefing document we submitted with this opening statement, we have outlined the detailed purpose of the revisions. It is our intention that the cumulative effect of the revisions to the by-laws will be to make our waterways safer, protect those using our waterways, blueways and greenways, and continue to provide a wonderful recreational experience for everyone to enjoy.

As part of phase 2 of the consultation, we published the revised draft by-laws for the canals and Shannon navigation along with explanatory notes and the public consultation report on our website. We again advertised the consultation widely in the national and local press, across social media channels and online. We will be hosting two public consultation information events at which stakeholders will be informed about the proposed by-law changes. These will be in the following locations: Hodson Bay Hotel, Athlone, on 6 February at 6 p.m. and Mullingar Park Hotel on 7 February at 6 p.m. We have presented the revised by-laws to members of Offaly County Council and the Nenagh MD of Tipperary County Council and received positive and welcoming comments in the discussions that followed. We have invited the public to visit the Waterways Ireland website or to visit one of 17 public libraries where copies of the draft by-laws, explanatory note and consultation report are available to view. We are inviting comments and submissions in writing, by email or on the submission form on the Waterways Ireland website.

Having considered all 933 submissions received during phase 1, we have made changes to the proposed by-laws to endeavour to equitably deal with legitimate concerns raised. The changes from the phase 1 proposals include the introduction and extension of a five-day rule on canal harbours to facilitate watersport activity, the continuation of winter moorings on the Shannon navigation, the removal of a proposed three-day rule at certain harbours on the Shannon navigation, the removal of a proposed speed limit on our greenways, blueways and cycleways, and a reduction in proposed houseboat permit fees in suburban areas of the canals. We believe that these substantial changes to the proposed by-laws will alleviate the concerns of most stakeholders and address many of the issues raised by committee members.

Waterways Ireland is proposing to revise the Shannon by-laws and canal by-laws with a view to updating the regulation of our waterways. The by-laws are over 30 years old and their application to the navigations are no longer fit for purpose. The needs of those who use our waterways, blueways and greenways have changed, the environmental landscape and health and safety considerations have evolved significantly, and the waterways themselves have been transformed. Our by-laws need to reflect this. The public consultation will end on 26 February and we in Waterways Ireland would once again ask all interested parties to have their say and contribute to the process by making a submission.

A Chathaoirligh, we are more than happy to address any questions from you and the committee members present.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Mr. Rowe. I invite Mr. Whelan to contribute.

Mr. Derek Whelan

The RCAG welcomes the new revisions made to the by-laws as a result of our submission and the submissions of other interested parties. The consultation process has been extensive and the decision by Waterways Ireland to extend it further was worthwhile. I hope that the outstanding issues can be resolved within a short period and we have a set of conditions and rules with which all concerned with the future of our waterways can live.

The proposal on construction and safety measures on boats is a new one not mentioned in earlier drafts and requires all boats using shore power - 220 V to 110 V - to fit a marine isolation transformer. As this will involve a substantial investment by boat owners, we request that a phase-in period of two years be granted before implementation. Toilet systems are required to prevent polluting matter passing into the navigation. We agree that this is a necessary condition to protect our waterways. Waterways Ireland needs to provide more facilities to assist boat owners in complying with this vital requirement. There is currently no pump-out facility for boats' holding tanks on the Royal Canal between Dublin and Mullingar, which is a distance of 80 km.

There are good reasons to allow activities that are traditionally held on our waterways to be exempted from seeking permission for every event. We note that three named organisations are listed in the new draft. As a group, we have held events on the Royal Canal for almost 50 years and we are surprised that we are not listed. The intention of the rule is clearly to cut down on unnecessary administration, but is it necessary to seem to favour some organisations over others?

Waterways Ireland is proposing that inspection reports by qualified marine surveyors be carried out on boats every five years. Boat owners are already required to submit such boat survey reports by their insurers every ten years, but we feel that this new requirement needs a phase-in period of two years.

While the proposal to drop general speed limits on towpaths and greenways is welcome, there are good reasons to retain the power to impose limits in local areas. In urban areas, there is now widespread use of electric bikes and scooters along our waterways and many of these are capable of speeds of 30 km/h or more.

In the interest of public safety, there should be some control exercised in areas designated as being at risk. While legislation is planned to place control on scooters and ebikes, this may apply to use on public roads only and not to towpaths, greenways, etc., which could be seen as exempt. It is important that Waterways Ireland retains the power to enforce controls in some local areas as needed.

Mr. Jerry Gleeson

The IRBOA thanks the Chair and members of the committee for giving us the opportunity to speak today. Waterways Ireland does not know how many liveaboard boats there are on the canals and the Barrow. It does not know how many people live on those boats and consequently does not know how many of those people are families with young children, single-parent families, senior citizens, disabled people or vulnerable people. When it says, "Waterways Ireland does not believe the proposed changes will lead to homelessness," IRBOA says, "You do not know what you are talking about". Yearly permit price increases of €1,000, €2,000 or €4,000, increasing to €7,500 depending on location, would be difficult for any household in the State to absorb. For many in our community, it is impossible. I am very proud to hear mentioned the idea that seems to have arisen organically in our communities, which can best be summed up as, "If my neighbour cannot afford a permit, how could I, in good conscience, buy one?" Waterways Ireland's proposed changes to the permitting system and the writing of navigation restrictions into by-laws will create dead zones in counties Kildare and Dublin on the Royal and Grand canals. Some 47% of boats currently located in Hazelhatch and Sallins are leisure boats, meaning owners will no longer be eligible to buy a permit for these areas. The same applies to 29% of boats at Grand Canal Dock, Castleknock and Confey. Where will they go?

Waterways Ireland's proposed changes will effectively close the canals to through navigation and ghettoise liveaboard communities. The contention that Waterways Ireland acknowledges the submissions in relation to the mooring restrictions between the 12th and 16th locks on the Royal and Grand canals but deems this necessary to manage the congestion of boats in the Greater Dublin area is nonsense. Simply put, there is no congestion. It should also be noted that Waterways Ireland has a monopoly on moorings on the canals and the Barrow. This, combined with its power to issue, or not, permits listed in the schedule of tolls and charges and to issue and charge money for permits not listed in the schedule - members should see the briefing notes on extended mooring permits and service charge in Grand Canal Dock - places the people they refer to as customers in a dysfunctional marketplace devoid of independent oversight.

The idea of Waterways Ireland rangers patrolling the canals and the Barrow is frightening. The inspector of navigation's response to the question from IWAI's Offaly branch about the training of authorised officers in Inland Waterways News from August 2023 was that, where necessary, inspectorate staff in Waterways Ireland have extensive experience in the enforcement of by-laws on Waterways Ireland's navigations. This shows a failure to recognise the great responsibility that comes with the powers Waterways Ireland wishes to have conferred on it, again without independent oversight. We respectfully ask the committee to recommend that the Minister for housing reject these proposed by-laws, which will lead to homelessness for traditional canal boat dwellers who cannot afford these unprecedented fee increases. They will break up established communities and criminalise law-abiding citizens for newly defined boating offences, bringing them before the courts with no independent appeals process in advance of legal proceedings.

Mr. Liam Finnegan

I thank the Cathaoirleach and committee members for giving us the opportunity to have this serious issue debated. Without its intervention, these by-laws may have been a done deal by now. While welcoming many changes to the draft, we also believe that major issues for many boaters remain. The annual registration fee of €200 is a red line for most boaters. It is seen as a tax on boaters - an afloat charge - regardless of whether you use your boat one day a year or all year round. It targets a small number of people, while exempting other users who probably use the waterways more than anyone. As an all-Ireland body, the people of Northern Ireland will be exempt with no plans to introduce such a charge there. The 60-day visitor pass is basically a 32-county entity attempting to establish a hard border on our island where the people of Northern Ireland will be charged to visit our waterways. How objectionable is that? One of the first and biggest cross-Border initiatives post the Good Friday Agreement was the reopening of the Shannon-Erne waterway to try to connect people on both sides of the Border. Now, Waterways Ireland is trying to curtail that movement with these charges. This cannot be allowed to happen.

Waterways Ireland seems to view itself as a property management company rather than as a custodian of our waterways with responsibility to manage the waterways on behalf of the citizens of Ireland. Waterways Ireland states that the waterways generate €600 million for Ireland Inc. annually. This generates a huge tax take for the Exchequer. Profit generated from waterways represents an extremely good return on the Irish State’s investment in Waterways Ireland. It is incumbent on Waterways Ireland to preserve and increase this income by creating favourable conditions for all waterway users and businesses through these by-laws. By its own admission, the introduction of these new charges to boaters and businesses will reduce boat numbers on Ireland’s waterways. Thus, Waterways Ireland, while creating additional income for itself, will reduce income for waterside businesses and the State alike. As this is my opening statement, I will finish now with the hope of having time to discuss the many major issues we have with some of these by-laws, including equality in law, the fears of commercial operators, an appeals system and some of the elephants in the room concerning Waterways Ireland's governance, or lack thereof, and its operations. I thank the Chairman.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank the witnesses for sticking to the timeline. Before we go to questions, I wish to ask Mr. Rowe and Mr. Harkin a question. Will they outline for committee members and people watching what the expected process is? The consultation runs until 26 February and then things will go through different processes. Who makes the decisions on when to enact these by-laws?

Mr. Éanna Rowe

The by-laws for canals are governed by primary legislation in the Canals Act 1986. The by-laws for the Shannon are governed by primary legislation in the Shannon Navigation Act 1990. It clearly outlines how the process evolves. Waterways Ireland drafts by-laws and undertakes 90 days of public consultation, which is the requirement. We will have done half a year of public consultation, and rightly so. I am thankful for the advice on that matter earlier. They will be submitted to the Minister for his or her approval.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Mr. Rowe for the clarification. We will move on to questions now. We will try to stick to six-minute slots but we can come back around again. I call Deputy Flaherty.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

I thank all the speakers for coming in. I appreciate the efforts made by Waterways Ireland since the issue first came to light. Some significant work has been done. I could be cynical and say some of the changes are window-dressing. It was never realistic that winter mooring would be withdrawn. I do not think there is anywhere in the country where boats could be stored for five months of the year. Notwithstanding that, there have been some changes but this document and these by-laws are nowhere near where we want them to be, specifically regarding charges and the fixed fee of €200. That is very much a bugbear, particularly for people using the waterways on the Shannon. The biggest issue and challenge is that the charge is not assigned to anything. If it was assigned to use of locks or if there was one charge for unrestricted access and another for people who would probably only use four to five locks a year, that would be better. I have a major concern about the absence of dispute resolution in the proposed by-laws. At the moment, the only outcome if there is a dispute over any finding of Waterways Ireland is that you need to go straight to the District Court and, in turn, the Circuit Court, which entails a significant cost. It is very unusual for a State organisation not to have a dispute resolution mechanism. Waterways Ireland was born out of a previous entity, the OPW, which has a resolute and strong dispute resolution structure.

If something cannot be resolved within that mechanism, it goes to the Ombudsman. We need something like that in what Waterways Ireland is proposing. It is not there now and we certainly will not be happy for it to go the Minister without that.

The third issue I raise is very specific. It relates to the charges as they stand and the absence of similar charges in the North of Ireland. Our greatest triumph, which Waterways Ireland very much had a hand in, is the Shannon-Erne Waterway. It was the first all-Ireland project undertaken in the aftermath of the Good Friday Agreement. It was a triumph for tourism and for communities on both sides of the Border. We have a situation now where I can drive unrestricted to Northern Ireland on a motorbike or in a car or camper van and I can cross the Border unrestricted in a boat via the Shannon-Erne Waterway. However, these charges will, in effect, put a financial border on the island of Ireland. That is reprehensible. It goes against the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement and I am deeply uncomfortable with it. Everybody in the Oireachtas who has signed up to the Good Friday Agreement will be equally discomfited by it.

I ask Mr. Rowe to respond to those three points, that is, the lack of a dispute resolution mechanism, whether we are out of synch with our counterparts in Northern Ireland and the issue of the charges. On the latter, we agree there must be charges but we are not happy with what is being implemented.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

I thank the Deputy for his comments. The first point to make is that there is no window-dressing in our by-laws. I reject that completely. The assertion that we would undertake such a cynical exercise has to be rejected. I need to make that point.

On dispute resolution, as I said at the previous committee meeting, we have the exact same resolution situation as any other public body in the State. The customer services charter, recourse to the Ombudsman and so on are available to people who have a complaint about any level of service provided by Waterways Ireland. Those are the facts. I said that at the previous meeting and I am saying it again.

In regard to the fixed-penalty payment notice, which might be a separate issue or a conflation of the two, it is directly connected to the District Court. It comes from primary legislation, namely, the Maritime Safety Act 2005. Changing that Act is not in the gift of Waterways Ireland, nor is changing the process whereby a fixed-penalty payment notice, if it is not paid, is referred to the District Court. These are the exact same provisions that apply to coastal networks and other waterways. If any member of the public or a customer of Waterways Ireland has a complaint, the same complaints mechanism, including recourse to the Ombudsman, is available north and south of the Border. That situation pertains-----

Deputy Joe Flaherty

Will Mr. Rowe help me on this point? Say, for example, I am convinced that my black water tank is suitable for my boat but Waterways Ireland is not satisfied it is suitable. I get it surveyed, the finding is that it is fine and dandy but Waterways Ireland still says it is not suitable. What is my recourse in that situation?

Mr. Éanna Rowe

The recourse is through the Ombudsman or through a complaint. If a boater has an independent survey undertaken that demonstrates that he or she has the appropriate tank, we will take that as accepted. If there is a dispute between Waterways Ireland and the boater, that is dealt with under our customer services strategy, with recourse to the Ombudsman.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

I accept I can go to the Ombudsman but, with the best will in the world, it is an onerous task to do so. Boat owners are looking for a similar mechanism to what is available through other agencies.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

We have the same mechanism as does any other agency. In addition, access to the Ombudsman is very straightforward and is free.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

Does the OPW not have an internal dispute mechanism on which a mechanism for Waterways Ireland could be modelled?

Mr. Éanna Rowe

We have an internal dispute mechanism. It is contained in our customer services strategy. If somebody is not satisfied with the result of the internal customer complaint process, the recourse is, first, to our chief executive and, second, to the Ombudsman. The process is modelled on the customer services strategies that have developed across government, both North and South. It is the exact same as what applies elsewhere. I assure the Deputy of that.

The Deputy asked about the annual registration of permits and the visitor permit. The introduction of the new visitor permit came from recommendations we received under phase 1 of the consultation. The intention was that anybody entering any of the systems, whether through Limerick, Dublin, New Ross or the systems coming in on the Shannon-Erne waterway, would pay the full €200 for a permit to bring a boat onto our systems. Following phase 1 of the consultation and having considered the submissions we received, we have amended the 60-day visitor permit and put it at a level that will allow people to bring their boat in for three months for a reasonable cost. That brings an equity to the system.

The second point to make, now that we may have an assembly up and running again in Northern Ireland, is that it is our ambition to bring in the exact same licensing under the Erne by-laws in order to have a whole-of-island approach. The annual permit of €200 for the canals and the Shannon would also be in place for the Erne.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. I acknowledge the significant extension and expansion of the public consultation by Waterways Ireland on foot of its engagement with the committee. It has been really helpful, notwithstanding criticisms of the latest draft by-laws. The proof is always in the eating and that will come with the final version of the by-laws. Many of us here will want to make a submission on behalf of the committee to Waterways Ireland and also possibly to the Minister in advance of any final decision. We probably will continue to have related conversations. My questions follow on from those of Deputy Flaherty. Without repeating them, there are particular aspects of them on which I would like Mr. Rowe to focus.

The quantum of the costs for barges and houseboats is very high and the rate of increase very dramatic. The absence of any clarity as to whether there will be improved services as a result of those increased fees concerns me. This is an area Waterways Ireland needs to rethink between now and when the final version of the by-laws go to the Minister. I suspect it will be one of the issues we want to raise with him. I am seeking some clarity as to why Waterways Ireland decided to settle on these charges. I know there was some discussion about previous pricing in regard to car parking rates, etc. Given we are talking about a very mixed-income group of people, there is a genuine concern. We have heard that concern again today and it is one I share. Both the total amount and the rate of increase are far too high and need careful consideration.

I am interested to hear Mr. Rowe's response to some of the questions that were raised about the permit regime. It will be useful for those of us who do not understand the detail of that.

On dispute resolution, I do not disagree that Waterways Ireland has a similar process to what is in place in other State bodies. The problem is that those processes often do not work and, as Mr. Rowe knows, the Ombudsman looks only at the procedure and not the substantive issue. Even though it is not necessarily within the gift of Waterways Ireland to create a new non-statutory or non-judicial dispute resolution process, it would be in its interest to recommend that the Minister consider creating such a process. We see it working very well in the private rental sector in terms of the role of the Residential Tenancies Board. Waterways Ireland cannot introduce a by-law for that but the Government could consider a process whereby if there is a dispute over the substance of a matter, not the procedure, it could be taken in a non-judicial way. Everybody wins when we keep stuff out of court, including Waterways Ireland and the people using the waterways.

I welcome Mr. Rowe's clarification that it is his intention to seek an all-island approach if the assembly gets up and running. We are all hoping that happens. Is there an option to phase in some of the proposals pending clarity on how things go in the North? If there are quick wins in the North, which I am not saying there necessarily will be, a phased implementation could be very helpful.

More generally, is there consideration of a phased implementation in respect of any of the issues we have discussed, particularly fees and licensing arrangements? There needs to be an opportunity to respond to the suggested phasing timelines outlined in the submissions.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

I thank the Deputy. I will answer as many of his questions as I can.

I will start with dispute resolutions. It is not similar to other organisations; it is exactly the same. However, I take the Deputy's point that it might be worth our while, outside the by-laws, to write to our Department to see whether there is a possibility of introducing a more robust system. It cannot be contained in the by-laws themselves. I take that on board.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

To be clear, that is because any non-judicial dispute resolution system would have to see a change in primary legislation.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

Yes.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

That is something our committee could usefully recommend to the Minister.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

We will certainly take that issue on board. There is some phased implementation in the by-laws already. I listened to my colleagues and stakeholders regarding phased implementation of some of the elements, particularly those relating to health and safety and so forth. We will certainly take that on board through the submissions process. We are here to listen. We will listen to the submissions made through the public consultation. We did that during phase 1 of the consultation. We have taken a lot on board. Certain areas, such as fixed payment notices, are not in our gift. It is very important that is understood by all.

On the costs associated with the proposed houseboat permits, proposed permits for rural areas are set at a level that we already receive through our licensing arrangement. The market is already able to support those costs in rural areas. In the urban area of Dublin, we received a submission, just before phase 2 started but outside of phase 1, from the residents at Grand Canal Basin, which we will seriously consider. We are not that far away from each other as regards the starting point of that permit. We will certainly take that submission on board. Unfortunately, it fell outside phase 1. We received it on 5 January and phase 2 started on 15 January. I reassure the Deputy we will certainly take it on board.

On suburban areas, we took on board the submissions we received. We reduced the fee by 20% based on the submissions and on the other two locations. We have moved on that, but we will consider further submissions.

Deputy Emer Higgins

I thank all our guests for being with us. In my constituency, we have community living at Hazelhatch. I have had representations from many people there and from many people who are in the Gallery. It is very striking and telling how packed a Gallery it is. I do not think Ryan Tubridy got that.

I have friends who own barges, so I have had the privilege of spending time sleeping on board on the River Shannon, at Lough Derg and on our canals. I can see what a tremendous amenity they are and the investment that has been put in place at loughs and harbours up and down the River Shannon in particular. My real concern, and the concern I am hearing very loud and clear, is about fees. I am very interested in delving into this a little to understand where this new proposed fee structure in draft by-law 39 comes from. It will come in on a staggered basis and go up quite dramatically year after year. I know that there was a KPMG report. I appreciate that Mr. Rowe is here to listen. It is great to hear him say on the record that he will seriously consider the submission by Grand Canal Basin residents. That is very important. However, a fee analysis document was submitted to the committee towards the end of last year. I do not know whether that has been fed into this fee structure at all. I am very interested to hear a little about that, about why it is so high, and to understand, if there is a willingness to reduce it, how it can be made much more doable and much more liveable for people.

From a correlation perspective, there is still a lot of confusion around how increased fees will result in improved services for people in urban communities in particular. We are talking about London prices here but what we do not have are London facilities and amenities. People are paying for their own electricity, for example. There is one public toilet at Grand Canal Dock. We do not have the same level of amenities London has. Will money be ring-fenced for providing exactly those amenities or will it go into the general budget and not be seen on the ground by people who really need this investment in services? We are talking, in some cases, about a 650% increase in the price. If someone talked about increasing rent by 650%, we would not tolerate it because rent is capped, in many instances, in line with inflation. We need to hear from people on the ground when there is that level of increase. It is great that Waterways Ireland is here to listen. This has to be a listening exercise as well as a monetary exercise.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

I thank the Deputy for the questions. I assure her, as I said previously, that any moneys raised through permits, whether they are permits for the Shannon or the canals, will be ring-fenced and will be reported as such through our annual reporting accounts. We will see the expenditure base on them.

(Interruptions).

Mr. Éanna Rowe

Will I say that again?

An Cathaoirleach

We are delighted to have people in the Public Gallery and they are very welcome, but I ask them to allow witnesses to answer questions put by members.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

Moneys raised will be ring-fenced and reported.

On the charging proposed for Grand Canal Basin, we met with the residents' association as part of phase 1. We had a very good, productive meeting. A lot was discussed. We asked the residents for a detailed submission, including the issue of potential charges. We received that submission after the closure of phase 1.

Deputy Emer Higgins

I understand that. Mr. Rowe has said that a number of times.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

We are not too far away. I will say very clearly, based on the submission we received, that we will revisit the charging proposed for Grand Canal Basin.

Deputy Emer Higgins

On the differentiator Mr. Rowe talked about in terms of not being too far away from each other, by what percentage are you away from each other currently?

Mr. Éanna Rowe

It is roughly 20%.

Deputy Emer Higgins

Is it not more?

Mr. Éanna Rowe

No, I do not think so.

Deputy Emer Higgins

Okay. It is roughly 20%.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

It is roughly 20% at the starting rate.

Deputy Emer Higgins

That will go up when people have to reapply year on year. We are looking at that cumulate effect.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

As I said, we can look at phasing.

Deputy Emer Higgins

There is a willingness.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

Of course there is. We have demonstrated that willingness following our previous presentation to the committee. We are willing to listen and to move. As I said, we want to get these by-laws right and we want to make sure they are implementable.

On the services at Grand Canal Basin and equating them to London, I certainly would not like to live aboard in London. It is choked with liveaboard boats. It is problematic. A lot of the waterways in London are now open sewers because the facilities are not there at all. However, we have had some catch-up, especially along stretches of the canals. As our colleagues said, we need to have an investment plan for pump-outs and other services, not only for houseboats but for those boats that want to traverse our canals. We have an investment programme we want to achieve over the next three years for the services people can expect to receive along our canals. That would be line with those we already have in place on the Shannon, the Shannon-Erne and the Erne systems.

Deputy Emer Higgins

Under the St. Andrews Agreement recommendation, a board is to be installed for Waterways Ireland.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

That is a matter for the Government. It is not a matter for Waterways Ireland. That is not in our gift. It is a matter for governments North and South to decide whether Waterways Ireland will have a board. It is not within our gift.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I welcome the various presentations we have had. I particularly welcome the people in the Gallery. In the seven years I have been a Member, I do not think I have ever seen the Gallery full. I thank those in the Gallery for coming because their presence is very important. It illustrates their commitment.

I will raise a matter we have not touched on that much.

My questions are for Mr. Gleeson. We are talking about communities living on the water. This is what they are in many cases. These are not all leisure boats. There are boats that are for leisure, but there are also people who live on these boats. I know people who live in these communities. They have invested heavily, and this is a way of life and a culture. It is something I would love to do myself at some point. I am looking at the very dynamic demographics of the people seated to my right. It gives us a sense of what this is all about. We see a lot of creative and artistic people. We also see many diverse individuals. This is what I like about the community, and what I particularly like about this community on water. These boats are people's homes in many cases, and they do many other things there as well. I tell them to keep up the battle, because that is what this is. They should keep up the resistance because it is very hard to do battle with people on water. It is very hard to evict people and push them out. To all those listening, I say that we are going to be in for a long battle on this issue if we do not have a bit of common sense, meet people halfway and recognise that, to a certain extent, this is a non-regulated situation in certain ways. This has gone on for so long, and people have acquiesced.

What am I saying? I am of the view that the figures for year one in the KPMG proposal are outrageous. There is no way we can have those fees. Reference was made to the lack of services. I am not going to go into the other issues relating to mediation and the dispute arbitration and resolution process. Mr. Rowe set out his views on this aspect. Let us go beyond what is required. It is important that we meet and engage with people. I will come to another question, but I just want to make these few points.

The aspect I am most interested in is that of the potential for homelessness and the discrepancies in the canal fees. What will happen to elderly people and those who do not have huge incomes and who are being forced to pay these fees? I know he covered this in his submission, but I ask Mr. Gleeson, in the context of trying to quantify the numbers affected, to set out his understanding of how many people would potentially be vulnerable if there were to be a major increase in these fees. How would he see this situation? I ask him to comment because he represents this group. I would like him to spend a bit of time touching on these issues. I am especially conscious, not just because I live in Dublin, that the fees relating to Grand Canal Basin and Grand Canal Dock are just outrageous. Will Mr. Gleeson share with us just one or two examples and concerns about the potential difficulties these fees could cause? I refer, in particular, to old age pensioners and older and more vulnerable people, those who would not have much income. How are going to be able to sustain their lives and cope in the context of what is, effectively, a crisis for them and the community they live in?

Mr. Jerry Gleeson

I thank the Senator. In the context of Grand Canal Dock, people do not need to be vulnerable or old age pensioners, given the type of fee increases being talked about. A couple with good jobs would have difficulty paying €7,500, especially when there is no expansion in services or anything like that. Out further, if I can pick an example, a retired man has been living on a boat in Sallins for 25 years. He was working for 15 of those years. He is now retired. For 15 of those years as well he lived on the grass bank before there was any jetty. He moved onto the jetty when it was built and paid all he was asked to pay, including for the dodgy permit, as we call it, which has no basis in law. Now, he is on a fixed income. Next November, Waterways Ireland is going to ask him for €2,000. What we would like to know from Waterways Ireland is what will happen when that man says he does not have the money. How will the process go forward from that point? He does not have €2,000. What will happen? I cannot see how the process will work. I cannot see what Waterways Ireland will do. This is a question we have in our community. That man cannot pay. What will happen to him? He is not alone. I know there are more retired people on that jetty in Sallins. There are more retired people living in Lowtown and Hazelhatch as well. There is a good cohort of retired people all around our communities.

Senator Victor Boyhan

How many members does Mr. Gleeson's organisation have? I just want a rough estimate to get a sense of the numbers involved.

Mr. Jerry Gleeson

We have 350 or so members. They would not all live aboard boats. The number living on boats would be closer to 300. As the Senator mentioned, this includes young families with children. I do not know if any of them are here today. Two babies aged under two months are here today in their mothers' arms. These couples with young babies, toddlers and all the rest are under pressure as a result of the cost-of-living crisis. Any household in the State would have difficulty dealing with another bill of €2,000 being issued to it. We want to know what will happen if people cannot pay the fees. We would like the representatives from Waterways Ireland to outline what will happen when someone cannot pay the permit cost.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I thank Mr. Gleeson very much.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Senator Boyhan. I am going to take the next slot. I will continue with this line of questioning. I put the question raised in Mr. Gleeson's submission to the representatives from Waterways Ireland. I refer to the organisation not knowing how many people are living on canal boats and along the canals. I would expect this figure to be broken down into people who live 365 days a year on canal boats and others who live on them seasonally, perhaps when the weather is a little better. Do the witnesses from Waterways Ireland have an answer to this question?

Mr. Éanna Rowe

I ask my colleague Mr. Harkin to take this query.

Mr. Patrick Harkin

Waterways Ireland is currently renewing the permits. We start the renewal process on 1 November each year. We are in the middle of the renewal process, and we have 168 boats on the canals being lived on.

An Cathaoirleach

Do the people who live on those 168 boats live on them all year around as their permanent residences?

Mr. Patrick Harkin

These are 168 boats being lived on. There may be one person living on a boat or there may be two people. I am talking about actual boats being declared as having people living on them.

An Cathaoirleach

I understand. We are trying to regularise many of the things that are legacy issues. We did a great deal of work here trying to address the Foreshore Act 1933 and bring in more updated laws. One of the things that gives rise to concerns for people when they have lived a certain way and with certain fees and charges in a particular manner is that it can be frightening and upsetting when changes are made. We need to recognise that. As Senator Boyhan inquired, if the fees go up to €2,000, what will happen to people who cannot pay? Do we have a tiered payment relating to people's incomes as we would do in respect of many of the services we provide in this country?

Mr. Éanna Rowe

We do. The tiered level is in relation to the services provided. A serviced houseboat mooring in a location is €2,000, while unserviced moorings, such as the grassy bank, is €1,000. This is the tiering aspect. I reconfirm that we are in a brownfield situation. We are dealing with legacy issues in respect of houseboats. We have a growing population living on houseboats on the waterways. We want to cater for those houseboats, and we need to do so by means of a very structured approach. I reconfirm our commitment to listen and to take on board the suggestions and invite people to make submissions, as we did with our colleagues at Grand Canal Basin in Dublin when we asked them to send in a very detailed proposal on what they would expect by way of the provision of services and what they would reasonably expect to pay for those services. We received a submission. We have asked the same of IRBOA, but, unfortunately, we have not received the second part of the response in respect of what they would reasonably expect to pay for a serviced mooring or an unserviced mooring for houseboats.

An Cathaoirleach

Regarding the proposed charge for serviced houseboats of €2,000 and for unserviced houseboats of €1,000, what is a serviced user paying now?

Mr. Éanna Rowe

It is €278.

An Cathaoirleach

What is it for unserviced users?

Mr. Éanna Rowe

It is €126. This applies in the suburban location only.

An Cathaoirleach

I refer to people who choose to apply for serviced permits.

Will they have access to all of these services before they have to pay the increased fee? One of the concerns that has been expressed to me is that people will have to fork out this money but nothing will change. How is it proposed that this change will happen?

Mr. Éanna Rowe

We have a very small number of serviced facilities available. We have 20 in Grand Canal Basin, 12 in Sallins and eight in Shannon Harbour. In Shannon Harbour the serviced sites are all full and there is a waiting list. People pay a fee of €1,500 per annum for a serviced houseboat site in that rural location. In the suburban locations, which include Sallins, we propose to bring in a fee of €2,000 for a serviced site and €1,000 for an unserviced site. In Dublin, our proposal is to start with a fee of €4,000, rising to €7,500. We also have an extensive waiting list for Dublin, which runs to more than 270 boats seeking to gain access to Dublin.

We also have a plan of investment in new services. Ideally, we want to get to a level where we have 200 serviced sites for houseboats across the two navigations.

An Cathaoirleach

The number would increase from 40 to 200 serviced sites. That is the updated number.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

That is the intention.

An Cathaoirleach

There is no obligation on people to use a serviced site.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

No.

An Cathaoirleach

They can remain at an unserviced site.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

They can.

An Cathaoirleach

Somebody who is living in an unserviced berth obviously has to avail of services such as water and sewerage discharges at some point. Is there a proposal to improve those services? One of the issues that has been raised with me is that at one point extensive wastewater discharge services were not available and required a lot of travel.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

We have a pump-out facility in the outer dock in Grand Canal Basin. These mechanical facilities, where the holding tank is discharged into a pump-out, are prone to breaking down. However, coupled with the development of new serviced houseboat locations, we will be putting in new services. Water and an electricity connection are provided and a pump-out facility will be provided within a reasonable distance.

An Cathaoirleach

Will those extra services, or greater provision of those services, for people in unserviced berths be introduced and in place before the new fees are imposed?

Mr. Éanna Rowe

People can only get a permit for a serviced site when a serviced site is available.

An Cathaoirleach

I am talking about unserviced sites. Before the fee is increased for the unserviced softbank moorings, will more services be made available along the network?

Mr. Éanna Rowe

Unserviced sites will have no services.

An Cathaoirleach

No, but people will have to go to places to get their water or do pump-outs. Will more of those water or pump-out services be made available along the network as part of this change?

Mr. Éanna Rowe

Yes, Waterways Ireland has an investment programme we are working through, particularly around pump-outs. As was outlined earlier, there is no working pump-out between Grand Canal Basin and Mullingar on the Royal Canal at the moment. We have plans to put pump-outs in place. They will require planning and then connection to sewerage services but we have plans to put them in place in the very near term.

An Cathaoirleach

Will they be in place before the new fees are introduced? Will they be operational and accessible before people are required to pay €1,000 as opposed to €126 for an unserviced site?

Mr. Éanna Rowe

The fees for unserviced sites will begin when the by-laws come into force.

An Cathaoirleach

There is not necessarily a direct connection between the provision of services along the network for people who live on unserviced sites and the introduction of these by-laws? There is not an exchange.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

No, the direction is between the serviced sites and the services.

An Cathaoirleach

Will Mr. Rowe reiterate his point that he was looking for something back from the IRBOA with regard to what it deems to be acceptable? I do not want to put words in his mouth.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

Yes.

An Cathaoirleach

Will Mr. Rowe repeat the point?

Mr. Éanna Rowe

We had a very good, detailed one-to-one meeting with representatives of the IRBOA. We asked what level of service they would expect and what fee they would deem appropriate for those services.

Senator Rebecca Moynihan

I thank the witnesses for the presentations and welcome the members of the houseboat community who are in the Public Gallery. I welcome the fact that the issue of Grand Canal Dock is open for discussion again. The residents provided a comprehensive document on a fee structure, something along the lines of an owner-management company. I am glad Waterways Ireland is open to looking at something like that for the fee structure. Owner-management companies provide a wide range of services and they also justify those services. Many of them have residents on their board. Would Waterways Ireland be open to detailing a service-level agreement with residents to justify the fees at each stage? Could one of the residents be involved in negotiating the fees?

Will Waterways Ireland clarify the nature of its relationship with houseboat dwellers and communities and what enforceable rights they would have under this proposal? Will it be a licensee or service provider, a landlord-tenant relationship or something else?

With regard to the pricing strategy, the Scottish model of provision, which is based on rent prices, was looked at. That necessitates a different approach to the one taken here. Is any consideration being given to a form of service model or cost-rental model, which was included in Deputy Ivana Bacik's submission? That has the potential to bridge the gap between what Waterways Ireland is proposing and what the Grand Canal Dock residents would like.

On the fee structure, is any weight being placed on including a bonus for the low cost of carbon that is included in houseboats?

The control of speed limits was removed from these proposed by-laws but the Royal Canal group asked if consideration could be given to putting in a control mechanism for people who are using scramblers and scooters along the canal. There are huge boats in some greenway amenities for many communities. We do not want these to become dangerous, particularly in built-up urban areas, with people flying by on scrambler bikes and scooters. I understand the rationale put forward for the removal of speed limits but there has to be a control mechanism if people are making it dangerous for other users of the canalway.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

With regard to the model under we will operate, we will obviously consider in detail the submission we received from the residents in Grand Canal Dock. We received it just before phase 2 started and we will take it on board and consider it in detail. We very much welcome the effort and detail that were put into the document.

As for the governance of same, this involves a permit, a licence, so it is not a landlord and tenant relationship or anything like that. Waterways Ireland is proposing a permit and a licence. We will also consider other models, particularly for the likes of Grand Canal Dock where there is a large concentration of boats in a very busy urban environment. We may need to look at other considerations outside of normal considerations with regard to areas such as safety. We had to bring security onto the site, unfortunately, during the summer due to antisocial behaviour around the boats and property assets there. Refuse and so forth are also issues that we will look at. The Senator can rest assured in that regard.

With regard to speed limits on the greenways and blueways, I will ask my colleague, Mr. Harkin, to respond.

Mr. Patrick Harkin

With regard to speed limits on the greenways, we proposed a speed limit of 15 km/h in phase 1 and we were conscious of cyclists, e-scooters and the changing use of the greenways. We received more than 130 submissions and the vast majority were against the implementation of a speed limit. We also had stakeholder meetings with Comhairle na Tuaithe, Sport Ireland and Cycling Ireland. From that it can be seen in our consultation report that we have gone with the removal of the proposed speed limit. Instead, we are proposing a provision around a code of conduct and behaviour.

People using the greenways, be it cyclists or those using other modes of transport, will do so in a manner which does not endanger themselves or others. As part of that, we will have a fixed payment notice which we will be able to use as a deterrent. We are very conscious of the mother and father with young children out on a Sunday on the greenways in an urban or suburban area and people passing them at speed on bicycles or e-scooters. We had to reach a consensus on the matter so we have removed the speed limit.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I thank the witnesses and everyone else for attending. Our canals and waterways are amenities of great importance. About once a year I go for a walk on the Royal Canal, which is not in my constituency. It is a highly varied route. I start in Phibsborough and head inland. It is striking that the nicest places to walk on the canal are where the boats are and where there is a lived community. I do not mean just visually but it is where one feels safest as a walker. There is a huge benefit to the wider community from the lived boat community. That needs to be recognised and supported in any proposed changes. One of my primary concerns with this is the potential impact it would have on people who are living on our waterways because the proposed rate increases are very steep. I welcome the that serious consideration will be given to the submission from the Grand Canal residents and that the charging structure will be revisited.

At the core of the submission from the residents of the Grand Canal is linking the fees to the services provided. That is what it is being argued for in option 3 and it is what others are saying about other locations. There should not be a blanket charge. As Senator Moynihan said, in apartment complexes and housing estates where people pay a management charge, they are given a breakdown of where the money goes and they can see how it is linked to the services provided. Is Waterways Ireland committed to doing that with these fees so that people can see exactly where the money is going, what services they are getting for the fee that are paying and and how it is linked?

Mr. Éanna Rowe

Yes. The moneys collected through the permits will be ring-fenced for reinvestment.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I thank Mr. Rowe for his answer. He has said that a good few times today but it is not exactly what I was asking. "Ring-fenced for reinvestment" is one thing but linking to the services provided is slightly different. People who pay a management charge in an apartment or house can see where the management fee is going for the services they are getting, be it security, refuse collection or other services, as opposed to it being ring-fenced for reinvestment. That is slightly different.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

Any moneys raised from houseboat permits will be reinvested in the services provided for houseboats. On Grand Canal Dock, there is capital investment in the 20 jetties that are provided, the electricity bollards, the services that come out from the shore, refuse collection, security and all of that. That is not documented at the minute but it is our intention to document it, so that there is a clear correlation between the permit fee raised for houseboats and what is reinvested for the services for houseboats.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

Will that be in the locations in question so that people can see?

Mr. Éanna Rowe

Yes, in the location.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

On the proposed fees, these increases will prohibitively expensive for some people and will cause them very serious problems if they are on a low income or a State pension.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

We are starting from an unregulated brownfield site. We have a scale of fees ranging from €500, and starting at €4,000 in Dublin. These are the proposals. As I indicated, having received the submission from our residents in Grand Canal Basin, we will reconsider it very carefully and look at the fees structure. It starts at €500 for a houseboat berth, with the fee for a cruising permit set at €200.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

In Sallins, it is a whopping increase from €278 to €2,500. For someone on a low fixed income, that will cause huge problems. Does Mr. Rowe accept that and what is he proposing to help deal with that problem? As others have said, in other areas there are means-tested supports or reduced rates. Mr. Rowe has said that people can move to an unserviced location. An older couple living in a serviced location need those services. To be effectively told they will be evicted to an unserviced location does not work.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

The charges for the suburban area in phase 1 were €2,500 and €1,500. We have reduced those, following the submissions we received, to €2,000 and €1,000. For an unserviced site in that location, it is €1,000.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

In Sallins, it would be €2,000 so the increase would still be-----

Mr. Éanna Rowe

That is for a serviced site.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

-----from €278 to €2,000. Someone who has lived there for years will be involved in the community and will have relationships and community ties to the area. Waterways Ireland's proposal is eviction.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

We will not be evicting anybody. I said that at the previous meeting. We are not a landlord.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

What will happen then?

Mr. Éanna Rowe

What will happen is that alternative sites will be offered to people who do not avail of a serviced houseboat mooring. We have a limited number of serviced moorings for houseboats, as I said. We have 12 in Sallins and there is a community of 36 live-aboards in Sallins at the moment. We have a catch-up to do as regards the investment we want to provide. We want to support these communities and give them surety, but we need to invest in the infrastructure and put a proper regime of regulation in place. That is, as the Deputy said, linked to the service they receive.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

Does Mr. Rowe accept that if people have ties in the community, have lived there for a considerable period or have children who may have additional needs in local schools, it is not a viable solution to require them to move?

Mr. Éanna Rowe

As I said, we are looking to support these houseboat communities. They have grown up organically. They are very welcome to our waterways. As the Deputy rightly pointed out, they bring life to the waterways. However, we also need to avoid the situation which the English waterways have found themselves in, where London is choked with houseboats, and traversing the waterways in the UK is now problematic for those who want to get from A to B. We need to avoid that at all costs in Ireland.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

Can Mr. Rowe provide any evidence of congestion on waterways, particularly in Dublin?

Mr. Éanna Rowe

Not in Dublin at the moment but we want to get ahead of the curve here. We look to our neighbours in the UK and France and elsewhere, and we do not want to end up in a situation where the canals, which have a long heritage of navigation and travel from A to B, can no longer be traversed.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

Could Mr. Rowe provide the committee with details of Waterways Ireland's internal governance control committee?

Mr. Éanna Rowe

As alluded to earlier, we do not have a board. That is a matter for the Government. We have a monitoring committee made up of our two-parent Departments. It is chaired by assistant secretaries in both Departments and has members from those two Departments. It meets four times a year with the senior management team in Waterways Ireland and there are various governance arrangements etc. attached to it.

The second committee is our risk and audit committee. It is an independent committee made up of an independent chair and two nominees, one from each Department. It also has representation from the Northern Ireland Audit Office, NIAO, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the parent Departments. That is the governance and audit oversight in Waterways Ireland.

As was alluded to earlier, when the North-South bodies were established, three of them had boards and three did not. That was a matter for the Governments at the time. The St. Andrews Agreement committed to providing boards to the remaining three but, again, that is a matter for the Government and is not within the gift of Waterways Ireland.

Senator John Cummins

I thank everyone for being here and engaging in good faith with the committee. We appreciate that everyone has taken on board suggestions the committee made at the last hearing before Christmas. I acknowledge that Waterways Ireland extended the consultation process considerably as part of this process and took on board suggestions on the engagement. That is evidenced by the number of submissions it has got back. Clearly, there has been a more robust and in-depth consultation, which is absolutely to be welcomed.

Mr. Gleeson and Mr. Galway will recall that the last time I questioned them at the committee I said it would be helpful if a suggested fee structure were put forward, and that is welcome. As regards the submission from the Grand Canal Dock community, the fee structure that has been proposed is definitely helpful. I know that Mr. Rowe said there was a 20% differential. It is a 25% differential between them in respect of year one. At the time of our last meeting I said there is always a middle point to be struck on this. The witnesses have put forward a reasonable proposal. I acknowledge that phase 2 has seen a reduction from Waterways Ireland. A meeting in the middle, I would suggest, might be desirable. What I do not accept is the increase from €4,000 to €7,500. That is too steep a climb. I think we can find a resolution there in the €2,000 versus the €1,500 in respect of the suburban serviced and a middle ground between the €1,000 and the €750 in respect of the suburban unserviced. We could probably even find a middle ground between the €4,000 and the €3,000. However, trying to find a middle ground between €4,000 and €7,500 will definitely be too much of a stretch. I suggest to the witnesses that, in terms of any increases in fee structures, they potentially look at the caps that are in place in respect of residential rent whereby there is a 2% increase in line with the CPI going forward from what would be a base structure that would be put in place. I do not know if anyone wants to comment on that. I am trying to be helpful rather than interrogating the witnesses in my questioning. The last time I invited them to do X, Y and Z, and all parties seem to have done that, so I commend them in that respect.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

I will certainly take on board any submissions we receive. I think we have demonstrated our willingness to do so through phase 1 and the changes we have made, and we will certainly look in detail at submissions we receive. We received, as I said already, a really detailed, well-thought-out, structured submission from the boat residents from Grand Canal Basin, and we would welcome something similar from our colleagues in IRBOA.

Mr. Jerry Gleeson

The issue for IRBOA at the time and, I believe, for the Grand Canal Dock residents, and we are united on this, was that we got our first meeting with Waterways Ireland about four days, I think, before the consultation period ended, and that was only because of the committee meeting and because Waterways Ireland felt pressured into it. We are pretty certain it did not want to talk to us at all or hear anything we had to say on prices or any other matter. That is our feeling.

Senator John Cummins

But we have got past that impasse, so I am trying to be constructive.

Mr. Jerry Gleeson

I agree. We did clarify this for Waterways Ireland at our meeting. It is method 1 that is used in the Grand Canal Dock document, and that is based on inflation. The present permit would go up to just under €300. After that, services would be charged for as provided rather than the idea of permitting services. You have to have a permit now to use these services to moor in this place. The present system on the-----

Senator John Cummins

Sorry, Mr. Gleeson gave three methods, method 1, method 2 and method 3. It comes down in terms of method 3, and the matrix at the end refers to €3,000, €1,500 and €750. Waterways Ireland refers to €4,000, €2,000 and €1,000.

Mr. Jerry Gleeson

If I may clarify, I am not a Grand Canal Dock resident-----

Senator John Cummins

Yes, but Mr. Gleeson is aware of the submission.

Mr. Jerry Gleeson

I am aware of this, yes. I agree, and I accept the Senator's point that there is probably a middle ground to be found there. From our perspective, we are still a ways off it. Maybe an approach that needs to be considered is subventions for people on fixed incomes. Perhaps that is the way our issues could be sorted. If we could reach a decent baseline and everybody could be sure that if their neighbours could not afford it, Waterways Ireland would have a method of looking after that and make sure that nobody needs to be evicted, then that middle ground could be found and we could make sure that there are supports in place for people who have difficulty paying. That would be our approach to that.

Senator John Cummins

I will make a final point. On that sliding scale, particularly on the urban serviced, as far as I can see, there is a big challenge in that area. I appreciate the challenge that the witnesses want to increase and develop the services, but the increase there is significant. I would rather they land on a figure that would potentially increase only by the CPI or 2%, whichever is less, rather than trying to look at a sliding figure that will go up year on year. Somebody living in a community will not necessarily be happy with the figure - I accept that - but if they have certainty in that regard that it will not be able to increase any more than the CPI or 2%, which is what we have done in respect of rents in this country, I think it could be helpful. I say that only as a suggestion.

An Cathaoirleach

Mr. Rowe, I think you said you will take on board any submission to the committee on that suggestion.

I go now to the second Sinn Féin slot, which Deputy Buckley will take.

Deputy Pat Buckley

I thank all the board members for coming in. I was not here at the start of the meeting but I was watching it.

I will go back to Mr. Finnegan's original mention of a border in respect of Waterways Ireland. How ironic that, 25 years since it was set up after the Good Friday Agreement, we are talking about borders. It is absolutely bonkers. There is also the fact that it was introducing the €40 permit for boats coming from the North to the South and proposing something like a €200 annual charge for people in the South when we are trying to increase tourism, which is a very valuable asset. What would happen if a family living on a serviced site could not pay those fees and refused to move? What would happen to that family? I think Mr. Harkin talked about boats, but these are not boats but families living on boats, and that struck me. It is all about the bang for the buck again. It is a huge entity. There is serious money to be made along the waterways.

I am touching on and aware of that because I sit on the petitions committee as well and we have written to all county councils in the country to find out about developments. These charges will set a precedent for how fast we will go forward. I am aware of possibly 400-plus unauthorised developments along waterways in Ireland. I am well aware of the court cases as well. Once all these developments go forward, what happens with all the charges for mooring boats? I could name them, I could show them and I could show ones that went on during Covid. There does not seem to be any accountability. When I came in here and listened to this today I realised again, it is like everything, whether it is disabilities or mental health, the most vulnerable people are the ones being hit worse. We are in the middle of a housing crisis and we are talking about raising the prices for these houseboats by probably 500%. In five years it will probably be 1,000%. There will be no guarantee here.

Mr. Rowe mentioned that they have to catch up on stock and so on and so forth, that is, what Waterways Ireland has and what it has available. From the information we have received in the petitions committee, we are 22 years into Waterways Ireland and it does not have a portfolio of what it owns, and we are discussing charges for people and families living on boats. I would like to see an audit. What does it actually have? We are 25 years into Waterways Ireland and we do not know what we own. As I said, I could name many developments. We hope to have Waterways Ireland in before the petitions committee. We have written to the county councils. Many of these are commercial entities and commercial is profit; it is not for people. The minute you hear “commercial” you are talking big bucks – you are talking millions for profit. This is one of the finest assets on the planet and I am worried we will drive people off the water instead of encouraging people to use it more. The more people use it and the more proper services are provided, the prices should be coming down, not going up. Is there an alternative motive here? Waterways Ireland is talking about increased fees but the increased services seem to be extremely limited. The only option if you do not get these services is it will give you some place beside a field and a riverbank that nobody uses and you can live there. I do not think Waterways Ireland was set up for that 25 years ago. It is disingenuous to the families in the Gallery and to the people who are listening in. I am very worried about it. As I said, it is a huge portfolio with 400 or 500 developments. Many of these have absolutely no planning and they are getting away with it. Somebody is making money out of this and we are not getting answers. Returning to the crux of what we are discussing today, I just wanted to get that on record because I have plenty of information on it. We are talking about extortionate fees for families when Waterways Ireland does not even have a proper portfolio or audit of what it actually has.

Waterways Ireland was set up for the benefit of the country, the Thirty-two Counties and the people who could use it, who will not be able to use it now with those fees. The fees even just for mooring boats in Portaneena back in 2022 were €2,600 for a 30 ft to 40 ft and a 40 ft and over was €2,900 a year. Boats under 30 ft were €2,100 a year. That is from 2021 to September 2022. Are all these fees going to jump up as well? That is what I am afraid of and I would like answers.

Can Waterways Ireland come back and let me know what it has, which marinas are being built – the ones that we know of - which are authorised and which are not, who is making money and who is paying on tax on the profits from those moorings? Let us get back to the crux. Waterways Ireland is making an awful lot of money and the last thing it should be doing is increasing charges for families to live on one of the finest waterways on the planet, which was gifted to us, in one sense. Through the Good Friday Agreement, it has been a gift, both North and South. Waterways Ireland should be an entity of excellence that acknowledges it was created for everybody and everybody should be able to use the resources at a fair price. Do not take extortionate fees. On what was mentioned on serviced sites between water and sewage, water and sewage is perhaps a problem for Irish Water but it is not extortionate. It has been 22 years in construction. People will not get bang for their buck on this and it is a disgrace.

An Cathaoirleach

There is no time left in that slot now for responses because the slots are only seven minutes.

Deputy Pat Buckley

Can I just ask what happens to families?

An Cathaoirleach

I will let the Deputy come back in on the third round.

Deputy Pat Buckley

Lovely. I thank the Chair.

An Cathaoirleach

Mr. Rowe may want to prepare to answer those questions. I can give him a minute if he wishes to respond because there much information was sought. However, I do not think he could cover it in a minute. He can respond briefly.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

Planning and development is a matter for local authorities and the planning authority; it is not a matter for Waterways Ireland. I just need to make that very clear.

Deputy Pat Buckley

But you need planning permission-----

Mr. Éanna Rowe

I have a minute, Deputy.

Deputy Pat Buckley

Waterways Ireland needs planning permission on the marina.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

Sorry. Planning is a matter for the local authorities. It is not in the gift of Waterways Ireland and I think the Deputy is aware of that.

Regarding the alleged encroachments, we are well aware of more than 400 alleged encroachments that date back to the 1920s on the Shannon. We have a strategy in place to deal with those encroachments and we are resourcing that strategy now through the recruitment of a number of new staff. We will begin work in a very measured way to deal with those alleged encroachments.

On the visitor permit, I need to make it clear that the visitor permit is for anybody who wants to visit for a 60-day period onto the Shannon, the Shannon-Erne, the canals or the Barrow through the entry points of Dublin, Limerick, Waterford or when they cross into the Shannon-Erne Waterway. It is our ambition to bring the exact same permit regime into place on the Erne system. Now that we may have an Assembly back up and running in Northern Ireland, we may be able to effect those changes. It would be an all-island permit. That permit, for €200, which comes from the €127 currently charged on the canals, is less than an adjusted permit. If we were to adjust it since 1988, it would be €288. We are proposing €200 and it would allow a boater to travel from Belturbet down to Carlow and St. Mullin’s, from Dublin right across to Limerick and Portumna and Athlone, availing of the public harbours, of which there are 52 along the Shannon and six on the Shannon-Erne Waterway, and all those other harbours along the canals and the Barrow that are provided by Waterways Ireland through the funding we receive from Government Departments. The €200 permit brings equity across the system and allows people to traverse our waterways. The visitor permit came from recommendations out of phase 1 of the consultation. The overwhelming majority of people wanted a visitor permit introduced so that people visiting our waterways for a short period of time could avail of those same services.

Regarding houseboats, as I said on numerous occasions, we are not looking to evict anybody. That is the exact opposite of what we are trying to achieve. We have a brownfield unregulated site. We have houseboat communities that we welcome on our waterways, which have grown organically, and we want to provide surety and proper services to those houseboat communities.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

I have some initial observations and then Mr. Rowe can respond to me. Regarding the dispute mechanism - I take on board we are probably at loggerheads on this – the feedback from boat users, particular in respect of the Shannon and the lakeways, is that there is no outcome other than the lengthy process of going to the Ombudsman. Many of them have outstanding long-standing issues that are not being resolved. Is there an opportunity for Waterways Ireland to look at it after today since it seems to be still a consistent issue across a number of contributors that we need an inbuilt dispute mechanism?

Mr. Éanna Rowe

We have a dispute mechanism that is aligned to the public service but we can certainly review it. I take comments on board and I will bring it back to my colleagues in Waterways Ireland. The Deputy has a commitment that we will re-examine it.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

I appreciate that. That is one of the things Mr. Rowe can come back with.

Regarding the all-Ireland by-laws and Northern Ireland, I accept Stormont is not up and running, but Waterways Ireland could have gone through the same consultative process in Northern Ireland in tandem with what it is doing here, is that not correct?

Mr. Éanna Rowe

We undertook the exact same process in 2014. We looked to have them enacted. We were asked by our parent Department in the North to undertake the process all over again in 2023. Unfortunately, due to the political situation in Northern Ireland, we have not been able to get those bylaws effected, but the Deputy should rest assured we are looking not only to align the canal bylaws with the Shannon bylaws but also to align those with the Erne bylaws.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

I am going to ask the Shannon Lakes and Rivers Group to talk about fees. Arising from its contribution and in tandem with what has been undertaken with the dispute resolution mechanism, I would hope its representatives here would offer us what the group feels is an amenable fee structure. The groups has done tremendous work on this. We need to find a middle ground at the end of the day. It is running a business. Boat users are its customers and we have to listen to them and take on board what they are saying. I will switch to Mr. Finnegan. Will he outline an acceptable fee proposal for users of the River Shannon and lakes?

Mr. Liam Finnegan

First, we have a major objection to this €200. It is an afloat tax, so to speak. The committee has to get that, as it were. Waterways Ireland has lost its way from being a service provider, where it offers a service and we buy it. We have no problem with that. Let the fees be increased for the services - that is okay - but we are moving away from attaching a charge to an actual service. We are now being charged to be afloat on the river. If we are afloat for one day with our little cruiser, that means paying €200 for the day for the privilege. There is no differentiation between being on the water and enjoying it for 365 days and being so for one to three days with your family on a little boat. Instead of being the "no, no,no" brigade, so to speak, our view is we are gladly willing to pay for services. People could pay €100 per year for locks, bridge charges and all that and have unlimited navigation for that. There could be a small charge for a person who does one, two or three lock movements a year because of where they live, say on a lake. Those who use would pay and those who do not would not. Are we going to ask a person who lives by the river, who all his life has put out his lay and enjoyed a few days on the river, for €200 just to be afloat on the river and nothing else, not using a service like accessing locks, bridges or whatever but literally on the water? These people will be hit with €200 of a fee.

We are saying that instead of that, let us be real with charges during inflationary times. Remember that, since 2019, there has been a 16% decrease in boat movements on the River Shannon navigation. That is to do with hard times, with there being a bit of a dip in the economy and road diesel rather than agricultural diesel adding a lot to the expense and so on. Between 2019 and 2023, there has been a 16% decrease in actual lock movements, which is how we gauge activity on the river. We ask for this not to be killed off altogether by adding extra charges. We would be amenable to paying €100 per year to give access to everything and to it being tied to a service, and to a small fee for people who only do one or two locks. The idea of it being tied to a service is vital to us and not for there to be an afloat charge because you happen to sit on the water for a day. It being tied to a service is what we want. We think it is a reasonable proposal but it was not incorporated into these charges. We have an entity which is drifting from being a service provider to becoming a corporate entity with revenue-generating powers. That is the slide. It probably started with the previous CEO, a lady who came from the property management business, and it has continued like a landslide. It is slowly moving towards that.

An Cathaoirleach

We can have no comments on anyone who is not here to defend themselves and is no longer in position.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

I am conscious of the time, but for the benefit of Waterways Ireland, I will crystalise the three points I would like it to take away from today. I would have started as vehemently opposed to these bylaws. I see significant progress has been made, but I have three asks to bring me on board. First, I need serious consideration to be given to the proposal outlined on the €100 charge and what I would call a pay-as-you-go charge for the guy who might access four, five or six locks a year or who might do it twice a year if the weather is good. We need a mechanism like that. The second is on dispute resolution and third is on the cross-Border component of this. I need assurance and safeguards that it is not in defiance or conflict with what we achieved in the Good Friday Agreement and that we will have parity for users North and South and there will be no disincentive for a boat user in the North or in the South to go across this new financial border. Those are the three asks. If Waterways Ireland could come back to the committee with a submission with significant detail on those, I would be considerably happier. I thank the Chair for indulging me.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

I have already answered the third point. In fact, it was submissions from boaters that looked for the visitor permit.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

I would just like to see the detail because we have had -----

Mr. Éanna Rowe

The detail is in the consultation report that accompanies the brief.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

I know, but we have had it in the consultation that Waterways Ireland did in Northern Ireland. I would like to see it set out for us in a submission back to the committee.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

I can certainly send a submission. I want to make a point about services on the Shannon and maybe dispel this misunderstanding. The management and maintenance of the Shannon is not just the 52 harbours or the existing services. There are 1,700 navigation markers that chart the navigation channel on the Shannon and they need to be maintained. Whether I am a boater for a day, a week, a month or all year, I rely on those navigation markers to be able to make my way on the Shannon, through the lakes in particular. Maintenance of the vegetation and cutting vegetation, weeds, reeds and all of that has a cost. When we look at services on the Shannon, we need to include all the services, which include the maintenance and management of the Shannon as a navigation. That is why the permit is being aligned with the permit that is already in place on the canals that will give free movement of boats across the nearly 700 km of navigation in the southern jurisdiction.

An Cathaoirleach

We will go next to Senator Martin.

Senator Vincent P. Martin

I have not heard anyone say they are opposed to modernisation once it has equity and fairness front and centre. I begin by commending the houseboat community for the solidarity and camaraderie they show, especially for those who do not have a voice and with some who are less fortunate than others. The good atmosphere they are displaying today and the near-record attendance both here and in the halls outside demonstrates a deep interest. Some, however, are also displaying to me an anxiety. Is there any dispensation, waiver or reduction for those who genuinely cannot pay or is it a one-size-fits-all blanket approach? I, as a public representative, met some of the houseboat community. Some will genuinely struggle while others will not, and they would say that. They should pay and they are willing to pay once they get bang for their buck. How much of it has been online? How much of Waterways Ireland has had the human dimension to meet people face to face to get the human story?

Will the witnesses elaborate on the 47 leisure boats at Hazelhatch? Where is their future if they cannot use that location? Is that carved in stone?

I would also like to hear more about the ring-fencing. It was said this revenue will be ring-fenced, but will Waterways Ireland take on board today that people want more than a proposal that it will be ring-fenced and that it will - excuse the pun - be pumped back in? Will Waterways Ireland guarantee that it will pump it back in tangibly and in a concrete way? It is not good enough to say to people to leave it alone and that everything will be all right on the night. They want concrete reassurances. Will Waterways Ireland reconsider and revisit that and come back with more specifics?

I thank Waterways Ireland for all the times it responded promptly and in a detailed way to my representations. On the day we have got the promising news in Northern Ireland, I commend Waterways Ireland on its expressed and explicit policy to align the island of Ireland. I hope there will be greater co-operation with the North-South bodies.

With regard to eircodes, some friendly postmen and postwomen are going beyond the call of duty, and that is typical as they are part of our local community. They are so much more than just a postal service because they keep an eye on people. We should not, however, be relying on their discretion and their generosity. Can we have some concrete reassurances that eircodes will be recognised and, as of right, people can have their letters delivered so they do not have to rely on the decency of the local postman or postwoman, although it is often forthcoming?

Mr. Éanna Rowe

I will start with eircodes. Every person on a serviced site would be able to apply for an eircode and would have an eircode provided for them if they wanted it.

Senator Vincent P. Martin

Is there no interim measure that can help out in the meantime?

Mr. Éanna Rowe

No, not on serviced sites because they are not designated as household sites. It is an issue there for Eircode.

On the reinvestment, as stated within the briefing document and within the consultation report, it will be documented and there will be a clear line of sight for moneys raised from charges and permits. These will be shown through our annual reports and accounts, including where it will be reinvested. There will be a clear line of sight. The members can rest assured that this is committed to in the consultation report.

Senator Vincent P. Martin

Is Mr. Rowe giving a cast-iron guarantee that it will 100% go back?

Mr. Éanna Rowe

Yes, absolutely.

Senator Vincent P. Martin

I thank Mr. Rowe.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

On the ability to pay, I would certainly welcome proposals on how we could undertake this. We do not want to go down the route of looking for means testing and so on. We are not in the role of the Department of Social Protection, I would suggest. We believe the mechanism we have applied is fair and reasonable. We got independent research to set a level. We reduced that level and we further reduced it in phase 1 of the consultation. As I said earlier, we will take on board any and all submissions we received from the houseboat communities on what they think is fair and equitable for serviced and unserviced sites. Going down a means test-----

Senator Vincent P. Martin

There is latitude in other aspects in Ireland in areas such as the TV licence and medical cards. There is a human understanding that can kick in.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

Yes.

Senator Vincent P. Martin

What is Waterways Ireland's specific proposal for those who will struggle to pay and who are suffering anxiety?

Mr. Éanna Rowe

My question is around how people can demonstrate their inability to pay. Is the committee suggesting we would do a means test? I do not believe that is the route either party would want to go. We are people and we are human.

Senator Vincent P. Martin

Will Waterways Ireland demonstrate some latitude? Waterways Ireland is bringing in the charge, not us. Will it be a blanket charge across the board? If people come to Waterways Ireland with a genuinely sad story where they are down on their luck, will they be pushing on an open door and will Waterways Ireland take on board in a humane way their personal situation? It is not them all. Will Waterways Ireland demonstrate some latitude?

Mr. Éanna Rowe

We always take on board people's personal situations. The Senator can rest assured of that. That is number one. Number two, we will look at how people could pay over a longer period.

Senator Vincent P. Martin

I would welcome that.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

We do not, however, want to go the route of asking people to demonstrate it. I do not believe that asking people to demonstrate their inability to pay is something that we as a navigation authority should be doing. I will now hand over to my colleague.

Senator Vincent P. Martin

In its latitude, will Waterways Ireland consider personal applications on genuine merit?

Mr. Éanna Rowe

On genuine merit. We would maybe look at payment plans and so on if needs be.

Senator Vincent P. Martin

I thank Mr. Rowe.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

I will hand over to my colleague Mr. Harkin on the ten-day rule.

Mr. Patrick Harkin

Senator Martin asked about Hazelhatch. Waterways Ireland bylaws have in place at the moment a five-day rule for all the canals. Every boat should be moving 500 m every five days.

Mr. Jerry Gleeson

On a point of information-----

An Cathaoirleach

If the witness wishes to raise a point, he can come back in if he indicates to me. Mr. Harkin, please.

Mr. Patrick Harkin

Every five days the boats should move 500 m. We are going to drop that requirement. If a boat is west of Lock 16, which is Kilcock or Sallins, then the boat can be left in situ for the year tied up to the mooring. This is a significant benefit we are giving to the boaters. Between Lock 16 at Sallins up to Lock 12, and equally from Kilcock, effectively up to the M50, we are creating a suburban zone that will be a residential zone, either serviced or unserviced. In that area the boaters will be paying the fees we have discussed. We will have a programme of houseboat moorings and facilities improved. There will be a ten-day visitor recreational boat permitted in that area. Then the boater can move back out to west of Lock 16 again. We are giving significant benefits to the boaters through forgoing the five-day rule and introducing a ten-day rule. If we look at the London scenario, hundreds of boats in London are on recreational permits and are being lived on. We do not want that scenario in our waterways. It is a management tool.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Mr. Harkin. Mr. Gleeson wished to respond to Senator Martin's question. Go ahead.

Mr. Jerry Gleeson

The fact of the matter is that bylaw No. 25, which Mr. Harkin referred to, says that no person should moor a boat at the same place on the canals or within 500 m of the same place on the canals for more than five days without the appropriate permit from the commissioners. There are two permits in our present 1988 bylaws that we use currently: a yearly permit for €126 and a monthly permit for €12.60. A boat on the canals and Barrow is required to display either one of those permits to bring it into compliance with the five-day rule. To be allowed to moor in one spot for more than five days, a person needs a yearly permit or a monthly permit. Mr. Harkin's approach to this is they are doing us a favour by not asking us to move. We do not have to move. We are in compliance with the bylaws.

Twelve years ago Waterways Ireland stopped selling the monthly mooring permit. The next thing is we started to get letters from Waterways Ireland telling us there is a new permit called an extended mooring permit, which is not written into the schedule of tolls and charges. Boat owners are now obliged to purchase a yearly mooring permit and an extended mooring permit. Thereby, without any change to the tolls and charges and without any change to the bylaws, the price of mooring a boat on the canals went from €126 to €254. There was no ministerial sign-off and there was no the debate in committees. They just did this. Mr. Harkin has brought this up now. There is also a €300 service charge in Grand Canal Dock that is not in the schedule of tolls and charges. Bylaw No. 40 says boat owners are obliged to pay tolls and charges as laid out in the schedule. These charges are not in the schedule and for years they have been charging people this. Only about one fifth of the boats on the canals and Barrow have bought this extended mooring permit. Those who have not, like ourselves and most of the informed people here who have not bought it, never got any reaction and we were never told to move. We are not receiving a favour from Waterways Ireland.

We are perfectly in compliance with the by-laws. The inspector of navigation does not seem to understand the by-laws. There is another huge issue with regard to this. Waterways Ireland, in its report on the consultation, made a statement. Waterways Ireland does not believe that the proposed charges will lead to homelessness. A houseboat berth at the current location will be offered to those boaters who are currently regulated by means of an extended mooring permit. This is the one that is not in the schedule of tolls and charges. Waterways Ireland has accepted that we are in dwellings. It is now talking about issuing permits to boats that are regulated by this dodgy permit, which is only held by one fifth of the boats on the canals and less than one third of liveaboards. It is going to start issuing permits to boats that hold this. It is going to issue houseboat permits to liveaboards that currently hold this, and leave two thirds of the dwellings without a permit. That is instantly making people officially homeless by not giving them a permit. This is something that I wish could be investigated. I do not know how the process goes. I have written to Ministers and to Waterways Ireland, only to get the same nonsense answer, which is no answer at all. I do not know whether this is the place but really this has to stop.

An Cathaoirleach

There is a lot there. I have tried to take it on-----

Mr. Jerry Gleeson

Okay. It is laid out in the briefing document for any of the Ministers. I hope I have laid it out clearly in points 1 and 2 of the briefing document.

An Cathaoirleach

A couple of issues have been raised. I ask Mr. Gleeson to forgive me because I am not as familiar with the by-laws as he is.

Mr. Jerry Gleeson

Of course.

An Cathaoirleach

I might take the opportunity to put some questions to Waterways Ireland on by-law 25. I ask Mr. Harkin to explain to us what that is. The view is that the extended mooring permit, EMP, has increased the €126 fee for an unserviced site to €254. It is alleged that there is a €300 service charge in Grand Canal Dock, which is not set out in the schedule of charges, and that an EMP is not set out in the schedule of charges. I hope I have posed those questions in an understandable format. Can Waterways Ireland shine some light on this matter for us? I do not understand it. It would be very helpful for the committee to hear an explanation.

Mr. Patrick Harkin

Waterways Ireland is proposing to have very simple by-laws. At the introduction of these by-laws, there will be two types of permits on the canals. There will be a cruising permit costing €200 and there will be a houseboat permit that will be charged based on the location and services. We have already discussed Grand Canal Dock, and suburban and rural houseboats. There will be five categories within the houseboat. That is permit type 1. Permit type 2 will apply to the recreational boater, the canal cruiser, for €200. There will be no other fees. At the moment we have a fee and a permit that dates from 1988 of €126. It is in fact £100 in the by-laws. We will be scrapping that. We will be scrapping the EMP, which allows boats to not have to move every five days. That will be scrapped. All variations on the EMP, such as residential or non-residential, will be scrapped. It will be nice and clean for residential boats and houseboats. We are here today to bring in clean by-laws that are fit for purpose and reflect the modern uses of our canals, particularly around the use of houseboats, and protect houseboat communities.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Mr. Harkin. I have a better understanding of it now. Does Mr. Gleeson wish to address the committee on any more questions that arise from that?

Mr. Jerry Gleeson

I laid it out clearly in notes 1 and 2 of the briefing document we supplied to the committee. The first two notes relate to this particular issue. Mr. Harkin's answer is about the permits that are going to come in. Will the Cathaoirleach ask him whether there is an EMP in the schedule of tolls and charges in the current by-laws from 1988? Is that in there?

An Cathaoirleach

I do not know the answer to that. I wish to continue asking questions in regard to charges. One of the other members said the committee members will make additional submissions on this. The consultation period goes until 26 February. We will need to have a submission in, as individual members, by 26 February, presumably, like anybody else. Members are willing to do that. As I see it, this is about trying to clear up many legacy issues that developed in the past and make it simpler and easier for people to understand. We will take on board the increase in charges. It is very worrying and of great concern to people. I want to be clear in my own mind. In regard to the residential, an unserviced mooring site would cost €1,000, which is about €20 a week. That is what you would be paying for an unserviced site. What does that €20 entitle you to?

Mr. Patrick Harkin

The Cathaoirleach refers to the suburban zone non-serviced mooring permit. That allows the boat to be moored in Castleknock, Hazelhatch, Confey and Sallins on the canal bank but not on the serviced jetties. At the moment, the only serviced jetties in those locations are in Sallins. They will not have to move and they can stay there 365 days a year. They can move to a location for pump-out, water, etc., but they will not be required to move 500 m or every five days or anything like that. They will be given a mooring spot.

An Cathaoirleach

The only reasons you would have to move would be to pump out, to take on fresh water or to meet other service requirements you may have. When you go to a pump-out station, and Mr. Harkin said he wants to install more of them on the network, do you pay per litre of what you take on, or per litre of discharge? What do you pay for a once-off service or how does that work?

Mr. Patrick Harkin

If you are on an unserviced jetty and you move into Sallins, you go to the pump-out facility there. You put in the smart card, which is a little credit card, and pump out your boat. There is water there on tap, free of charge. We have a recycling centre there. You would pay for that. The charges are minimal for a boat that would be on an unserviced jetty.

An Cathaoirleach

With regard to the card, do you have to top up? Do you need to have an account? Is there a registered account?

Mr. Patrick Harkin

I have one here. It is like a little credit card. You buy them from Waterways Ireland. It is two units for pumping out, or whatever. It would probably cost you €1.20 to pump out your boat.

An Cathaoirleach

That is €1.20 per pump out.

Mr. Patrick Harkin

Yes.

An Cathaoirleach

How many pump-outs per year would a boat require?

Mr. Patrick Harkin

That depends on-----

An Cathaoirleach

Say, if there are two occupants-----

Mr. Éanna Rowe

Four, maybe. It depends on the size of the holding tank.

An Cathaoirleach

Okay. I just wanted to clear-----

Mr. Patrick Harkin

There are a lot of variables.

An Cathaoirleach

Are there no water charges for taking on fresh water? No. The serviced user pays double that. They pay about €40 per week.

Mr. Patrick Harkin

That is correct.

An Cathaoirleach

As a serviced user, do you have a permanent electrical connection?

Mr. Patrick Harkin

That is correct.

An Cathaoirleach

Is there a permanent water connection?

Mr. Patrick Harkin

I will explain the water connection. In Sallins, which is the perfect example, there is a water tap on the jetty. You basically run your hose and fill your boat. The pump-out station is a couple of hundred metres away, so you have to move your boat down there. You have a hard-standing jetty, which is a fixed jetty with good, safe access and egress to your boat.

An Cathaoirleach

The Grand Canal Dock berth works out at about €75 per week.

Mr. Patrick Harkin

Correct.

An Cathaoirleach

That is a city-centre berth, with those facilities available.

Mr. Patrick Harkin

Yes. In regard to the facilities in Grand Canal Dock, first of all there is security. There is a keypad entrance fence with a gate. It is a very high-quality, modern, floating jetty system. On that jetty there is electricity available for each boat. There is refuse removal.

There is water and a pump-out facility on the jetties, so some of the boats have to move around the jetty to pump out water. Those boats in Dublin pay a fee of €300 for services for the entire year.

An Cathaoirleach

That question was raised earlier. The €300 fee will no longer be in place if we bring in this new berthing fee. Is that correct?

Mr. Patrick Harkin

Exactly. The fee will be included.

An Cathaoirleach

To be clear, to access the canal from Limerick, Dublin or wherever else, there is a €200 charge per year.

Mr. Patrick Harkin

No, I will clarify that. If you are coming through, say, Limerick into the Shannon navigation for up to 60 days, it is €40. If you are coming in to stay permanently on the Shannon, you will sign onto the Shannon register, which costs €200, as is also the case if you are coming through St. Mullins and Carlow, or Dublin. Likewise, if you are coming from the Erne and are moving to live permanently in the south, you will pay €200, which will be an annual fee to be allowed permanently on the waterways in this jurisdiction.

An Cathaoirleach

It will be €200 for a year, therefore, or €40 for two-month access.

Mr. Patrick Harkin

Yes.

An Cathaoirleach

That clears that up. I think the IRBOA is suggesting that a fairer charge for year would be €100 rather than €200.

Mr. Liam Finnegan

I might make a point about that. The €100 would be attached to services we require. We require services such as locks and bridges, so we would pay €100 and we would have a smart card or whatever system is put in. For someone based, say, in the middle of a lake who might never want access or might want it once a year, there could be shorter access, perhaps with a smart card for payment for up to five lock movements, instead of there being a charge for nothing but being afloat. We want to pay for services; we have absolutely no problem with that.

When Waterways Ireland talks about this €200 and the hundreds of kilometres that would go towards maintaining, which I agree on, does it have an issue with funding from the Government and Northern Ireland that is leading the organisation to look for that money? Have there been cutbacks to funding from the Government and the Northern authority that leave it short such that it needs to look for additional funding? That was the idea I got from its statement.

An Cathaoirleach

We will be dealing with the Estimates for the Department very shortly and we can put that question directly to the officials.

Mr. Liam Finnegan

I would like to ask that question of Mr. Rowe. He referred to the cost of all this maintenance, which I agree with him about, but is it that there have been cutbacks? Has funding for Waterways Ireland, in his view, been cut, leading it to go after this money?

An Cathaoirleach

We will put that question to the Department when we are dealing with the Estimates in two or three weeks.

Mr. Liam Finnegan

I was just wondering whether Mr. Rowe believes that.

An Cathaoirleach

I do not really want witnesses to question witnesses. We do not really go for that. Questions come from members and the witnesses try to assist us in the work we do.

Mr. Liam Finnegan

All right. I thank the Cathaoirleach.

An Cathaoirleach

I have one more question on access to services. At the moment, people can be almost off grid on the waterways. They can have solar panels and batteries and they do not need to be plugged into the mains power. If there is a requirement to plug into mains power, will those plugs need to be tested and certified for electrical installation?

Mr. Patrick Harkin

At the moment, the answer is "No", but that is not good practice internationally because boats could be connecting up to a high-voltage system with substandard electrical components. Indeed, there have been a lot of fires on boats and, unfortunately, there was a fatality on a boat on the Shannon in 2023. We propose that in these by-laws there would be a requirement for a certified electrical system, certainly on liveaboards in particular, given those boats are used every day and it is good practice to have certified equipment onboard a boat. Indeed, we are providing in these by-laws that fire extinguishers need to be on board, along with smoke and carbon monoxide alarms. I do not think anyone is arguing against the safety measures we are bringing in with these by-laws.

Senator Mary Fitzpatrick

I thank the witnesses for attending and for all the work they do to preserve what is an incredible heritage feature for us, natural and built combined, namely, the canals. They are incredibly special. I was struck by the €600 million figure. We cannot put a price on the value of the canals and our wider waterways. Waterways Ireland is the custodian of them, as is, equally, everybody who uses them. It has a statutory role, but the people who live on and use our canals have an interest too. I am a frequent user of the canals in Dublin city. I just love them. We all need to work together to preserve and protect them and to ensure our canals and other waterways are sustained. Whatever else we might disagree on, I believe we all agree on that.

I apologise that I had to leave the meeting earlier, so I may have missed the answer to my first question. Is there is going to be a phasing-in of the changes? There were a couple of specific examples. The representatives from the Royal Canal Amenity Group mentioned the changes relating to marine isolation transformers, which I am not familiar with but which, I understand, will be critical for toilet systems. There was reference even to what sounds like an NCT for barges. Is there going to be a phasing-in period for these changes? I assume there will be. If so, do we know what that timeframe will look like? How will it be determined?

Mr. Patrick Harkin

We are very practical. We have worked on boats all our lives. I come from the Naval Service, so I know all about the time it takes to get boats adapted to meet new requirements and so on. We are not going to just drop a guillotine the day these by-laws are signed or have a rigid introduction. There will certainly be a phasing-in period. The Royal Canal Amenity Group suggested, for example, that this would apply to electrical systems, which are very important from our perspective because they present a fire risk. We would say that boats, especially those that are lived on, should have a certified electrical system, but we are not just going to drop a guillotine on day one and say boats need to have it immediately. We are going to allow for a phasing-in. Similarly, holding tanks, for example, are being proposed for boats, but we have to be cognisant that there are older boats and it is going to take time to introduce them.

To answer the question, yes, there will be a phasing-in period and we would invite submissions on how much time there should be to allow for the introduction of those safety measures. Equally in the short term, some safety measures we are proposing, such as the fitting of fire extinguishers and smoke alarms, can be introduced very quickly. For the bigger, structural boat changes, we are cognisant of the challenge and we are being practical and reasonable.

Senator Mary Fitzpatrick

My next question relates to the Royal Canal Amenity Group and, again, I apologise if this has been answered. Three organisations have been named but the Royal Canal Amenity Group is not one of them. I would say that if it were not for the Royal Canal Amenity Group, we probably would not have much of the Royal Canal left. What criteria were used? Is it a final list or is it likely to be amended?

Mr. Patrick Harkin

We had submissions from three organisations in respect of the operating of events, the selling of produce and so on. The list is not fixed. We will take on board the point about the Royal Canal. I can safely say we will expand the list because we want to encourage the holding of events on our waterways. It was intended for large, commercial organisations and operations, not for the selling of produce at a garden festival on the canals.

Senator Mary Fitzpatrick

My next question relates to people who live permanently on a barge.

Who is responsible for the domestic waste collections? We do not have permanent residential barges on the stretch of the Royal Canal where I live, around Cabra and Drumcondra, so I do not have an issue there. What has repeatedly arisen as an issue in terms of the maintenance of the canal, is the cleaning of the towpath, particularly after match days. I appreciate that that is not domestic waste and is not from people who are living on barges but this no-man's land between city council jurisdiction and Waterways Ireland for the canal towpath is a persistent issue that I hope will be fixed with the upgrading of the greenway. It also then prompted the question in my mind as to what actually happens for people who are living on the canal on a permanent basis? Can Mr. Rowe please explain that?

Mr. Éanna Rowe

Yes. I thank the Senator for the questions. In relation to domestic waste, domestic waste facilities are provided at service sites at Grand Canal Dock in Dublin, Sallins and Shannon Harbour. As the Senator knows, we have a really good working relationship with Dublin City Council. We have good partnership arrangements regarding waste management along the towpath. Yes, there are certain pinch points and we all are aware of them but we had a really good workmanlike meeting as part of phase 1 of the public consultation with the elected members in Dublin City Council, and we discussed this very issue and how we could broaden and deepen, because when we look at the canal corridors in Dublin, they are idyllic rural corridors running through the heart of urban locations. They are the lungs of a lot of Dublin as well, and they are used for broader recreation.

We are delighted to get involved with the likes of Dublin City Council and other councils right across the country in the development of the greenways. There is big ambition around more cycling infrastructure, particularly in respect of commuting, so it is a very exciting time for our canals and their development and use by the citizens of and visitors to Dublin. Yes, there are issues, particularly around refuse and maintenance, but we have a good relationship with DCC and are working hand in glove with it on the maintenance of those assets.

Senator Mary Fitzpatrick

I thank Mr. Rowe. When he spoke about the greenways there as a commuting route, I would caution that many years ago, there was a cretinous idea of filling in the canal and making it a roadway. I hope that the NTA does not get any delusions or ambitions to create it as a thoroughfare and over-engineer the towpaths. While they offer a great route into the city for cyclists, they also offer a real respite for pedestrians and families and people of all ages to get off city streets and busy trafficked areas and be in a calmer and more natural setting. Waterways Ireland has an obligation to protect not just the waterway but also the overall environment and I strongly encourage the organisation to do that. I support the greenways but I do think we need to have it tempered. It cannot just be exploited for commuting purposes as that would be a failure.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

That is at the centre of our thinking for the development of the towpaths. They are shared spaces for walkers, cyclists, families, anglers and boaters. They are a different kettle of fish to a cycle route that is used as a commuter route to get people from A to B. That is not what out towpaths are designed for. In many instances, they are less than the required specification of 3 m wide that is required for a greenway in any event. We also are very conscious of the unique biodiversity and habitat along our towpaths and that is at the centre of our climate action programme and of how we approach the development of the towpaths with our partners in the local authorities and the NTA. The Senator mentioned the threat to the Royal Canal in particular. My colleagues here would not be here - they were the colleagues who saved the Royal Canal from becoming a motorway into the city and in many ways, we grew from the RCAG and the IWAI into an organisation where the State stepped in and said, we need to protect these heritage assets and restore navigation to the Royal Canal. It is funny how it has come full circle.

Senator Mary Fitzpatrick

Absolutely.

Senator Victor Boyhan

As I posed some questions to Mr. Gleeson earlier, I would like to focus my attention in this round on Mr. Rowe and his earlier submission, where he talked about engaging with some of the local authorities through phase 2 of the consultation process. He will recall that the last time he was here, I spoke to him about the importance and the significance of engaging with our local authorities. I pointed out that there were a number of local authorities that were not referenced at all in any of his presentations the last time. I am conscious of Leitrim and am thinking of a number of local authorities. In his presentation, Mr. Rowe singled out Offaly and Tipperary for mention.

As Senator Fitzpatrick noted, these are public spaces and public realms. They are high amenity with biodiversity and all the things mentioned It is about having the place as open as possible to as many people as possible. That is really important. I live beside a harbour, which is not a canal, but living in Dún Laoghaire I know the benefits of those waterways, public ways, boats and community. I will go back to that point that it is also a living community. In fairness Mr. Rowe acknowledged the significance of the advocates who really kept the thing going. Like him, I have been around a long time and there is going to be resistance to this. We must be realistic and be adults here. Let us see if we can come to the line of negotiation that meets Waterway Ireland's ambition and objectives, because I am sure many of the ambitions Waterways Ireland has are also the ambitions of the people here today.

I am not going back into the rates because we have talked that out, but it is crazy. It is not going to happen. There will be resistance politically to it and there will be resistance from a number of quarters to it. As Mr. Rowe is a pragmatist too, he is going to face up to that. He might take the committee through his consultation, because this is important for our understanding of what is happening. How many local authorities has Waterways Ireland had direct engagement with? More importantly, is there a summary document of their concerns in order that we can understand them? It is horses for courses, there are unique differences, demands and pressure points in different parts of the country. In relation to Waterways Ireland's water network, how many of the local authorities did it actively engage with?

Mr. Éanna Rowe

Again I thank the Senator for the questions. There are 17 local authorities, from Carlow right up to Cavan and from Limerick right up again to Leitrim and we have directly engaged with all 17. We have written to them all and have offered the local authorities the opportunity to have representatives from Waterways Ireland in with their elected members to discuss the by-laws and the other issues. We also have a really good structured approach to engagement at official level with the local authorities. We meet the local authorities, that is, the chief executives and their senior teams once a year at the beginning of every year to discuss areas of mutual concern, mutual development, etc. During phase 1, we had direct consultation, that is, a presentation and discussion with four local authorities and in this phase, we already have had two. We also have some more where the councils have invited us in to present to them. We have to be invited in to present to local authority members and when it comes to the feedback, all the meetings with the local authorities have been open to the public and are recorded and in the main, we have received really positive feedback from the local authorities. Our colleagues in Offaly had put a motion down asking the Minister to take various steps in respect of the by-laws.

When Waterways Ireland engaged with them on a one-to-one level recently, they welcomed our deepened, broadened engagement and the provisions within the by-laws. The Senator is correct; it is important that Waterways Ireland discusses these matters with the local authority members and officials. Not only has Waterways Ireland discussed these matters with the local authorities, but it has reached out to the chambers of commerce, to recreational leisure organisations and to other representatives of boaters.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I wish to keep the focus on these local authorities. There are 17 local authorities in question but Mr. Rowe has not explained to this committee, to any great extent, what that level of engagement was. Did Waterways Ireland engage actively with all 17? I get a sense it did not. Mr. Rowe mentioned counties Offaly and Tipperary and approximately four local authorities but perhaps he can touch on the local authorities again. Were the local authorities simply not interested? Is that what Waterways Ireland took from this? Were they interested? What are the key issues of concern these local authorities have? I am particularly interested in the views of the elected members, as they are elected and on the ground. That is subsidiarity; they are working with communities. I started by saying that these are living communities; people are living on these boats, be that in a full-time or part-time capacity. We have talked about communities at different sizes and levels, the equality of communities and the opportunities for them, as well as acknowledging differences and choices within communities. That all must be part of the narrative when this issue is discussed at this committee. Can I tease out-----

Mr. Éanna Rowe

Yes.

Senator Victor Boyhan

Did Waterways Ireland do a summary document on the feedback from those local authorities?

Mr. Éanna Rowe

Waterways Ireland did a summary document on the complete feedback from the public consultation and as part of that-----

Senator Victor Boyhan

I am asking about the local authorities in particular. Tell the committee a bit about that.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

As for the local authorities, under phase 1, Waterways Ireland ran a webinar for every elected member.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I am aware of that.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

We wrote on three separate occasions to every elected member-----

Senator Victor Boyhan

Yes.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

-----offering detail on the by-law changes, the consultation process and offering the opportunity for local authorities to meet Waterways Ireland. We also wrote to the chief executives of the local authorities and to the secretaries of the municipal districts offering the opportunity for Waterways Ireland to come in, present and be questioned on the by-laws.

Senator Victor Boyhan

What is the feedback? What did Waterways Ireland take from that?

Mr. Éanna Rowe

The feedback was positive.

Senator Victor Boyhan

It was positive. There were no concerns.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

The main concern was that the local authorities wanted Waterways Ireland to develop more along the navigations, to bring more to their local areas and to their counties.

Senator Victor Boyhan

In terms of tourism and amenities.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

Yes, in terms of tourism and amenities. That was the major concern.

Senator Victor Boyhan

Generally, the feedback was positive.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

It was really positive, yes.

Senator Victor Boyhan

Okay. I thank Mr. Rowe.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

I thank the Senator.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank the Senator.

As no other members have indicated, I thank the witnesses for their engagement at the committee today.

Mr. Finnegan and Mr. Whelan both wish to come in.

Mr. Liam Finnegan

I seek a point of information on the process going forward. I understand what the process is until 26 February. Where does this committee go after that? I presume there will be another draft presented to this committee after 26 February. Will we be back before the committee again? Will the draft be looked at again? If members do not mind, I wish to know the process please.

Mr. Derek Whelan

I wish to make one final point on the canals. On the Shannon, there are well-developed facilities but on the canals at present, there is a serious infrastructure deficit. I understand this issue has been referred to in some way but a lot of the concentration has been on prices, on what people are getting and on value for money. Leaving all that aside, there is a serious infrastructure deficit which Waterways Ireland must tackle.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank the witnesses.

Deputy Pat Buckley

I will be brief.

I wish to ask Mr. Rowe about the unauthorised development on Waterways Ireland land that he mentioned earlier. He stated that it is an issue for planning and for the council. However, if the land, which was taken illegally as it is illegal to take land without planning permission, is land belonging to Waterway Ireland, then it is Waterways Ireland's issue, not the council's issue.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

The point I was making is that planning and development are matters for the local authorities under the Planning Acts. Encroachments or alleged encroachments on Waterways Ireland property, are a matter for Waterways Ireland. I hope that clarifies this for the Deputy.

Deputy Pat Buckley

Perfect.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

I thank the Deputy.

Deputy Pat Buckley

I thank the Chair.

Senator Victor Boyhan

To clarify, am I correct that Mr. Rowe indicated the public consultation at the Hudson Bay Hotel, Athlone, will be on 5 February?

Mr. Éanna Rowe

It will be on 6 February.

Senator Victor Boyhan

It will be on 6 February. The public consultation at Mullingar Park Hotel will be on 7 February.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

It will be on 7 February.

Senator Victor Boyhan

They both will be held at 6 p.m.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

Yes.

Senator Victor Boyhan

There will be two public consultations and therefore, two further opportunities for members listening here today to come, meet and engage with Mr. Rowe and Waterways Ireland robustly, I hope.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

Not too robustly.

An Cathaoirleach

Mr. Whelan made the point about the infrastructure deficit. Deputy Buckley has got clarification on his point.

Mr. Finnegan asked a question on the process going forward. The public consultation will complete on 26 February. I presume Waterways Ireland will then consider all the submissions and engagement it has had with local authorities and other members and then will produce a set of draft by-laws for the Minister. The Minister will then consider them. This committee will write to the Minister to ask what the process and timeline are, as well as to find out where responsibilities lie. I do not believe the committee has a role in the consideration of by-laws for Waterways Ireland. It does on planning by-laws but not for Waterways Ireland. That is my understanding but the committee will get clarification for Mr. Finnegan and will write to him on this matter.

Mr. Liam Finnegan

I thank the Chair.

An Cathaoirleach

Deputy Lawless is just in time.

Deputy James Lawless

I thank the Chair. I apologise as I had other commitments this afternoon. I do have an interest in this topic but I was not able to attend the start of this committee. I will not rehash and use arguments that have been made already.

I have a couple of brief points. I did hear a spokesperson for Waterways Ireland on my local radio station, Kfm, and a good case was made. There are a lot of boaters in the Gallery, and I deal with lots of boaters in Sallins, Lowtown, Robertstown, Hazelhatch and across Kildare.

A lot of effort is being put into the development of greenways, and rightly so. It is really exciting; the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan came down a few weeks ago to open the new greenway in Sallins. It is something I am excited about; it will go to Offaly and beyond and we are developing greenways across the country. However, greenways work because of the brownways in the middle. Without the boats and the canals, greenways are just walks in fields. It is the water beside them that makes greenways attractive and interesting. It is the towpath to a wider transport channel. I wish to encourage the development of brownways as a navigational passageway of boats up and down rivers and I believe it is a good thing if more people are encouraged to live on them. I deal with many houseboaters across Kildare and Sallins in particular. For tourism, ecological and environmental reasons and as part of a wider accommodation mix in a housing crisis, it is a form of accommodation that Ireland should be seeking to support rather than discouraging or making more difficult for people. It is an avenue that should be encouraged. For all the focus on the greenways, it is the brownways that make them what they are and I fully support the boaters and the boating community. As I said, I have been on many of the boats in question and I know many of the people and I wish to ensure their voices are heard. I apologise once more for missing the bulk of the debate but I sought to come in and make this point before the end.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. Éanna Rowe

Waterways Ireland is fully in agreement with the Deputy. It is looking to provide proper supports for houseboat communities. It is fully in agreement with that. Waterways Ireland wishes to see our canals in particular become living, breathing waterways that cater for everybody.

As for the Grand Canal greenway and the Barrow blueway that the Deputy mentioned in his own county, Waterways Ireland will start, after the construction phase is completed with its colleagues in the local authorities, an animation and interpretation of the greenway and blueways. As the Deputy rightly pointed out, they are not linear corridors. There are things to do and see along and adjacent to them and that is really important. Also, softer product requirements such as bicycle stands, picnic areas, seating, interpretation and points of interests will be developed along the greenways. Waterways Ireland is proud of the 600 km of greenway and blueway that it has developed. In the development of the Royal Canal greenway, which is still just about the longest greenway in Ireland at 120 km, it has proven to be an absolute gem by way of recreational opportunities and economic return to the communities that live along it.

People question why Waterways Ireland develops greenways when it is a navigation authority. The reason is that it is our ambition, when people walk or cycle along the waterway, that they might then decide to kayak along the waterway too. When they kayak, they may decide to hire a boat, and when they hire a boat, they may then decide they would like to buy a boat. It is in our interest to get as many people as possible interested in not only the navigations themselves, but the ancillary services Waterways Ireland can provide.

Deputy James Lawless

Very good. I thank Mr. Rowe.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Deputy Lawless.

That concludes the session. I thank witnesses for their contributions; the committee has found them helpful. Obviously, any submissions must be made before 26 February and I am sure Waterways Ireland welcomes those submissions. I hope people who have joined the committee today, such as the residents and boat owners in the Public Gallery, as well as people watching online, got some benefit from today's meeting. I ask them to contact any member of this committee if there is something that was not asked or something that occurs to them after they have left the room. This committee will happily assist and engage throughout this process as best as it can.

I will come back to Mr. Finnegan with an outline of what the process and the likely timeline are and around who decides what and when. I acknowledge it is a big concern and I know Waterways Ireland wishes to put regularisation and provisional services in place for the benefit of everybody.

The joint committee adjourned at 5.41 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 20 February 2024.