I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
State Authorities (Development and Management) Bill, 1993: Second Stage
On a point of order, a Cheann Comhairle, I wish to draw your attention to the time. It is now 11.50 a.m.
That is out of my control. This House controls the time.
I wish to share my time with Deputy O'Donoghue.
I am making a point of order.
The Chair cannot allow it.
I have a point or order.
It is not the Government's fault.
I am entitled to raise a point of order.
What the Deputy has raised is not a point of order. Resume your seat, Deputy.
I have a point of order and the Chair did not hear it.
I did hear it. You have drawn the Chair's attention to the time factor. We all know what happened with time here this morning.
I should like to share my time with Deputy O'Donoghue. I will try not to take up the half hour I am due.
(Interruptions.)
I did not make my point or order.
I sense a lot of defiance in the Deputy.
He is entitled to make a point of order.
If the Government side, Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats take the full 30 minutes——
I do not have any control over the time factor involved in this issue.
I raised this issue but I got no reply.
The purpose of the State Authorities (Development and Management) Bill, 1993 is to restore to the Commissioners of Public Works the power to carry out building functions and ancillary activities subject to the sanction of the Minister for Finance and also to ensure that other State authorities have these powers.
As I am sure Members are aware at this stage, Mr. Justice Costello ruled in the High Court last Friday that the Commissioners for Public Works, apart from specific statutory powers, did not have general legislative authority to build, maintain or manage public buildings nor provide public amenities or supply services to the public. He also held that State authorities were not exempt from the application of section 24 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963. The High Court action did not deal in a detailed way with the environmental issues but focused on narrow legal arguments which affected all State projects. Although the environmental issue was addressed it was dismissed by Mr. Justice Costello.
On the second issue, the Government has decided to appeal this matter to the Supreme Court as there are now two conflicting High Court judgments on the matter. Until we have a Supreme Court decision which clarifies the position the proposals contained in the Programme for a Partnership Government regarding the introduction of further planning controls for State authorities cannot be further progressed.
I reiterate, therefore, that this Bill deals solely with the question of the powers to build and manage State property and provide services and not with planning issues. Some statements made since the announcement of this legislation represent a total misconception of the High Court judgement and the Bill. The distinction between the two elements of the judgement is evidenced by the different means being adopted to deal with the High Court decision, that is legislation and appeal. I can understand Deputies across the floor confusing the issue but I cannot understand outside bodies who should know better making statements that are obviously inaccurate and misleading.
The legislation must be dealt with speedily in view of the implications of the High Court judgement. As a result of Mr. Justice Costello's decision the Attorney General has advised that all works in hand by the Commissioners not covered by specific statute should immediately cease. Contractors have been advised of the position.
There are approximately 50 major projects involved in all and, in many cases, protective notice to the workforce will follow unless the law is amended.
I would like to stress at this stage that the High Court decision on the powers of the Commissioners came as a complete surprise to the State's legal advisers and the Commissioners. The fact is that the Office of Public Works has been building, maintaining and managing many public building since the middle of the last century with the approval of Parliament and on the instructions of different Governments and Ministers for Finance. Such work includes the erection of Garda stations, Government offices and the restoration of heritage properties such as Dublin Castle and the Custom House.
While the Attorney General has advised that there are good grounds for appealing the ruling in relation to the powers of the Commissioners, the implications of waiting for the Supreme Court decision in this specific area, particularly in relation to job losses, make it more prudent to change the law.
This Bill, apart from providing the general powers to build, maintain and manage properties also validate building projects predating this legislation.
Section 1 provides for the usual definitions. Section 2 (1) provides State authorities with the powers to carry out or procure development, maintenance and to supply goods and services. Section 2 (2) allows State authorities to carry out all actions necessary for the carrying out of the powers set out in section 2 (1). Section 2 (3) provides for the consent of the Minister for Finance to the exercise of powers under section 2 (1) and (2). This ensures accountability to the Dáil for all powers exercised under this Bill.
Section 2 (4) provides that the new powers are not in substitution for the existing powers of State authorities. Section 2 (5) defines development. Section 3 requires the sanction of the Minister for Finance for expenses arising from the implementation of the Bill. Section 4 gives short title and collective citation.
Some people have queried why work continued on the Burren project pending the full High Court hearing. Indeed, there have been allegations that officials in the Office of Public Works deliberately pushed forward the project despite the High Court action. It is important, therefore, that I set the record straight in this regard. The High Court action in the Burren commenced when the first contract was in progress. The Commissioners were ready to place the second contract and so informed the court but refrained from proceeding pending the judge's ruling on whether works should go ahead. Mr. Justice O'Hanlon in that case ruled decisively that works should not be stopped.
He criticised the applicants for the delay in taking the action and he praised the irreproachable handling of the project by the Office of Public Works. Given the intensity of criticism of Office of Public Works officials recently perhaps I should like to quote from Mr. Justice O'Hanlon's judgement in this regard:
Having regard to the course of events as related in the affidavit ... and the documentation which has been placed before the court, it appears to me that the Commissioners have been meticulous in the manner in which they have carried forward the project to date, in giving information to the local authority and to the public at large as to the nature of the planned development; in inviting comments and giving consideration to representations made; in commissioning the environmental impact report, and generally in going well beyond what they conceived as their duties and obligations at law in these respects.
Conversely, I am of the opinion that the Applicants must be criticised for delaying until matters were so far advanced and so many commitments had been entered into, before taking steps to assert whatever rights they believe they had at law to restrain the Respondents from proceeding further with the project. Because I believe that the balance of convenience lies in favour of allowing the work to proceed rather than in favour of halting it pending the hearing of the action, and because I believe the Respondents have conducted their affairs in an irreproachable manner to date and that the Applicants have delayed unduly in seeking the relief now claimed, I have to refuse the present application for an interlocutory injunction.
The Office of Public Works's legal advice at that stage was that they had the power to build and the High Court had already ruled in the Luggala case that they had followed the correct planning procedure. There was, therefore, no reason not to proceed with the Burren project. The Commissioners were also working to strict deadlines to draw down EC funds. These required that the project be finished by December 1993. In these circumstances they sought and received ministerial approval to proceed.
There have also been allegations that the contractor proceeded with undue haste at the Burren. Again, the facts need to be set out. Tenders for that project were very competitive. The contractor submitted that if he was to avoid losses he would have to complete the project within a strict time frame. Any overtime worked is a matter for the contractor.
As Members are aware, the Government had decided to suspend work on the Boyne, Wicklow and Burren projects pending the Supreme Court appeal in relation to the planning issue.
It would be useful for me to outline the background to the Parks Service which is the area where the need for this Bill has come about.
One of the more challenging tasks facing the Office of Public Works is the provision of public access to our parks, gardens and monuments while at the same time protecting these national assets for future generations. This is done in a number of ways; by the recruitment of rangers and guides to provide tours, walks and talks for visitors; the construction of information boards, panels, nature and historical trails and the provision of visitor centres containing displays, exhibits and audio-visual programmes.
On-site visitor centres are essential elements in the management of public access to the heritage landscape. This is recognised worldwide. The provision of visitor centres at Ireland's major heritage sites is all the more important given Government policy which aims to significantly increase the number of visitors to this country.
On a point of information, I draw to the attention of the House the fact that there is not one of the 33 Labour Members present to hear this fundamental and important debate. That should be noted.
Would the Chair send for them, please?
They will appear on television but not in the House.
The value of visitor centres in national parks is that such centres, while managing public access, also provide the opportunity to develop an interpretative programme to encourage public appreciation of the park and all it contains and thus secure its preservation and the protection of the environment generally. While it is important to state that interpretation is not the sole function of a visitor centre it does form an important part of the use of the centre. The role of interpretation in fostering an appreciation of the nation's heritage is crucial. Although provocative and inspirational, interpretation is not merely entertainment. It helps parks and other protected areas to contribute to peoples' understanding of nature and culture. Interpretation is an integral component of the Office of Public Works's management policies for national parks, monuments and nature reserves.
Nobody is arguing with that.
The provision of national parks by the Office of Public Works is in keeping with international practice. In the US, visitor centres are a feature of national parks. They are often situated in or at the periphery of a park.
In Germany the premier national park is served by an on-site visitor centre where great emphasis is placed on exhibits and displays conveying an appreciation of the natural processes in the park as well as broader conservation issues. At present, the visitor centre at Holland's first national park is being extended. This centre is five kilometres from the nearest village.
In Ireland the Office of Public Works manages 33 centres which attracted more than 1.5 million visitors in 1992. Some visitor facilities are provided within existing buildings. Other centres are purpose-built such as the award winning buildings at Glenveagh in County Donegal and Glendalough in County Wicklow. The Office of Public Works, as a matter of policy, also publishes management plans for the properties it cares for. The Killarney National Park management plan I have already mentioned identifies the need for seven locations in the park where visitor buildings, facilities and services should be provided.
In 1988 the Federation of Nature and National Parks of Europe, which represents countries from both west and east Europe, adopted a resolution on visitor centres at its 17th general assembly. The following extract from the assembly emphasises the importance of visitor centres:
The present critical situation of natural environment requires a new attitude to nature. A broad approach to environmental education is, therefore, vital to achieve a change in attitude. National and nature parks, with a network of well-equipped visitor centres appropriate to their needs, make a valuable contribution to this objective.
In all the analysis of the visitor centres controversy very few commentators have focused on the primary purpose of these projects which is conservation oriented. Only recently Dick Warner, writing in a national newspaper, conveyed the nub of the issue, when he stated:
The challenge of national park management all over the world is to balance conservation interest with the legitimate aspirations of visitors wanting to enjoy nature. This universal problem is at the heart of the Mullaghmore protest and the problems the Office of Public Works are grappling with.
Even though there has been controversy over a few projects, most of the 15 visitor centre projects have progressed without dispute and, indeed, were warmly welcomed.
In the projects at the Burren, the Boyne and Wicklow the plans have met the scrutiny and approval of the relevant planning authorities in each area.
Despite such independent assessment, the sensitive design of each project, the fact that they were located on man-modified sites — a quarry and reclaimed field in the Burren, a commercial conifer plantation in Wicklow — and the conservation record of the Office of Public Works, they still aroused opposition which led to the recent High Court challenge.
In 1974 expert advice was commissioned to select a representative area in the Burren for protection as a national park. The Mullaghmore area was picked and a target area of 6,000 acres or 5 per cent of the entire Burren was chosen. Since then the Office of Public Works has acquired more than 3,000 acres of land with the co-operation and consent of the local farmers.
As early as 1982 the Office of Public Works considered potential sites for a visitor centre even though there was no money available at that time to build a centre. In 1989 the advent of EC Structural Funds enabled plans to proceed. The project was submitted for EC funding and was approved. A number of locations were examined and a disused quarry and a reclaimed field one and a half miles from the top of Mullaghmore was chosen. Clare County Council had no objections to the proposed site. Design work commenced in 1990. In 1991 some groups expressed reservations at the location.
The Office of Public Works met An Taisce, local groups and other interested parties. In the light of the fears expressed an environmental impact statement was commissioned from an international firm of consultants.
The environmental impact statement was completed in 1992 and circulated to the public for comment. A total of 520 submissions were received, 349 in favour of the project. The Office of public Works then submitted a detailed environmental impact assessment with the Environmental Impact Statement and public response to Clare County Council for independent assessment again. Both the council's technical officers and elected representatives endorsed the Environmental Impact Assessment and approved the project. The EC then confirmed that the Office of Public Works had complied with all EC Directives. The Phase 1 contract for the project was placed with Government approval. Opponents then sought an injunction to stop the works but were refused by the High Court, and I quoted the judgement earlier. The Phase 2 works commenced.
Is the Minister of State speaking for the Government or just for the Fianna Fáil party? The views he is expressing seem to be in direct contradiction to those of the Minister responsible for future policy in this area namely, the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht.
The Deputy is experienced enough to know the Minister is speaking on behalf of the Government. Opponents then sought an injunction to stop the works but were refused by the High Court. Phase 2 works commenced. By January this year the Phase 1 works were in progress.
I want to outline that to answer the criticisms that have been levelled at the officials in the Office of Public Works and at my predecessors in office. Full consultation took place. While it was necessary for me to refer to the Burren project in outlining the background to this Bill, I would ask Deputies to focus on the purpose of this legislation rather than getting side tracked on the visitor centres controversy.
Does the Labour Party support this?
Government must have the tools to carry out policies approved by this House. It must have an agency with powers to erect, manage and maintain buildings for public purposes. That is what this Bill provides and no more.
I indicated that I wish to share my time with Deputy O'Donoghue. I commend this Bill to the House.
I now call on Deputy O'Donoghue.
On a point of order, may I again point out that there is no Member of the Labour Party present in the House. In view of the importance of this I ask that a quorum of the House be convened.
Seeing that the Minister is speaking for them they should at least hear what he has to say.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present.
Acting Chairman
There appears to be a quorum present, so I will call Deputy O'Donoghue.
The Members must be in the Chamber; if they are outside the bounds of the Chamber they are not included in the count.
The House should be suspended as Members have not arrived within the time.
Acting Chairman
Has the time expired?
Yes it has.
It is time to abide by Standing Orders and suspend the House.
Acting Chairman
There is still some time.
What amount of time is allowed under the Standing Order after the quorum bell has started to ring before the House has to be suspended?
Acting Chairman
The bell has to ring for three minutes after which there is another three minutes.
If my sense of time is right they are now pealing for at least six or seven minutes.
Acting Chairman
No, they are not pealing at present.
Is there a quorum?
Acting Chairman
We have now a quorum and I call Deputy O'Donohue.
We have lost about ten minutes. Out of whose time will it be taken?
Wasted.
On a point of order, I understand 30 minutes were allocated to the other side to speak. The Chair may correct me if I am wrong but the Minister stood up to speak at 11.50 a.m. and that leaves approximately one minute. It is my understanding that the fact there was not a quorum in the House does not hold the clock back and that Deputy O'Donoghue would only have one minute to make his case. Perhaps the Chair will confirm this to the House?
Acting Chairman
I understand Deputy O'Donoghue has ten minutes to speak.
On a point of order, is the House properly in session at this stage? Under Standing Order 19 after the quorum bell has rung for three minutes the Ceann Comhairle shall suspend the sitting to a later hour to be named by him. There is no discretion whatever. More than three minutes expired and the House should have been suspended.
Acting Chairman
My understanding is that after the bells have chimed for the three minute period there is another period of time alloted.
Three minutes.
Acting Chairman
An extra three minutes.
That also expired.
Acting Chairman
It has expired but we have a quorum.
This House is invalidly in session.
As this is important for the workings of this House, not just for today but for the remainder of this session, could the Chair clarify for me how it is that Deputy O'Donoghue has ten minuted left when the Minister started at 11.50 a.m. and there was only half an hour allocated to the other side?
The sole Labour Party Member has left the House.
Acting Chairman
My understanding is that the time taken for the quorum bells are not subtracted from the time of the debate.
Will the Chair refer to the rules of the House in that regard? I am not sure that understanding is correct.
It is the Government Whip's job to maintain numbers in the House.
Is Deputy Bruton trying to keep the Technical Group from speaking?
I am trying to ensure that the Government does not apply jack-boot tactics.
(Interruptions.)
Acting Chairman
I call Deputy O'Donoghue to continue the debate.
The Government should try to establish whether its Labour partners agree with it on this matter. The Labour Party Members choose not to be in the House for this debate.
Acting Chairman
Deputy O'Donoghue, without interruption, please.
I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this important Bill.
One of the saddest features of the entire controversy which led to this Bill coming before the House was the fact that in the course of the protracted public debate, the Commissioners of Public Works were portrayed as being anti-conservationist. That is sad for the simple reason that long before green became popular in Europe the Commissioners of Public Works, founded in 1831, were green. They are a conservationist society and exist as such. If people want evidence of this it is to be found in the many marvellous, wonderful national parks throughout this country. If one wishes to examine the national monuments or anything which they set their hand on, be it Dublin Castle or any other public building, one will find that the Commissioners of Public Works are, in the final analysis, the most responsible conservationist society here and the last century-and-a-half establishes that if proof were needed.
Of course, everybody is interested in preserving the environment and this is something which is dear to everybody's heart but perhaps, dearer to those who live with nature than it would be to those who live in concrete jungles. In this context, the environment, while important, is nothing without man. There are two kinds of environmental blackguardism; the first relates to the destruction of mountainside, rivers, lakes and so on; and the second is where human beings are not given the opportunity by the utilisation of their indigenous resources to reside in their own place. The challenge which faced the Office of Public Works, and the challenge which this Bill presents, is to marry the two. People have a right to live where they were born, to obtain employment in areas where it is extremely difficult to do so and to use their own indigenous resources in order to achieve that aim. It is the most extreme form of elitism for a group of elitist people to state that they know better than those who live in the area which is the subject of concern. The elitism is not acceptable.
It is extremely important in this context that we realise that the culture of this country needs to be interpreted and presented to the world in a cohesive, coherent and visual way. This can best be done by building the interpretative centres concerned in order that people may appreciate what they have come to see. They enhance and inspire. To deny people that right would be a grave error.
There has been a frenzied attempt to prevent the building of the centres concerned and, in particular, the one at Mullaghmore. I spent a brief period as Minister of State at Finance, responsible for the Office of Public Works and I can say without fear or favour that the Commissioners of Public Works under no circumstances would do anything which would destroy the environment. However, they would do everything possible to preserve it and, in this case, to try to marry the needs of the locality and the requirements of the environment. In fact, since 1831 that has been the record of the Office of Public Works. I sincerely hope that it will be accepted with the best of goodwill that such an authority does not require a watchdog because one is asking the watchdog to watch itself which does not make sense. It reminds me of the old Roman saying——
That is a grotesque argument.
——"who guards the guards".
I wish to share my time with my Leader, Deputy John Bruton.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
This Bill impinges to a great extent on the culture and heritage of this country. It would not be before the House today if court action were not initiated in relation to the building of interpretative centres. I understand that the Minister in charge of heritage affairs here is the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Michael D. Higgins? Where is the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht since, quite obviously he is the Minister responsible for so much of what is implied in this Bill? It is quite disgraceful that he is not on the Government benches today. It is doubly disgraceful that there are so few members of the Labour Party here today. It is disgraceful that we had to call a quorum in the middle of the Minister's speech and that there was little interest shown by the Government benches, particularly the Labour portion of this Government who have so much to say about these measures. That is different, of course, to what has been said by the other component of Government, i.e. the Fianna Fáil Party in the media. Those Members are not present to at least listen to the Minister's presentation and that of the main Opposition party and others who wish to speak. One hopes they would have some presentation to make themselves. Even if it differs from the Government's line on these matters, let us hear it. Let us have that minimal amount of courage from the minor partners in this Government.
If this Bill is passed today the Government will have a range of sweeping powers to construct and alter buildings without any reference to the planning laws of this State. In short, the Government would not be subjected to the same planning laws of the land that apply to every other citizen. On the other hand, if no such Bill is enacted, and if the judgement of Mr. Justice Costello is to be followed and obeyed, then the Government will have no power to build even a simple wall. Also, serious question marks would hang over all public buildings carried out by the State since 1922 and even earlier.
Fine Gael accept that the power of the Government to construct anything must be put on a statutory basis and in this sense, a Bill along these lines is necessary. The right thing for the Dáil to do is to clear up the present anomaly where the State cannot even build if it has planning permission but it is wrong for the Dáil to pass legislation that does not ensure that in future the State must be subject to the same planning laws as everybody else here.
Fine Gael seek to amend every section that confers upon the Government the right to construct, repair or alter any public building or structure adding that these powers will only be conferred after the State has gone through the normal planning process. That is what we are seeking. We agree that the Government has the right to build and maintain public buildings buy lands in sesitive and archaeological areas and construct interpretative centres but we insist that all these activities be subject to the planning laws. That is very little to ask.
The Government insist on ordinary citizens obeying the planning laws, the requirements of which have become more strict with every amendment to the Act made since 1963 and we have had quite a number of amendments in the intervening years.
The circumstances surrounding the bringing of this legislation to this House today are indeed murky and messy. We had the members of the Government, as it were, talking out of two sides of their mouths. The Mullaghmore interpretative centre led to the court action which, in turn, led to the introduction of this Bill. We heard the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht say he had decided that he would put a "warden's hut" on top of what had been constructed at Mullaghmore which would cost the State £1.6 million. We are not criticising what was done but the fact that it was done without reference to the proper planning process. He also stated that he would move the interpretative centre to Leminagh Castle and yet the owner of that castle was able to tell the nation on one of our main news broadcasts that he had never been consulted about a move to Leminagh Castle. What type of Government is that? What kind of consultation is that between the partners in Government or the people? Does the House not agree that is an absolute disgrace?
We heard the Chairman of the Labour Party yesterday trying to blame the Office of Public Works. It is not they who are to blame but the Government. The Government should have checked the legal basis for their actions. From the 1830 Act it seems that the basis for all actions, i.e. building and construction comes from a letter from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland addressed to the old Barracks Commissioners in which he tells them that the powers of the old Barracks Commissioners have been conferred now on the Office of Public Works without the legislation being specific in those areas. It is the responsibility of the Government and it was up to them to ensure that these matters were properly checked out and had a proper legal basis before proceeding with any construction, particularly one that was controversial like that at Mullaghmore or Luggala.
Legal proceedings were instituted about them. It was not that the Government did not have enough warning about these matters. They had more than adequate warning. They should have proceeded with the utmost care given the fact that these matters had been referred to one of the highest courts in the land. It is gratuitous for the Chairman of the Labour Party — a man for whom I have much respect — and for the Minister to try to blame others for what happened in the High Court on Monday. It was inevitable that that would happen.
The Office of Public Works works under a certain element of secrecy and I have one major criticism of that body. In 1989 the Government commissioned a major report on the way the Office of Public Works proceeds with its works. Price Waterhouse was commissioned to carry out the report. That company received about £90,000 to prepare this report which was presented less than one year later to the Government. To this day, the Government never told us what is in this report. There are many rumours that sweeping changes in the way the Office of Public Works proceeds with its works were recommended. Why was that report never published or debated in this House? This House voted almost £100,000 to pay for it yet Members never saw it, nor did any citizen, to my knowledge and it certainly was never discussed in this House. Some of the criticism that is often levelled against the Office of Public Works is that there is secrecy surrounding it and the Government protects it by not publishing this report.
I agree with much of what Deputy O'Donoghue said in relation to the Commissioners of Public Works. I agree they do very good work and do it sensitively. There is no doubt that Dublin Castle is a good example, as is the work carried out on Government Buildings. The recent improvements to the facade of this House, while not overly extensive, nevertheless are a good example of the fine work of the Office of Public Works.
There is no doubt that we need interpretative centres. If one goes to what is probably the most famous archaeological site in Ireland, in Tara, in my Leader's constituency — I might dispute that the one at Cruachan beside me is more sophisticated — what one sees there is primitive to the ordinary visitor. The site is most significant from a historical and an archaelogical point of view but to the ordinary visitor it is a primitive presentation. In other words it needs interpretation and there is nothing wrong with having an interpretative centre at places of such huge significance to interpret and explain them to visitors. However, we should proceed with those works only after going through the usual planning process so that citizens who have an objection can go to the oral hearings, lodge their objections with the local authorities and go to An Bord Pleanála. That is all we ask.
I do not know exactly what is meant by the paragraph on page 48 in the programme for Government. I will read it for the Minister who might let us know exactly what is meant by it. It implies a certain amount that I would agree with.
Do not waste time reading it; I know it.
It states:
All Government Departments and State agencies, including the Office of Public Works will be required by law to comply, in general, with the information procedures contained in the planning laws, including the placing of public advertisements, and the lodgement of detailed plans with the local planning authority for public inspection. Two months will be allowed for public observations and/or objections to be lodged, and for design changes to be sought by the planning authority in accordance with the Development Plan for the area, for communication to the agency concerned.
Most of that sounds all right but we would like the Minister to explain the qualifications. If that meant anything, why in the sections of this Bill that deal with conferring power not just henceforth but retrospectively upon various Government Departments, to build, alter and construct, was that paragraph not reflected? We would have very little objection if the Government told us it was conferring powers to alter, change, build, construct and so on as long as it was subject to the normal planning procedures of this land. The Government should lead by example. We cannot expect citizens to obey the planning laws if the Government, for some reason, feels it can exempt itself from these laws. We will return to these issues on Committee Stage. I will table amendments to try to insist that these measures be made amenable to the planning laws. I hope that, in the spirit of the paragraph I quoted from the joint programme for Government, the Minister will accept my amendments.
When the Government was announced it was stated that future policy in regard to heritage matters here would be the responsibility of the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht. Why is that Minister not participating in this debate in view of the fact that the purpose of this legislation is to deal with future policy in regard to the building of interpretative centres? Deputy Higgins, Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, has shown a marked lack of moral courage by his failure to come into the House to participate in this debate.
The Minister of State made a number of statements in his contribution and clearly defended the Mullaghmore project. I asked him if he was speaking for the Government and he said he was. It would appear, therefore, that he was speaking for Deputy Higgins who is a member of the Government. I asked the Taoiseach yesterday would collective responsibility apply in regard to this legislation and he said it would. In view of the fact that Deputy Higgins spoke so frequently against the Mullaghmore project, I cannot understand why he has not come into the House to indicate his position on this matter, either in support of the Government or in opposition to the line being taken by the Government. For him to absent himself from this House, and hope that he can hide, displays a lack of moral courage which does him no credit whatever. I hope he will now enter the debate and indicate his views on what the Minister of State said.
I disagree with the Minister of State when he said: "until we have a Supreme Court decision which clarifies the position the proposals contained in the programme for Government regarding the introduction of further planning controls for State authorities cannot be further progressed". That is what is wrong with this country and with this House. This House has consistently abdicated its responsibility for the making of legislation to the courts. We have read the Minister's excuse for failure to introduce planning controls on the State is that the matter is before the courts. The courts are being forced to do work that this Government and this House are supposed to do. We have a Government bloated with advisers at public expense, with a larger majority than any Government in the history of the State and yet it is hiding behind the Supreme Court and failing to fulfil its responsibilities to introduce legislation to apply normal planning controls, in accordance with the promise it made, to developments initiated by the State.
My interpretation of this legislation is that it exempts the State from planning control because it says, "A State authority shall have power to carry out development". "Development" is defined as the carrying out of any works in or under land or the making of any material change in the use of any structures or other land. That definition of development is taken from the planning Acts. The State is conferring on itself the power to do everything that everyone else must have permission to do under the planning Acts. That is wrong. It would be a very simple matter to amend this Bill and add, "subject to the planning Acts" after each of the relevant sections. Then we would be in a position to have this matter dealt with regularly. Why has the Minister of State omitted those four key words? The answer is obvious; he believes that the State can do what it likes.
I would remind the Minister, who comes from a party which prides itself on being "The Republican Party", that the origin of this exemption of the State from the requirement to seek permission under the planning Acts, is in the principle of British common law, that "the King can do no wrong". It is that royalist principle that this Republican party is using to exempt the State from the requirement to seek permision that every other citizen must seek. One of the concerns the Office of Public Works has is that it would have to pay fees to the county-councils when applying for planning permission. In other words, officialdom is prepared to impose draconian fees on private individuals who want to erect an extension to their house but do not want to pay fees to the county council when it seeks permission for a major development. That point was made to me by an official of the Office of Public Works.
Rushing legislation through this House is highly dangerous. This legislation may well be unconstitutional and we are not getting an adequate opportunity to tease out its constitutional aspects. It has not been possible in the few hours since this Bill was published for Members to consult legal advice but such advice as we have, suggests that this Bill is unconstitutional and that it should be referred to the Supreme Court before it is signed into law by the President. The implications of this decision should be considered very carefully. As Deputy Connor pointed out, the source of the power of the Office of Public Works is a letter from the Lord Lieutenant and that letter is the basis upon which the Office of Public Works up to now has been operating.
I would remind the House — there are a number of teachers here — that the payment of teachers' salaries by the State is based on a similar letter namely the Stanley letter. This State has been paying teachers' salaries and maintaining education for years on the basis of a similar letter to that which was found by Mr. Justice Costello to be invalid in so far as it did not give sufficient power to the State to carry out public works. The Minister should investigate all activities by the State which are being carried out on the basis of letters from Lord Lieutenants because it would appear that these letters are not sufficient to give the State the necessary authority.
It would be very serious if it were found that the State did not have power to pay teachers' salaries as would be the case if the line of argument of Mr. Justice Costello in the case of the Office of Public Works were to be followed in a case where the authority of the Department of Education were challenged. This should not be left to the courts to discover for us. It is the responsibility of this House and the courts to ensure that proper law is made in this land. I hope that matter will be dealt with before a court finds it invalid also.
I was very struck by the speech by Deputy O'Donoghue. He spoke very eloquently and truly about the good record of the Office of Public Works in regard to environmental matters. If that is so, what has it to fear from applying for planning permission? If, as I believe, its record is as good as Deputy O'Donoghue says it is, why is the Government unwilling to allow it to apply for planning permission? Why is the Labour Party willing to go along with exempting it from the requirement to apply for planning permission? The argument is being put forward that there are strict deadlines for the application of EC funds. We have known that for years. We have been a member of the EC since 1972. We could have made adequate provisions to deal with that in advance without having to act in what has now transpired to be an illegal way.
It is important also to draw the attention of the House to Article 15.5 of the Constitution which states: "The Oireachtas shall not declare Acts to be infringements of the law which were not so at the date of their commission". In other words, the Oireachtas cannot introduce retroactive legislation creating retroactive offences. It is a reasonable argument to say that the Oireachtas may have some trouble in having retroactive validation of acts committed by itself in similar circumstances on the basis of pari passu of the two rules. I hope that matter will be dealt with. It is important that we do not introduce further legislation that proves not to be valid.
The fundamental principle is two-fold. First, do we have a collectively responsible Government in this matter? Where is the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht who is allegedly responsible for future policy in this area? Why is he hiding away from this House? The second important point is, does the law of this land apply equally to all citizens? Why should State authorities, establishing, perhaps, commercial activities in direct competition with private providers of the same services — many of the restaurants and shops in these interpretative centres will be in direct competition with those in the private sector — not have to apply for planning permission while those in the private sector have to do so? Is that fair? It is not and it is something that should be rectified immediately. There is no excuse for not rectifying it in this Bill.
It is entirely possible for this legislation to be amended to encompass an amendment to the planning Acts and ensure that the State is liable to the same rules as other citizens. It is profoundly unfair that this House should be asked to pass this legislation in one day. I draw the Minister of State's attention to the founding principles of the Constitution where there are provisions, for example, for the abridgement of the time for taking legislation. There is provision in the Constitution that the Seanad should take no more than 90 days to consider legislation. Clearly, the framers of the Constitution had in mind that 90 days was long enough but it seems we now have a principle established in this House where a Government with a majority of 37 can ensure that the House does not even have 90 hours to consider legislation.
(Interruptions.)
The Government opinion is that the opinions of other people do not matter in this House. I do not think that is a very democratic approach. The Government would benefit from having a serious and searching analysis of this legislation in Committee in this House. The Government is doing itself no favour whatever by its unwillingness to allow at least one week for the implications of this legislation to be teased out. There would be no problem in allowing one week for that purpose. Tommorrow the Dáil will spend two days discussing Dáil reform on the basis that we are supposed to have an open Government that wants to take everybody into its confidence. We are to have a declaration of everybody's interests and so on under this proposal. The Government has great confidence for the next two days in this House in theory but when it comes to the practical matter of allowing us to do our job which is to debate and analyse legislative proposals from the Government, it is not open Government but Government of the jackboot.
This is an appalling approach to its responsibilities by the Government. It is appalling in particular from a Government which has a big majority to use that majority to deny proper legislative analysis of its proposals.
I would like to share my time with my party Leader, Deputy O'Malley and also with Deputy Keogh. The procedure which we are following today is appalling. I agree with so much of what has been said by other speakers in that regard that I do not need to repeat it but I wish to underline it as a serious concern.
The Programme for Government states that the Government is committed to openness and transparency but its approach to this legislation is the antithesis of everything one would expect if that is one of the value systems driving the Government.
It is a bit unfair of the Minister to be critical of outside bodies who might have been expected to know more in their comments on this Bill. When I went to the Bills Office in this House last night to see if I could get some copies of the Bill to show individuals and outside bodies, I discovered it was not available and would not be available to Members in the usual manner until this morning. It is a bit highhanded to be critical of outside bodies who have to operate on the basis of second-hand information when the Bill was so rushed that it was not available to us. There is need for procedures to be looked at, independently of this Bill, if the Government ever seeks to rush through something described as emergency legislation again.
I take the point the Minister made about seeking to separate development from planning but I do not necessarily accept it is what we should be aiming for or is something the House should accept from the Government. The Dáil is being asked to vote effectively in a vacuum. We do not know what the planning law is in relation to the developments we are debating today. We do not know the planning law, no more than the Government can know it because of the conflicting judgements of the High Court. How can the Government today ask for a blank cheque approach to development, construction, building and, perhaps wider issues when we are working completely in a planning vacuum? It is wrong in principle to seek to confer wide-ranging powers on the Executive in a context where there is no evident constraint and in a complete vacuum in legal terms with regard to what precisely that Executive is required to do in respect of its developmental policy for buildings or other projects.
The Progressive Democrats and I accept that no-one wants to see jobs at risk but if jobs are put at risk because of problems in law, I do not think it is a good principle of law-making to rush into making bad law and potentially creating similar problems. The Minister's speech referred to the Bill dealing with ordinary construction work associated with Government Departments. He talked of Government offices, Garda stations, the restoration of heritage projects like the Customs House and so on. I take the point the Minister made. That may be the intention but we are making law and the definitions are set out in the Bill. From what I can see they are much wider in terms of their potential implication than simply the question of Garda stations or Government offices. I hope someone on the Government side might take a note of what I am saying because I hope on Committee Stage to receive answers to the questions I pose.
In respect of the powers proposed section 2 states:
(1) A State authority shall have, and be deemed to always to have had, power—
(a) to carry out, or procure the carrying out of, development.
What is "development"? The Minister's statement seems to indicate Garda stations and so on and I accept that, but what development is defined in section 5? That section states that "development" means the carrying out of any works on, in or under land or the making of any material change in the use of any structures. Does "any works" refer to the benign Garda station at the corner and to the development of heritage projects like Dublin Castle only or does it refer to the potential to demolish, without due regard to any alternative law, buildings that are in the hands of the State? Could it, for example, include the development of State land for waste treatment, landfill dumps or toxic dumps? Could it relate to mining because it refers to any work which is under land? It is not clear that the intention stated in the Minister's speech as being quite narrow and limited is, in fact, what is proposed. We are making law; we are not talking about intention. I am worried that the definition in that section as to what constitutes development is potentially so wide as to render meaningless the narrower ground, which I believe is the Minister's intention. My party propose to table amendments to limit the extent of definition of development in that regard.
Section 2 also states that the State shall have authority to maintain, manage, repair, improve, alter, enlarge, reduce in size, remove or otherwise deal with buildings or structures or other works or property. That is a very wide definition as to what the State, the Minister and the Department have in mind in this regard. Even if we are trying today, consentually and in law, to distinguish between the right to develop and the appropriate planning to which that development should be subjected — I agree with Deputy Bruton that the State should not be exempt from the due process of planning — the scale of the development is worrying from the nature of the definitions given. We will have to look at that.
I would draw the Minister's attention to what may well be a very serious flaw in the Bill. I note with interest that the Minister has assured the House that the Government has suspended development on the controversial interpretative centres, not just the one at Mullaghmore, pending the outcome of the various matters before the courts. Nevertheless, I would draw the Minister's attention to case law in the mid-eighties in relation to Pine Valley and the matter of development and the Minister for the Environment. The Minister, or his advisers, will recall that a Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill was introduced in 1982 and a saving clause or a special proviso was included in section 6 (2). I suggest the Minister check whether a saving clause is needed in this legislation.
My party believes that on the balance of probabilities the Oireachtas cannot confer validity on what the Office of Public Works has done to date nor in any other case which is pending before the courts hinging on the particular point of law that has been in dispute. I know the Minister says these are suspended but the Minister is today, retrospectively in law, validating the development even if subject to suspension. In law he may be wrong in that and if he does not put in a saving clause as per the precedent of the 1982 legislation and the Pine Valley case he may find that the law will be rejected as potentially unsound and, possibly, unconstitutional. The Dáil is not in a position to specifically reverse a judicial decision in cases such as the Mullaghmore case with some general classification of the type proposed.
I accept that there is an emergency but I do not know that the emergency obliges us to have the Bill passed today. I have tried to explore this matter in a way relevant to what is before us and not to colour the matter. I would be more than happy to trade a few blows with the Minister on Mullaghmore and the other centres. In the matter of law-making, we have an insufficient amount of time to debate Bills and I appeal to the Minister, particularly in his role as Government Chief Whip, to consider the points I raised.
The Progressive Democrats intend to table a number of amendments. If this is emergency legislation it should be limited in time. It is something the House generally would regard as unsatisfactory were it not tied to express planning conditions. If it is the will of the Government not to accept the amendments suggested by Deputy Bruton linking development and planning expressly in this legislation, then there is an onus on the Government to time-limit what it is proposing. My preference is that we make the linkage between development and planning but I insist that this must be limited if it is emergency in terms of its scope and its time. I stress again that we need to limit the scope of the meaning of various phrases such as "any other works" or "the nature of the definition of developments." If all that is in mind is the local school, the Custom House or the Garda station, I do not think that is what this legislation empowers us to do. In relation to section 4, which deals with expenses incurred, at some stage the Minister might tell the House precisely what expense is likely to be incurred on this matter.
Would the word "development" cover, for example, the demolition of the Upper Merrion Street Georgian houses which are now owned by the Office of Public Works? Would we be giving the Office of Public Works a right, in development terms, to do what it wishes with such property?
It is wrong in principle to leave to the Executive power which should be subject to due planning process. For that reason the Bill is fundamentally wrong but I accept there is an emergency. It is wrong in practice to introduce legislation when we do not know when we are given the development definition on the one hand, the extent of its planning application on the other. There is a fundamental problem with that. It would be wrong in principle not to set a time limit for what is generally perceived to be emergency legislation which would be wrong in law were it to expressly exclude the precedent of the Pine Valley case.
The Minister has given a strong outline of the case that can be made for heritage centres. I remind him that I could find no reputable international body that did not object at the level of the European Commission to the decision to fund Mullaghmore, notwithstanding the general hypothesis that the Minister advanced today.
The first sentence of the Minister of State's speech contains a serious factual legal inaccuracy and it is indicative of his and the Government's approach to this matter that it should do so. He stated that the purpose of the Bill is to restore to the Commissioners of Public Works the power to carry out various functions, subject to the Minister for Finance. It is not to restore them. "Restore" suggests that they had them and lost them as a result of a court case. What the court decided is that they never had them. How can one restore to somebody something that person never had? It is indicative of the thinking that occurs in Departments, and elsewhere, that they make the fundamental error and give themselves away in the very first sentence of what they write for the Minister of State. He, of course, did not spot the error.
Mr. Justice Costello in his judgement gave a long list of what the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland are empowered by statute to do but it does not include the activity they undertook on interpretative centres. They are entitled to do scores of different things and the way to approach this would have been to add additional powers rather than give not just the Commissioners of Public Works but every member of the Government, unlimited power to do anything that he or she wants. They may be subject to other constraints at some future date but they have an unfettered power to do anything they like. That is simply too wide. It is wrong to try to force the Second Stage of this Bill through this House within 90 minutes. Dozens of Members wish to speak on this matter. What is the urgency about it?
In the course of his introductory remarks the Minister of State said: "As Deputies are aware the Government has decided to suspend work on the Boyne, Wicklow and Burren projects pending the Supreme Court appeal in relation to the planning issue".
At best that will take many months. Nobody objects to the Office of Public Works building schools or Garda stations or to its power to do that. The only litigation is in relation to these three projects. The Government, having lost the case, has no option but to suspend work so where is the urgency? Why can this not be done and a proper Bill drawn up over a period of some months?
I would like to deal with Deputy Cox's point. It is set out in the Pine Valley Developments v. the Minister for the Environment case reported in the Irish Reports of 1987 in the judgment both of Mr. Justice Henchy and Mr. Justice Lardner. Mr. Justice Henchy said, at page 43:
Section 6 of that Act [The Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1982] had the effect of giving retrospective validity to planning permissions such as this granted on appeal prior to the 15th March, 1977, save where such retrospective validation would conflict with a constitutional right of any person. That exclusion has been attacked by counsel for Pine Valley as being unfairly discriminatory as far as they are concerned, but in my view, while a discrimination has resulted, the primary and overriding purpose of the section was to avoid an unconstitutional invasion of the judicial domain by attempting to give validity to any planning permission which the Courts may have held to be lacking in validity.
Mr. Justice Lardner said much the same thing. He recites the Buckley and Others (Sinn Féin v. Attorney General and Another) case in 1950, Irish Reports, where again the Government, through the Dáil, sought to come in and predetermine or change a case which was being decided upon by the courts. That was held to be unconstitutional. But the Minister of State, the Government and the Office of Public Works are attempting to do that here because they do not have the saving clause that was in the 1982 Act. I wonder why? Therefore, the words in section 2(1), “and be deemed always to have had,” which also appear in section 2(2), should be deleted. If they are not deleted the matter is unconstitutional as far as any of these three cases are concerned. The Minister of State, and the Office of Public Works simply will not get away with it. The law on the matter is perfectly clear.
Section 2(2) states:
..all such incidental, supplemental, ancillary and consequential powers as, in the opinion of the authority, are necessary or expedient.
The definition of development is taken directly from the 1963 Act and it covers the carrying on of any works in relation to land or buildings. Under this Bill a Minister will be given power to demolish any building here. I hope, under other legislation, it may be possible to stop him if somebody can get in in time. It is outrageous to give Ministers powers that are as wide as that. There are many other matters I would like to deal with but in the appalling situation in which we find ourselves I cannot do that and I want to share my time with Deputy Keogh.
I regret the time available to us is so limited that we cannot examine in detail, even at this stage, the various points in the Bill. The technical points have been covered by my party colleagues. The point I want to make is in relation to the whole issue of democracy and accountability. What we have in this Bill underscores the lack of accountability which is in total defiance of the Government's wish to restore confidence in the democratic process by encouraging openness and participation at all levels, by improving public accountability, transparency and trust and by ensuring the highest standards in public life. What we see here files in the face of that. Anybody who is building as much as a bungalow has to apply for planning permission and yet we have the prospect of public bodies having no accountability whatsoever——
I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but, in accordance with an order of the House this morning the time has come to call on the Minister of State to reply.
That is regrettable.
On a point of order, on that statement——
There cannot be a point of order on that statement.
If you will listen to me, a Cheann Comhairle, perhaps you will allow me to explain the point of order.
One moment, Deputy. I have reiterated an order of this House of this morning which states, "a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon not later than 1.15 p.m. to make a speech in reply not exceeding 15 minutes". I am implementing that now.
On a point of order, I intend to address you on the order before us.
I have made a factual statement concerning an order of this House.
May I direct your attention to the first of the subclauses, which is that each party should have not less than half an hour to address the House.
I have no control over that, Deputy. How the time was utilised earlier, Deputy——
Basic, fundamental courtesy at least would entitle me to half a minute to be heard and not shouted down by the Chair.
Please, Deputy.
I am never discourteous to you, a Cheann Comhairle, I am at least entitled to——
I do not wish to be discourteous to the Deputy either, but the Chair has an obligation to implement the orders of this House.
You are being discourteous to me in not allowing me to explain my point of order.
What went before, Deputy, is no concern of mine.
Might I be given 20 seconds to explain my point of order?
Quite frankly, I do not see how it arises but please do.
I ask you not to prejudge the matter and give me the 20 seconds. The first, in order of these decisions of this House this morning, was that each of these parties should have half an hour to address this House. It states, each of our contributions should not exceed 30 minutes and it goes on to state that the Minister or Minister of State should have 15 minutes at the end.
I appreciate the point the Deputy is making but he has embarked on a little speech. I appreciate there was an allocation of time this morning but that did not give a right to the spokespersons to speak for a particular number of minutes. Unfortunately, we lost much time on this debate. That is not the fault of the Chair.
That was because of the guillotining; that is why we lost the time.
I do not want to open this up again but, in view of what happened earlier, I would be willing, with the permission of the House, to give some time to the Technical Group and to Deputies Bell and Killeen. I will be left with five minutes, subject to the agreement of the House.
The time is very limited if we are to divide it. However, that is the Minister's prerogative. Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
I propose sharing about two or three minutes with Deputy Sargent. If any one of the 1,000 or so local people who attended the public meeting in Corofin last Monday night were to apply for planning permission to build a modest bungalow on the site of the proposed interpretative centre at Mullaghmore in all probability they would be refused by Clare County Council. How is it then that the Government propose to introduce legislation which would give the Office of Public Works the unfettered right to construct and develop a large visitor centre and three car parks on a site where a local person would be refused permission for a small house?
This Bill was brought about by the Mullaghmore decision in the High Court but it is about far more than Mullaghmore, Luggala or the Boyne Valley. This Bill is about the Government pushing through legislation which will give Government Ministers and State authorities unprecedented and unqualified powers to do what they like.
The Bill is not about what should be done, but about who decides what should be done. It raises fundamental questions about our understanding of democracy, the so-called principle of subsidiarity and the Government's commitment to its much lauded programme for Government. Indeed, the Bill makes a mockery of the fine words in the Programme for Government about broadening democracy. It humiliates the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht and it is a fundamental mistake. I have great respect for the Office of Public Works, its staff and the work it has done down the years. If we were simply talking about regularising the position arising from the High Court decision, most of us would understand the need for this Bill. The Bill gives unprecedented power to State authorities to do what they like in the matter of building and construction.
On behalf of the Green Party, I must say the Government has taken leave of its senses in regard to this Bill. It is not correct to say that the people opposing the Mullaghmore interpretative centre want the project abandoned; they simply want it relocated. That must be made clear because it appears those on the Government benches do not understand that, even though people protested outside the gates of this House several days in an effort to make that point. It is also incorrect to expect people to live anywhere. That would be a recipe for absolute chaos and if that is what the Government believe, I would like to hear more about its policy in that regard.
The Bill strikes at the very heart of democracy and contradicts the Programme for Government. That programme states that all bodies should adhere to normal planning procedures and that is contrary to what is in the Bill. Members of the Labour Party cannot hide in regard to this issue, very few of them have been present for the debate this morning. At least the Minister, Deputy Higgins, should be present.
This Bill is anti the Programme for Government and anti Government ethics. Much more urgent legislation has not come before this House, such as the ground water directive which would be relevant to the Luggala site. There is a need for new legislation to protect existing buildings such as Garda stations, and I am sure nobody would disagree with that. However, there should be a rethink on the decision to appeal to the Supreme Court in this case. If the seven people who took the case lose, they will be paying for the rest of their lives. They made an extremely courageous decision without any hope of personal gain.
The EC is willing to renegotiate, as Deputy Cox said. The EC is willing to provide funding to make up the money spent initially and to consider relocation as it never endorsed the sites involved. I will be tabling amendments as the Bill should not be enacted in its present form.
I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill and should like to reply briefly to points made by Deputies Sargent and John Bruton. My colleague, the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Higgins, is not hiding anywhere. He is attending an important parliamentary party at present and I was delegated to represent the party here.
A good try, Deputy. He is massaging the print media and independent radio stations.
One does not need planning permission to have manners.
Do not be disingenuous.
It is the Minister of State, Deputy Dempsey, and not the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Higgins, who has responsibility for this matter. If it was the responsibility of the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, he would be here.
At least that is clear now.
The question of who is responsible for various posts is our business.
That has been decided.
I want to make two points. The Boyne Valley is not in the ownership of any pressure group. The biggest centre in the Boyne Valley is the town of Drogheda which has a population of 24,000 and 60,000 in its hinterland. Those people would have the biggest claim to that centre if it was justified on the basis of numerical strength. Pressure groups have requested me to have the proposed centre moved from the Newgrange area on the north side of the river; Newgrange is mid-way between Slane and Drogheda. When the Office of Public Works examined all the submissions it decided to choose a site on the south side of the river near the village of Donore on the periphery of Drogheda. Another pressure group requested that it be located in the Slane area. At one stage I was tempted to set up a pressure group requesting that the site be chosen in Drogheda because that is the most densely populated and most historical area in the Boyne Valley.
Meath County Council, which is in Deputy John Bruton's constituency, was consulted and the Fine Gael members of the council voted unanimously in favour.
I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy. The time factor enters into this again. There are five minutes remaining with Deputy Killeen wishing to contribute and the Minister of State hoping to respond.
Míle buíochas don Aire. I merely want to welcome the Bill. I regret not having an opportunity to outline the views of the people in my parish who have conserved the environment for countless generations.
We heard them on "Morning Ireland".
Their views have been blackguarded at every opportunity by certain people. I hope during subsequent Stages I will have an opportunity to contribute.
I thank Deputies who spoke and, in the course of their remarks, paid tribute to the Office of Public Works for the fine job it has done in the past. I am delighted that Deputies acknowledge the professionalism and dedication to conservation of the officials of the Office of Public Works.
I will not deal with specific points which can be raised on Committee Stage. In relation to the Programme for Government, there is a qualification on page 48. Is any Deputy seriously suggesting that if the Department of Defence wished to erect an Army barracks or the Department of Justice wished to erect a Garda station along the Border that they should be subjected to ordinary planning requirements? That would be ridiculous as members of the UVF, and other such organisations, would be able to examine the plans of those buildings. That is what the words "in general" mean. I assure the House that this is a real commitment and will be pursued.
Deputy Cox asked about the timetable in relation to the Bill. The Bill will stand but we might be able to facilitate him with a timetable in regard to the planning side of the legislation.
As I said, I want to divorce the two areas about which we are talking. It is the Government's intention to allow Government agencies, including the Office of Public Works, build and maintain those centres. This is not an attempt by the Government to get round the commitment given in the programme for Government about making planning laws more transparent. If the Office of Public Works had gone through the normal planning process in regard to those interpretative centres, they would be up and running by now. At most it would have taken six months to complete the process. The issue would have been sent to An Bord Pleanála and a decision made. Two years of consultations and disputes have taken place thus far.
Is that not all the more reason to make them subject to the law?
I agree, it would have been easier to do it that way.
The urgency of this legislation as far as the Government is concerned is that jobs are at risk and that is clear from the telephone calls we are getting in the Office of Public Works. Contractors are seriously concerned and are talking about putting people on protective notice because of the unclear legal position. That is why this legislation was brought forward. I reiterate the fundamental and basic premise, that the Government must have the means to provide, maintain and manage buildings for use by the public and the public service and to provide services in accordance with Government policy. Therefore, the Government must have an agency with the powers proposed in this Bill and for that reason I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 92; Níl, 55.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Bhreathnach, Niamh.
- Bree, Declan.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Ferris, Michael.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- McDowell, Derek.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick West).
- O Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- Fitzerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Fitzerald, Liam.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hilliard, Colm M.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Penrose, William.
- Power, Seán.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Upton, Pat.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cox, Pat.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan M.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Fox, Johnny.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harney, Mary.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McDowell, Michael.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Owen, Nora.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and Ferris; Níl, Deputies E. Kenny and Keogh.
Question declared carried.
Sitting suspended at 1.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.