May I draw attention to the fact that the word "regulation" in the second line of paragraph (6) should read "regulations".
Artane (Dublin) Fire: Tribunal of Inquiry.
We are grateful to the Chair for drawing attention to that.
I move:
That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for —
1. inquiring into the following definite matters of urgent public importance:
(1) the immediate and other causes of, and the circumstances leading to, the fire at the Stardust Club, Artane, Dublin, on the 14th February, 1981,
(2) the circumstances of and leading to the loss of life and personnel injury at the Stardust Club on the 14th February, 1981,
(3) the measures, and their adequacy, taken on and before the 14th February, 1981, to prevent and detect, and to minimise and otherwise to deal with fire at the Stardust Club,
(4) the means and systems of emergency escape from the Stardust Club, and their adequacy, on the 14th February, 1981,
(5) the measures (including the application of the draft Building Regulations published on the 29th November, 1976), and their adequacy, taken on and before the 14th February, 1981, at the Stardust Club to prevent and to minimise and otherwise to deal with any other circumstances that led or contributed to the loss of life and personal injury aforesaid or might have led or contributed to loss of life or personal injury,
(6) the adequacy of the legislation, statutory regulations and by-laws relevant to fire prevention and safety, so far as material to the granting of planning and by-law permission for, and the conduct, running, supervision, and official inspection and control of, the Stardust Club, and the adequacy of the application, observance and enforcement of such legislation, statutory regulations and by-laws in relation to the Stardust Club;
and
2. making such recommendations as the Tribunal, having regard to its findings, thinks proper in respect of the statutory and other provisions in relation to fire, fire prevention and means and systems of emergency escape from fire, their adequacy and enforcement and any other matters that the Tribunal considers relevant.
We are all extremely shocked and distressed by the appalling tragedy which occurred in the Stardust Club in Artane in the early morning of Saturday last, when so many young people lost their lives and over 150 others suffered injuries.
On behalf of the Government and myself, I wish to express again our deepest sympathy to the bereaved, to their relatives and friends and to all those who have suffered injury. I should also like to take this further opportunity to pay tribute to the heroism and devotion to duty of the members of the fire service, the ambulance services, the Garda, hospital staff, members of Civil Defence and others involved for their marvellous work on the night of the tragedy.
We have a duty to the victims of this disastrous fire and to their relatives and, indeed, to all our people, to do everything in our power to establish the circumstances and causes of the fire. We must seek out as fully as possible the lessons to be learned from this terrible event, so as to prevent, as far as is humanly possible, such a disaster occurring again. It is for these reasons that the Government decided that the body appointed to hold the inquiry should have the highest status in law, and they concluded that a Tribunal of Inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts, 1921 and 1979, would be the most approprivate for the purpose.
As I advised the Dáil yesterday, the President of the High Court has consented that the Hon. Mr. Justice Ronan Keane will constitute the tribunal. He will be assisted by a number of assessors who have been chosen on the basis of high calibre, experience and expertise. Their names are as follows: Professor David Rasbash, B.Sc,. Ph.D., Department of Fire Safety Engineering, Edinburgh University, Mr. Gunnar Haurum, Chief Inspector of the Fire Service, Denmark, and Mr. Pierce Pigott, B.E., M.Sc., C.Eng., F.I.E.I., Head of Construction Division, An Foras Forbartha, St. Martin's House, Waterloo Road, Dublin 4.
We are grateful to Mr. Justice Keane and the assessors for agreeing to the Government's invitation to act.
The tribunal is being given very wide terms of reference to enable it to carry out its task. It will be empowered to inquire into the cause of the disaster and the circumstances in which it occurred and to examine the adequacy of the measures taken to prevent, detect or minimise or otherwise deal with the occurrence and also the means of emergency escape.
In line with the Government's declared determination to have the most searching and exhaustive inquiry carried out, the tribunal is established for making such recommendations as, having regard to its findings, it thinks proper in respect of the general provisions in relation to fire, fire prevention and means and systems of emergency escape from fire, their adequacy and enforcement and any other matters that the tribunal considers relevant.
The tribunal will be empowered to require the attendance of witnesses, the giving of evidence and the production of documents, and the terms of reference will provide the tribunal with full scope in its conduct of the inquiry.
The State will provide an independent solicitor and council who will be available to act for the next-of-kin of any victim and for any injured party before the tribunal. Any such party who wishes to be represented by this legal service should apply to the solicitor. Every party is of course at liberty to make his own arrangements independently of this State aid. The tribunal will sit in the premises of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland, Blackhall Place, Dublin, and will have its first meeting on Monday 2 March 1981.
In the Dáil I dealt at some length with certain unfounded statements that had been made in relation to the fire. I do not propose to go over that ground again. I should like, however, to put on record once again that on the night in question the Dublin Fire Brigade behaved in an exemplary manner. From a report that I received at 10.30 on the morning of the fire the following facts emerged.
To the initial call to the fire brigade at 1.43 a.m., four fire engines, including a turn-table ladder together with an emergency tender and two ambulances responded immediately. On arrival the brigade immediately went into action. After an assessment of the situation a call was made, eight minutes after the original summons at 1.51 a.m., to headquarters and the Major Accident Plan was put into operation.
Perhaps I should outline a number of measures I have initiated. I will be bringing forward as a matter of urgency proposals for improving the law on the fire service, in particular in relation to fire prevention matters. Draft proposals for a Bill are at an advanced stage. The heads of the Bill have been cleared with other Departments and I will be bringing the scheme of the Bill before my colleagues in the Cabinet within ten days.
As Senators will be aware, I have requested all city and county managers to arrange for immediate inspection of and, where appropriate, further action on, buildings, such as dance halls, discotheques, night clubs and other places of public entertainment in which large numbers of people may be placed at risk in the event of fire.
I propose to issue within the next ten days the draft of the building regulations with amendments, and within six weeks to publish a revised version incorporating the amendments. I intend that they be used by local authorities, industrial and professional bodies in their operations as if they had statutory backing. New legislation will be required to give statutory backing to the regulations and to provide a more flexible system of control. I have already initiated action on this enabling legislation and I will bring it before the House as quickly as possible.
I have met representatives of the Fire Prevention Council on a number of occasions during the past few days and, in the light of the discussions, I have now decided that a special task force will be established immediately under the direction of the present chairman of the council, Mr. Geoffrey Cronin. I intend that the task force will liaise closely with local authorities in the latter's role on fire prevention and keep me fully briefed. The head of the task force will report directly to me. It will also augment the efforts of the Fire Prevention Council on such matters as publicity, advertising, seminars, preparation of instruction leaflets, all aimed at increasing public awareness of fire hazards with particular reference to places of public entertainment. Further details of the work and composition of the task force will be announced later. I should like again to express my thanks to Mr. Cronin for making his services available.
Finally, I wish to advise the Seanad that the Government have given consideration to the need for a major and comprehensive review of the entire legislation and statutory provisions covering fire and public safety. The tribunal would not be the appropriate body to conduct this, if only for the reason that the Acts on which it is based confine its investigations to definite matters. The Government consider that such general ideas would be appropriate for examination in depth by a full-scale broadly-based commission of inquiry. The Government have in mind, as a separate matter, the establishment of such a commission of inquiry.
To conclude, I am sure the Seanad shares fully the Government's objectives in this matter and will endorse this motion. I should mention that the motion as introduced in the Dáil was amended in some respects in the light of the debate there.
I move amendment No. 1:
In paragraph 1, to delete sub-paragraph (3) and substitute the following:
"the measures and their adequacy, including the Draft Building Regulations of the Department of the Environment and the statutory provisions and regulations which are the responsibility of the Department of the Environment and the Local Authority, taken on or before the 14th February, 1981, to prevent and detect, and to minimise and otherwise deal with the fire at the Stardust Club."
The Seanad today has a very grave and very sad responsibility, which is to respond by establishing a judicial tribunal following the disaster at the Stardust Club early Saturday morning. Yesterday we expressed our sympathy and our condolences to the relatives of the deceased and injured, and to those who have lost members of their families, and lost their young friends. I said at that time that the measure of our compassion and of our concern will be the extent to which we are committed to a full political response to the tragedy and, indeed, to other fire tragedies which occurred in Ireland in recent years. It is in this spirit that I move on behalf of the Labour group the first amendment to the terms of reference of this tribunal.
The terms of reference have undoubtedly been strengthened somewhat as a result of the debate in the other House yesterday. They now include in subsection (5) the reference in brackets to "including the application of the draft Building Regulations published on the 29th November, 1976". Subsection (6) is a new subsection enabling the tribunal to look into the adequacy of the legislation, statutory regulations and by-laws relevant to fire prevention and safety, so far as material to the granting of planning and by-law permission for, and the conduct, running, supervision, and official inspection and control of the Stardust Club, and the adequacy of the application, observance and enforcement of such legislation, statutory regulations and by-laws in relation to the Stardust Club.
Those amendments move in the direction of the proposed amendment which I moved on behalf of the Labour group, but they contain an inexplicable omission. They do not refer to and they do not enable the tribunal of inquiry to examine the responsibility and the response of the Department of the Environment and the reports made to them and the response by the Department of the Environment to urgent calls for necessary measures. That seems to be a very serious omission not only in view of the public concern about the horror of the Stardust tragedy, but also the public alarm and concern about the fire prevention services and about the adequacy or inadequacy of the response in recent years to the calls from experts, the calls from the fire chiefs and the firemen's association.
The public are entitled to know why these matters are not included. I submit that in this House today we ought to face up to our responsibility and ensure that the judicial tribunal has the full power to investigate and to look into the adequacy of the fire prevention services and any responsibility for response to urgent measures for reform. This is what the public want. This is what those involved in the expert services want. It is what the firemen want. It is what anybody who has an inside knowledge of the state of the fire prevention services wants. Therefore, the purpose of the Labour amendment is to ensure that the tribunal of inquiry will have these full powers within its terms of reference. It would substitute for paragraph (3) of the existing terms of reference the following. The tribunal of inquiry would have power to look into:
the measures and their adequacy, including the Draft Building Regulations of the Department of the Environment and the statutory provisions and regulations which are the responsibility of the Department of the Environment and the Local Authority, taken on or before the 14th February, 1981, to prevent and detect, and to minimise and otherwise deal with the fire at the Stardust Club.
The importance of that relates to the approach and powers of a judicial tribunal of inquiry set up under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921 as amended in 1979. That inquiry, as we have been told by the Minister, will be headed by a judge of the High Court, Mr. Justice Ronan Keane, and he will be assisted by expert assessors. His training and his approach as a judge will be to remain within his terms of reference. These obviously will be the framework in which the inquiry will take place and the judge will be properly concerned to ensure that the inquiry is directed to fulfil the terms of reference as established by the two Houses of the Oireachtas.
As the terms of reference stand, there is a real danger that the tribunal of inquiry, the judicial inquiry, will not be able to call witnesses, for example, to call departmental witnesses, to call other witnesses who may have been given work on a contract basis by the Department, to inquire into the adequacy of the response in recent years to urgent calls for greater safeguards, for implementation of the draft building regulations, for reforms for better equipment for the fire service. These are all relevant to the actual immediate causes and reaction to the disaster last Saturday.
Not only are they relevant to it, but out of the ashes of the Stardust Club fire we must derive the political will and the political responsibility to face up to the need for a searching inquiry. We cannot dodge this. We cannot fudge the issue and try to respond by calling on city and county managers to start taking measures to look at safeguards in dance halls and other public places. Indeed, the very call by the Minister for the Environment has shown up the inadequacy of the present system. The Minister called on city and county managers to investigate the safety precautions in dance halls and similar venues in their local authority area. He has come up with the problem that, although he asked that these places be closed if they do not meet a standard, that cannot be done under the powers of the local authority, except by a procedure of applying for a court order.
The problem there is that the local authorities are empowered, under the 1940 Fire Brigades Act, only to move against premises which are considered to be fire hazards. If the city or county manager is of the view that it is a fire hazard on the basis of inspection and advice, then the owner may be warned to close down, but the procedure is quite a cumbersome one. There has to be 14 days notice of the service on him and then, until there is a court order, the premises cannot be closed even if they are in a dangerous condition. This reveals the extent to which there has been political apathy or unwillingness to ensure the adequacy of fire prevention measures and equipment and also controls at local authority and departmental level.
One important political lesson that we must be prepared to face up to is that the arguments have already been made, the expert evidence has already been submitted, the homework has already been done in seeking to improve the adequacy of the fire service itself and to improve the statutory controls and standards and regulations. What has been lacking has been the political will to take the necessary measures, to face up to cost and inconvience. Now in the wake of an appalling disaster, the deaths of 45 young people, the serious injury and maiming of a number of others and devastation in local communities both here and in Northern Ireland, we begin to face up to our responsibilities. We cannot do it by ignoring or trying to by-pass where much of the real responsibility lies.
I am not saying this from the position of a politician on this side of the House trying to embarrass a Government of the day. I am listening to and reading the submissions and the reports of those who know what the situation is, and I want to refer to some of these. It is the fire chiefs and the fire officers' association who have sought and pressed for the inquiry to include specifically the naming of and the direct responsibility of the Department of the Environment. This is something very much to be borne in mind.
I should like to refer to an interview with the Chairman of the Fire Officers' Association, Captain Michael Maguire of Waterford, as reported in the Irish Independent of 16 February last. Under the heading “Inadequate Prevention Policy Lashed by Fire Chief” we read:
A strong attack was made, yesterday, on the poor fire prevention measures operated by the Republic's local authorities and the lack of a proper national policy by the Department of the Environment.
The Chairman of the Fire Officers' Association, Captain Michael Maguire of Waterford, said that they had been unhappy down through the years at the level of fire prevention measures and had, at one stage, sought a judicial enquiry.
He pointed out that it had come as no great surprise to him, or his association, that such a dreadful tragedy had happened in the Stardust Club, as they had been warning that this was bound to happen some day.
Captain Maguire said that their Association had been making representations to the Department of the Environment for many years for the need for a proper fire service and some work had been done on the fire-fighting side, but the fire prevention side still lagged very much behind.
With rapid industrialisation and the erection of more large buildings, particularly ones to which the public had access, there was need for fire prevention work and the examination of plans under the planning acts to ensure that the recommendations of the fire officers are carried out. There should also be spot inspections as a follow-up.
Captain Maguire said that there was a great lack of fire prevention staff. Very few local authorities had any other than what the chief fire officer himself could do and other officers in the service, who were more operational officers than fire prevention officers. He blamed the Department of the Environment for this state of affairs.
Captain Maguire said that they had sought an inquiry into the country's fire service and they had wanted this to be headed by a judge. The fire service needed to be investigated and the blamed laid where it properly lay.
He pointed out that in relation to the proposed enquiry the activities of the Department of the Environment should be investigated.
This is the chief issue before the House today. The tribunal of inquiry has adequate terms of reference to look into the causes of and the response to the fire in the Stardust Club, but it does not have the terms of reference which enable it to look into the adequacy of the fire prevention services, the urgent calls by experts for steps to be taken to improve the fire prevention service, and the kind of response from the Department of the Environment. This is the responsibility we must not shirk. It is also, I would submit, a definite matter.
I do not accept the Minister's apparent reason for excluding the specific responsibility of the Department of the Environment as somehow not being a definite matter which the tribunal of inquiry can look into. It can be made a very definite matter by formulating the terms of reference in the way proposed in the Labour amendment which I moved. The definite matter is the adequacy of the fire prevention services at the time of the horror in the Stardust Club and that includes, in particular, the responsibility, the response, any measure taken or any measures shelved by the Department of the Environment, and the extent to which that prevented the safety standards operating which might have either prevented altogether or diminished the horror of the Stardust Club tragedy.
The Minister has made reference to the Government's intention to establish a commission of inquiry. With respect, we have had commissions of inquiry and they can be a way of defusing, postponing, submerging and not facing up to political responsibility. We know the capacity for a commission of inquiry to fail to provide a genuine, independent scrutiny which takes place in public and which can be fully followed and appreciated by the public. The extent to which a commission of inquiry falls below that standard and does not meet the same need does not have to be stressed by me.
I do not see how you can have a judicial inquiry such as we are setting up now into the actual causes and response to the Stardust Club fire, and the broader measures, which either existed or did not exist at the time and, at the same time, have some sort of second class commission of inquiry taking place. The public want a central focus of attention as part of the political response to the appalling tragedy. Dublin has never had scenes such as we witnessed in the past few days of grief and tragedy.
There is a groundswell of desire at this stage that all public representatives should face up to the responsibility. There will be grave disappointment, and I would even say disquiet, if the terms of reference of this judicial tribunal do not include an examination of and the power to call witnesses and investigate the reports and calls for an inquiry which have been made to the Department of the Environment, the response of the Department, the reasons why there has not been more activity in this area of fire prevention, and perhaps the constraints that have existed.
It is absolutely essential that the judicial inquiry we set up has full authority and has the confidence of the Irish people. If it is seen as being a narrow inquiry focused on a grim post mortem on the Stardust Club, but not facing up to the broader political implications of lack of an adequate fire prevention service, lack of adequate investigation and follow-up of other fires, such as the recent Bundoran hotel disaster and other fires, lack of concern about the out-dated legislation, the out-dated equipment and the failure to implement the draft building regulations in 1976, the public will not be satisfied. These are the questions we have to face up to. They may be very uncomfortable questions; they may be embarrassing politically; but they are the key questions which will be the measure of our real compassion and our real response to those families and to those young people who were so devastated last weekend here in the city of Dublin.
I moved this amendment on behalf of the Labour Party because we are determined that this judicial tribunal must have the full power to investigate, the full power to call the necessary witnesses and to seek a political accountability and a political basis on which we can assume the necessary responsibility to take the measures so urgently needed.
Senator Robinson has dealt with the amendment we wish to see included in the terms of reference. I do not proposed to go over that ground again. We all welcome the tribunal. We know it is a matter of urgent public importance that we get on with it as quickly as possible and try to establish the causes leading to the fire at the Stardust Club. When the terms of the motion were being framed they should have been consistent with what Senator Robinson has said and included the question of whether somebody bothered to look at the draft building regulations to see where they could have been implemented, and where local government could play a role in the prevention not only of this fire but of others. If they were included they would widen the terms of reference of the tribunal and the minds of many people would be eased. They would know that although the draft regulations were adequate they were not imposed for certain reasons, but if such matters are not included in the tribunal's terms of reference they will be excluded from their findings.
We are not here to apportion blame. I am not in that business, nor am I criticising the make-up of the tribunal. There seems to be a great deal of expertise available. At the same time, it puzzles me a little why the chief officer of the Irish fire service is not included in such a tribunal. Is it suggested that only people outside the country would be capable of taking an objective look at the problems which led to the fire in the Stardust Club, or is there some other reason? I am not really concerned about the legal jargon, but I am concerned that something might happen where somebody would be fined £5 or £10 for a misdemeanour, or get rapped over the knuckles under some particular law and be brought before the court, while all of these hazards still exist. The night after the Stardust tragedy boys and girls again assembled in discos.
Even though it appears that the Government are acting fairly rapidly, and we cannot deny that, it is no consolation if we cannot immediately give effect to something to ease the minds of parents whose children are still going to these places. If we were serious about this we would try to look at the draft building regulations, even without the tribunal, to see if we could do something to ease people's minds.
I notice that the Minister is going to have people visiting clubs and so on — but I am not saying that has not been done in the past — who will pay greater attention to every detail in the interest of safety. There is no point in an inspector going to any of these places in the middle of the afternoon. The only way he can get the full picture of the hazards — I have been in many of these places and could tell about them being death traps but I do not want to prejudice the situation — is for him to look at these places when the function is being held. He must be able to see what the problems are and be able to examine them under the worst possible circumstances. If he visits in the afternoon all he will find is a dark, dull place with beer stains on the carpet and so on. Of course this looks very nice at night time. On his afternoon inspection he will not see the crowds assemble, nor will he see what would happen in an emergency. I urge that the inspection should not take place, except when functions are taking place.
I do not know how much time the tribunal will take. It would be sad to think that the parents of the children killed in the disaster would have to wait 12 or 18 months before they know exactly what the situation is. They are distressed enough at the moment. The sooner the result of the tribunal comes out the better so that we can demonstrate clearly that we are a concerned body.
This tribunal of inquiry has been debated in the Dáil, and it is not good for me or anybody else in this House to drag it out except in the way that has been stressed by Senator Robinson as an experienced lawyer. I ask the Minister to think again about the draft building regulations and including the responsibility of local government and the Department of the Environment in the motion. In that way we can get fuller and deeper information not only about how the Stardust fire started, but it would guide us when introducing future legislation. I do not want to go over the ground covered by the draft building regulations. I looked at them and if certain sections had been in operation, while they might not have prevented the fire they would have made the results of that fire less acute.
I move amendment No. 2:
After the word "and" at the end of paragraph 1, to delete "2, making" and insert:
"having made an interim report on these matters, to inquire into
(7) the adequacy of the existing legislation, statutory regulations and local authority by-laws for the purpose of securing safety in the case of fire in places of public resort, and the adequacy of the draft building regulations published in November 1976 to cover the dangers of fire arising in structures and furnishings.
(8) the adequacy of inspection and control procedures and of the enforcement of the relevant laws, statutory regulations and by-laws.
(9) the adequacy of public liability insurance requirements in relation to such matters and to make"
Before I discuss my amendment I would like to offer my own, and my party's sincere sympathy to the parents, brothers, sisters, families and friends of the 45 young people who died in tragic circumstances last weekend and to pray God that the number of people who are still in hospital, some seriously ill, will recover. I would also like to thank the fire services, the Garda, the Army, the hospitals, the doctors and nursing staffs and the general public who acted so bravely that night. I happened to be in the area on business some days after the disaster and there was a feeling of deep gloom there. That is understandable. Everybody within that immediate area did everything possible to save as many lives as possible.
Naturally we welcome the setting up of the tribunal. I do not think we are asking the Minister to accept an unreasonable amendment. If one studies it one realises it goes further to help to prevent a recurrence of such a tragic happening. The amendment is a simple one and I appeal to the Minister to accept it. It was discussed at some length yesterday in the Dáil and the Minister could have a serious look at it during the day. It is not unreasonable to look for an interim report. We ask when will the report of the tribunal be available, but nobody knows. From our experience of reports of tribunals we know it takes a long time. Even if it was available within one, two or three months, that is still a long time and some type of interim report should be available.
I am not going to delay the House very long, because I think we should do everything to get the inquiry off the ground as quickly as possible. What legislation do we have in support of the amendment? What legislation do we have which says the type of staff who should have been there on that particular night? Maybe the disco was fully manned, I do not know. What windows were barred to prevent people from getting in? Seemingly doors were locked to prevent people from getting in. Instead of locking doors, people should be there to man them. Much more attention will have to be paid by people operating this type of dancehall or disco to make sure people can get out in the event of fire. The financial end can be all right for the proprietor but there is an obligation on both Houses and on the Government to make sure that, in the event of fire, these doors will be manned. Had the staff had any training? Did they know there was a particular type of lock on those doors? Did they know how to open the doors? People panic, and I suppose that happened there that night. These are things the tribunal will have to look into.
We talk a lot about local authority by-laws. I am not too sure about this, but I think there are only three places where local authority by-laws are in operation — Dublin city, Dublin county and Limerick Corporation areas. We have to question the type of building materials used tion the type of structure. There are materials that easily catch fire — foam, Beautyboard and seat coverings. Again these things should be looked at at the planning permission stage. A submission must be made to the local authority specifying the type of materials to be used. Take Beautyboard for instance. It does not catch fire very easily, but if it is treated with a varnish or something to give it a gloss, it will go on fire. We have experienced that in other places. I tried to light a piece of Beautyboard one day by putting a match to it but it did not light. I am satisfied it is the treatment it gets which causes it to catch fire.
Under the 1935 Dance Halls Act proprietors of dance halls have to apply to the local authority for permission to operate in the coming year. I wonder if there are any dance halls operating which are not safe? The Minister seems to think there are, because he asked for every one to be inspected. The local authority issue certificates for licences — and they should not issue one to a dance hall that is not carrying the necessary protection against fire. As I said, the Minister requested city and county managers to have an inspection carried out of all dance halls, night clubs and other places of public entertainment. Even if they are not safe. I wonder what power the Minister has to act. Can he withdraw the licence immediately? Senator Robinson said it takes a court procedure, but if that is the situation our regulations should be up-to-date and we would not have to go through the machinery of the court to get the place closed.
Fire officers have on numerous occasions stated that they have not enough personnel in the fire service. We all know the situation with regard to the water supply. The Department of the Environment may have to accept some responsibility here, although I think they are trying to improve water pressure. When city and county managers are notified of their estimates they go right down the list and they will keep essential services — water supplies, sewerage and so on — going for the year. That is not sufficient. Money must be readily available to make sure there is an ample supply of water in every pipe. We are dealing with the value of human lives — 45 people dead. Suppose this situation happened in a dance hall or disco operating in rural Ireland where there was an inadequate water supply as is the case in a big percentage of towns, and inadequate fire service, the result would have been disastrous. God knows it was bad enough where it happened.
I want to emphasise again, as I have said at the outset, that I would like to see the report from the tribunal coming as quickly as possible. I expect the Minister in his reply to indicate when it could be available, because it should be available fairly quickly. Also in our amendment we raised the question of public liability insurance. I do not know how this could be dealt with, but some form of protection will have to be given to people going into such places. The ordinary businessman and sightseer walking into a shop are covered for public liability. If people are charged an admission fee between £2 and £3.50 they should be covered for public liability insurance.
Every place one enters one sees a notice on the door, "Nobody admitted under 18 years of age". Yet, there are people attending discos — and I am sure the same happened in this particular place, on that night — under 16 years of age. I do not know if intoxicating liquor was available there, but I know young people are getting into places where intoxicating liquor is available. If they are, is there supervision inside to see they are not getting intoxicating liquor? This should be done, because as sure as night follows day, some type of identity cards will soon be issued to everybody. I think some type of identity card, not alone in places like this but in other places, should be issued to make sure these young people are not getting drink.
I should like to refer to a few points in the Minister's speech. He names the members of the tribunal. I cannot comment on any of them because I do not know them but I am sure the Minister has satisfied himself that they are capable people who will deal with this matter in the way we expect. I am disappointed that there is not somebody on the tribunal from the Department of the Environment, particularly somebody in the fire service, maybe the chief fireman. It is not too late for him to look at that. I was tempted to put down an amendment about this but, I thought better of it. I appeal to the Minister even at this stage to put somebody from his Department on the tribunal because that would be of great value to the country. The Minister said that draft proposals for a Bill were at an advanced stage and that he will be taking it before the Cabinet in ten days. I hope it will get to these Houses as quickly as possible, because it is essential.
Yesterday this House had one of the most unwanted pieces of business before it for many years — expressing sympathy to the relatives, survivors and all concerned with this horrible tragedy. Today this House has to face up to the awesome responsibility of picking up the pieces and trying to make sure that what happened last weekend in Artane will not happen again. We can speak at length on many suggestions put forward by fire officers over the years as regards sprinkler systems, proper emergency fire exists and all the other matters which they are so insistent are essential to fire safety. Under all these suggestions are two very general questions which must be aimed at the Department of the Environment. First, why have regulations, published in 1976, and submitted by An Foras Forbartha with a view to solving many dangerous matters in regard to fire safety, lain in the Department for four years? That question is going to take some answering. I am not putting that question only to the Minister sitting here, because there have been other Ministers in that Department during the past four years. Anybody involved in local authorities knows the delays that can be incurred when matters are referred to Departments and even to local authorities, but it will take some explaining by the officials concerned why it has taken four years to deal with those submissions. Second, in the light of the many unsuccessful attempts by local authorities over the years to close down various places of public dancing and so on for fire safety reasons, why have not the Department taken upon themselves the task of bringing in amending legislation to close loopholes? Those are two principal questions that are the basis of this situation. Ten years ago in France a worse disaster numerically but in relation to population it had about the same effect as this horrible tragedy, occurred. The main causes of that fire disaster attributed by the commission set up to investigate it were the materials used in building and for decorative purposes. Did we learn nothing from that? Do the Department not keep an eye on what is happening in other countries when fires occur?
Four years ago there was a disaster in the United Kingdom where much of the blame for the fire could be attributed to the highly flammable materials involved in the construction and decoration of the building. If we do learn something, why do we always learn it too late? Surely the Department have a responsibility to pay attention to what is happening around the world and ensuring we have suitable preventive measures in the event of a fire breaking out. I have no doubt the cost factor is one of the reasons why there are always delays in implementing submissions made by responsible bodies in regard to fire precautions — the cost of the extra work that may be involved and the cost of the additional manpower that may be required.
But what price the tragedy we had? All these matters, hopefully, will come out at the tribunal. Fine Gael in submitting their amendment that there should be an interim report are doing so because we have the awesome responsibility of ensuring that we are told as quickly as possible — not 12 months or two years later — why these things happened. We are seeking an interim report so that this House can be ever vigilant and can maintain continuous surveillance in this matter. I will finish by referring to a remark made by Erich Maria Remarque in his famous book All Quiet on the Western Front. He gave a term to the generation who did not survive the holocaust and to the survivors who did and who bore the scars and wounds of that holocaust —une perdue generation— a lost generation. There is a lost generation in Artane today — not only in the physical loss of the lives involved but there is also the incalculable loss in that value that only youth can put on the security of tenure, and we must ensure such a tragedy will never be faced again.
I am sure the tragic events of last weekend affected everyone very deeply. We expressed our sympathy formally yesterday. In my own case the holocaust brought many lessons home to me. As far as this motion and the amendment are concerned. I have no argument. I leave that to the Minister to deal with. If the findings of the tribunal need to be expedited, we on the Government benches will be in touch with the Minister. It is really too late for the politicians to be arguing.
In the circumstances, I would not like to let the occasion pass without making one or two observations. Many of the injured — up to 40 per cent — come from the constituency of Dublin North-East where I work. I spent the weekend visiting friends and had the opportunity to meet at the police stations and other places some of the people who had suffered. I spent two hours in the Stardust Club on Saturday morning walking around with a Garda inspector at a time when they were still finding bodies and parts of bodies. While following up some leads about the identification of victims and injured people I came across one deeply stricken family who had lost two children and one is still seriously injured. There is a funeral at 12 o'clock today for three people in one family who died. The father of that family as I tried to give him some consolation and comfort said: "You are a politician, what do you expect me to think about you? Why do you let things like this happen?" That sent me away thinking because, as a qualified engineer, I understood the issues as I walked around the Stardust and I had to examine my own conscience. One point that came home to me was — maybe this is not the place to make it but if I make it in the context of this issue the point might come home — that the electoral system we work under makes people like us spend too much of our time on the minor problems of our constituents and not on legislating properly, not on the analysis, promotion and understanding of legislation. I will not say any more about that.
I should like to take the opportunity to congratulate all the services involved. I was there early on Saturday morning and I met the people involved. They did a tremendous job: the firemen, the gardaí, the hospitals and the unknown people. Some of them are now known. I met some of the young people who had saved a number of young girls who had collapsed inside the building. Even the fact that they had a torch made a difference. I welcome the steps the Minister is taking, the setting up of the task force and the intended commission. I also welcome the immediate steps he is going to take. The Stardust in its own way provided a place for young people of that area to enjoy themselves. We have got to recognise that. The difficulty was, obviously — we have to leave the investigating body to find this out — that there was something wrong with the conditions under which that enjoyment took place. That is something the people themselves recognise. It was a place that was loved by the kids but in the event something went wrong. What the Minister is doing will enable us to find that out and rectify it.
I should like to join with other Senators in expressing sympathy to the bereaved and injured after this terrible tragedy. As a mother of teenage children I have a particular feeling for those parents who lost their children in this tragedy. Like other Senators, I welcome the setting up of the judicial tribunal and all that is expressed in the Minister's speech about the various actions he is undertaking both in the immediate future and later. It is, of course, necessary and desirable to find out the cause of this fire and the loss of life resulting from it. Nevertheless, as we know, no inquiry, no commission or task force can bring back the dead or heal the injured. We must remember and realise as public representatives — we must have it on our consciences, as Senator Mulcahy has just said — that long before this tragedy we had many practical and sensible fire prevention recommendations. We had many examples before us of what could be done by fire, of the dangers inherent in fire. Those recommendations had been made by our fire officers. An Foras Forbatha and by numbers of responsible people but no real action had been taken on them.
Even after the tragic fire in the Central Hotel in Bundoran no real action was taken. Our responsibility here is not to rest until real and positive steps are taken to prevent this happening again. We have all seen commissions and inquiries whose efforts have been totally in vain because by the time they reported the urgency had gone out of the issue. Public attention had been withdrawn and the old apathy and lack of action had taken over. Even the words used by the Minister here, the task force, cannot but bring to mind the incredibly long delays in the work of the previous task force set up to deal with what was also a matter of urgency, our responsibility to deprived children and juvenile offenders. I most sincerely hope that the Minister's task force will not fall into the same delay and result in the same endless debates rather than anything real being done.
The Stardust tragedy has brought out a number of the faults in our fire prevention services and the way we protect our citizens against fire. For example, mention has been made by several people of the faults in regulations on building and furnishing materials used in public buildings. It now appears, as far as I understand, that since last October flammability tests do apply to foams and materials used in ordinary domestic furniture but do not apply to furniture used in public places. Can we seriously defend such a position where we are willing to use tests for domestic furniture sold for our homes but not willing to apply such tests where the furniture appears in public places? There may also be a danger in that that type of furniture filling is sold by the yard in do-it-yourself shops here for people who are making or mending their own furniture. As far as I am aware warning labels are not applied to this type of material as they are in Britain.
There is also the matter of the ceiling tiles. There has been a certain amount of controversy about whether they were or were not flammable ceiling tiles. Certainly the fact that they were fixed over a passage of air in a hollow ceiling added to the problem, but we have known about this problem of ceiling tiles since the Le Mon disaster in Northern Ireland where exactly the same thing occurred. We had the terrible description of the drops of burning material falling from the ceiling on the people below. When I read the description of the tragedy in the Stardust my mind was immediately brought back to what happened in the Le Mon disaster in Northern Ireland. It was the same kind of thing. Those ceiling tiles are widespread in public buildings. How much are we checking up on them? I know, for instance, of several schools where all the classrooms have those tiles on the ceilings, presumably for acoustic purposes. Have, for instance, the Department of Education and the Office of Public Works checked on whether they are flammable tiles?
There are all sorts of anomalies in our public fire services as far as they affect public buildings. I understand that in Radio Telefís Éireann's buildings the person responsible for fighting any fire that occurs has never set foot in the buildings because the responsibility for preventing fires rests with another official. Apparently, the regulations are that never the twain shall meet. The person who has to fight the fire will walk into the building for the first time when a fire occurs. I hope, of course, it never will. In how many more of our public buildings do much or similar ludicrous situations prevail?
Naturally, I accept and applaud the Minister's wish to act urgently in the matter, but I have one small worry and query about a matter referred to in his speech. He suggested that the revised building regulations should be used by local authorities, industrial and professional bodies, as if they had statutory backing. I would ask the Minister in his reply to enlarge a little on what this means as to the legal status of those draft building regulations from now on. For instance, can people be prosecuted for breaking them? If, for instance, a building worker is taking an action for an industrial accident arising from some breach of those draft building regulations will the breach of the draft regulations constitute statutory negligence? What exactly does he mean by being used as if they had statutory backing? It may seem small point in face of such a big tragedy, but it could become quite a question if the matter came before the courts.
On the whole I support the Labour Party amendment. A great deal of responsibility comes back to the Department of the Environment. In all we have read, the buck has stopped there and it must be seen to have stopped there. In many cases it appears that action which could have been taken has been delayed or prevented within the Department. I know it has been suggested that this is contrary to the idea of ministerial responsibility for the action of their Departments, but in this country we have no tradition of Ministers resigning because of defaults within their own Departments as happened in some other countries.
The inquiry should be given some power to look behind to find out what, in fact, happened. We must come back to our own responsibility to prevent this kind of death and injury in the future. Public awareness, and the awareness of public representatives, must continue until action is taken on the recommendations of these inquiries and until our out-of-date and underfinanced fire services and fire prevention services are genuinely improved. We cannot let this be a nine days tragedy, as it were, and sink out of our awareness just because some other crisis comes up. It is up to us to keep on pressuring the Minister and his Department to bring in any recommendations the inquiries and commissions may produce.
As I travelled here it occurred to me that what we have to say today falls naturally into three sections, condolence, commendation and expectation. All Members, the people of the country, and the representatives of many countries have expressed their sympathy already and all we can do today is to once again say go ndéana Dia trócaire ar anamnacha na ndaoine óga a dimigh uainn ar shlí na Fírinne agus go dtuga Sé gach sólas do na tuismitheoirí agus do na gaolte atá go brónach ina ndiaidh.
We then move to commendation. Certainly, the Minister, the Government, and, indeed, all those who saved life on that dreadful morning, or who helped to save life, the fire and ambulance services, doctors, nurses, hospitals and so on, deserve the highest commendation possible. There is no doubt but that they did a wonderful job and all out people are very proud of them.
After such a disaster we must get at the truth, find out exactly what happened and how and why it happened. It is a matter of extreme urgency that that be established as soon as possible. The Government deserve the highest commendation for acting so quickly. They have already established the tribunal which will consist of Mr. Justice Ronan Keane assisted by a number of assessors who have been chosen on the basis of high calibre, experience and expertise, Professor David Rasbash, Mr. Gunnar Haurum and Mr. Pierce Pigott. It is great that it was possible to get those assessors to undertake such an onerous task at such short notice. Congratulations to the Minister, and the Government, on getting that done so expeditiously. We all await with anxiety the findings of that tribunal and, please God, they will be available as soon as possible.
Various speculative forecasts of what the tribunal will or will not find out are to be deplored. What we should do is to encourage anybody who has anything to say or has any evidence to offer to come forward at the sittings of the tribunal. The Minister's speech said:
The State will provide an independent solicitor and counsel who will be available to act for the next-of-kin of any victim and for any injured party before the tribunal.
There is no excuse for anybody not coming forward and giving his or her evidence so that the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth will be found out as soon as possible.
Candidly, I cannot see any need for the amendments that have been proposed. The motion before the House is quite adequate. The Minister has acted very promptly in proposing to issue within the next ten days the draft of the building regulations, with amendments, and within six weeks to publish a revised version incorporating those amendments. The main thing is to see that, as far as possible, such a tragedy will not occur again. Adequate steps have been taken. There remains the great section of expectation. To that end the Minister stated:
the Government have given consideration to the need for a major and comprehensive review of the entire legislation and statutory provisions covering fire and public safety.
The Government have in mind, as a separate matter, the establishment of such a commission of inquiry.
That is a separate matter because when the truth has been found out about what happened in Artane we must sit down — it would be no harm to be preparing our minds now as to what we should do and how we should go about it — to consider it. We all have had experience — I am sure we have reminisced a lot about it since the tragedy — of being present at meetings, speaking at meetings and convening meetings in premises that were substandard as far as ventilation, fire precaution and ordinary amenities were concerned. As a race we are inclined to be very careless about such matters. Unfortunately, we seem to depend a lot on the equation which equates courage with carelessness or even recklessness. So often I have seen people putting in plugs and points in rooms using damaged electric wires. When I drew their attention to the fact that there was nothing between them and electrocution but a slight fraction of a millimetre of plastic or rubber covering the invariable answer I got was: "It's all right; it will do". We are that kind of people.
We will have to embark on a huge educational programme in all our schools, from the lowest grade upwards, to educate people to the dreadful dangers that exist nowadays with all the new types of highly inflammable material being used in buildings, for household purposes and so on. We must educate them to the dreadful potential of electricity not properly used and controlled. All those things are posing dangers that never occurred before. Somehow there seem to have been far fewer fires when we were dependent for light on the naked candle. We must bear those things in mind. The inquiry will not be a second-class one, as was mentioned during the debate, but one of the highest order. I have no doubt about that. I commend the Minister, and the Government, for the action they took so promptly, and we look forward with great expectation to the day when, please God, the danger of such a tragedy occurring in the State will be reduced to a minimum.
As the sorry parade goes on and on every day in our newspapers I am glad to have this opportunity, which I did not have yesterday, to join in the expression of sympathy of this House to all the relatives and friends of the bereaved. That sympathy was, obviously, very heartfelt but today is another day and we must stop any breast-beating that is going on and deal in a most serious manner with the serious job we all have, to make sure that legislation is enacted to put right the faults which would allow such a disaster to happen in this city. We have an extremely deep responsibility to protect young people in a country which depends on the enormous proportion of young people for our prosperity. We owe it to them to give them an opportunity to take their place as citizens of the country.
I cannot agree for one moment with one Senator who used the expression that it is too late now for arguments. It is certainly not too late for arguments. It is the place and the time for arguments, and if we do not engage in arguments we are absolutely failing in our duty. Anything I have to say on this issue is said in a spirit of a feeling of responsibility for the future and not any wish to argue or raise points which are not worthy. That is the spirit in which I make my remarks.
There have been disquieting features of public reaction to the Stardust disaster. I might illustrate the disquiet I feel by referring to the Minister's speech today when introducing this motion and contrast it with his speech yesterday in the Dáil, when introducing a similar motion. The Minister in the Dáil yesterday said:
As you will be aware. I have requested all city and county managers to arrange for immediate inspection of all potentially dangerous buildings, such as dance halls, discoteques, night clubs...
I have also asked that any premises which do not meet fire safety requirements should be closed, under existing powers, pending the taking of remedial measures.
It was pointed out yesterday clearly to the Minister in the Dáil that he does not have powers to close. So the Minister came into the Seanad today and in the course of his speech said:
As you will be aware, I have requested all city and county managers to arrange for immediate inspection of and, where appropriate, further action on buildings such as dance halls, discotheques, and night clubs.
The phrase, "should be closed" is omitted from the speech today. That contrast between those two speeches raises questions which must be very worrying for us all.
The Minister in the Dáil in all good faith made what he considered to be an accurate speech and, of course, a more accurate one in the Seanad today. I am worried, and I think the country should be worried, that, apparently the Minister for the Environment who is responsible for so many aspects of this appalling disaster — I am not saying for one moment that the Minister personally is responsible — but the Minister in charge of the Department of the Environment does not appear to know what his powers are. Who advised him of his powers? If he does not know what his powers are how can he know how to use them? That is a terribly serious question arising from, apparently, a misconception that the Minister had those powers to close somewhere and then discovers that he does not have them.
The first question I want to ask in regard to this matter is how on earth can the country function if Ministers do not know the powers they have? This, obviously, raises the whole question of who is advising Ministers. Apparently, in the Dáil yesterday the chief fire officer of the Department of the Environment did not feel it was his job to advise the Minister, it appeared to be the Taoiseach. Is the Minister in a fog about his powers? Is there an impenetrable fog about the whole question of what is going on in regard to the implementation of regulations in this area? It seems that there is a deep fog and we are depending on a tribunal to get through that fog to enable us to go forward with some clarity.
My problem about that misconception also brings me to the point that if the Minister is unaware in this area of what his powers are how much credibility can we give to other undertakings given? How much credibility can we attach to undertakings for a task force, to commissions of inquiry, to something that is going to happen in ten days or something that is not going to happen? Those questions are very serious.
I should like to refer to another problem about the speeches. The Minister in the Dáil said:
The effectiveness of the fire service has been called into question, and I would like to put on record that on the night in question the Dublin Fire Brigade behaved in an exemplary manner.
The Minister must be aware, and everybody reading his speech must be aware, that the effectiveness of the fire service has very little to do with the bravery, heroism and efficiency of the men working that fire service. Those men, obviously, have done a fantastic job and have the respect and admiration of everybody who read about their activities, who spoke to them and who saw what they were doing. It was a magnificent job, and the kind of heroism that was in each of those people is quite remarkable. But the effectiveness of the fire service is a different question from the Dublin Fire Brigade behaving in an exemplary manner. In the Seanad speech today there was a change because, obviously, between yesterday and today the Minister had some realisation of the problem. The Minister today said:
In the Dáil I dealt at some length with certain unfounded statements that had been made in relation to the fire. I do not propose to go over that ground again.
— Very wisely, I might add. The Minister continued:
I should like, however, to put on record once again that on the night in question the Dublin Fire Brigade behaved in an exemplary manner.
The Minister is crying wolf. Nobody suggested for one moment that the Dublin Fire Brigade had behaved in anything less than an exemplary manner; in fact the conclusion of the country was that the Dublin Fire Brigade had behaved splendidly and in a manner exceeding all possible calls of duty. That confusion — or is it a deliberate confusion? — is really extremely serious for us. It is an absurd confusion and it is insulting to us to say that this is what the public disquiet is about. Nobody is saying that the public disquite is about the wonderful heroism of the Dublin Fire Brigade. The training of the fire services, the equipment, the financing, all the provisions for the fire services — that is what we mean by effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of the fire services.
I just picked those two emphases out of the speeches to illustrate something which I find deeply worrying on all our behalf — the public attitude which has come to light since this terrible weekend has passed.
I would like to touch on one further aspect. The Minister in his speech mentioned legislation and said that draft proposals for a Bill in relation to fire prevention matters are at an advanced stage, that the heads of the Bill have been cleared with other Departments and that he will be bringing the scheme of the Bill before his colleagues in the Cabinet within ten days. Very serious questions arise when we are talking about legislation coming before us very quickly. We have often received assurances in this House about draft Bills. In fact I remember as recently as last June repeated assurances about the readiness of a Bill to come before this House before the recess. No such Bill appeared and it did not appear until November in the other House. The question we must ask is what provisions are in that legislation. When it comes before us it will be too late to talk about large areas which will not be in it because one is not allowed to do so. When he is replying to the debate on this motion I should like the Minister to tell us precisely what major heads are in that Bill, which has apparently been checked out already with other Departments and is at an advanced stage.
I would like to know what provisions are in the legislation relating to some of the main criticisms which have been made since this fire happened. What provisions are in this legislation about a downward limit on public liability insurance for places of public entertainment? It is an extremely serious matter if a place perhaps can entertain 1,500 people at one time can have a very low cover for public liability insurance. Is that to be included in this legislation? Is the legislation to cover, amend and bring up to date the Fire Brigade Act, 1940? Is the legislation to include provision for mandatory inquiries after disasters like this in public places?
I am not happy that the draft building regulations are going to be issued and amended. I would like to see legislation immediately dealing with the draft building regulations. I would also like to see legislation making it statutory for fire services, irrespective of money and time involved, to be available for communities right across this country. There should be no community over a certain level of population which does not have a firstclass fire service at its disposal. I would like to see legislation which would cover every single aspect of the furniture and fittings of places of public entertainment.
I would conclude these remarks by repeating that they are made with a serious feeling of responsibility. It would be much easier to make the kind of sincere and heartfelt expression of sympathy which has been made by all Senators and to leave it at that. Nobody enjoys raising things which may call into question the responsibility of all of us in these areas and our level or otherwise of guilt. The tragedy is of such proportion that nobody can avoid or evade one moment's opportunity to raise serious questions, and I very much hope that the Minister will be able to put our minds at rest on some of these questions when he is replying.
I also welcome the setting up of this tribunal. I share, too, the concern that has been expressed on all sides of the House that its terms of reference should be as wide as possible. The fire has raised many disquieting questions, as Senators have pointed out, but because I find myself unable to speak on this matter in a dispassionate and unemotional way, I want to confine my remarks to the proposed tribunal itself. We can be assured that under the direction of Mr. Justice Keane the inquiry will be a very meticulous one. Can we also hope that it will be a speedy one because, sad and all as it is, the impact of this disaster will be lost as time passes? We, whose task it is to set up this inquiry, will not have to look at the survivors who will carry the scars of this fire to their graves, as their parents will, and I would hope that the tribunal will make its recommendations known as quickly as possible.
We have to remember that the tribunal is limited to making recommendations only. We also have to remember that we have had tragedies before; we have had inquiries before and we have had reports before. Can we seek an assurance from the Minister that the recommendations, when they are made, will be implemented in the fullest possible manner? I think it was Senator McGuinness who said that the buck stops with the Department of the Environment and thereby by implication with the Minister; it does not — it stops here. I would want no hand, act or part in the work we are doing today if it just meant that the end result was a beautifully bound volume that I could take down from my study shelves and look at, and there was no action. I would earnestly request the Minister to give us the fullest possible assurance that the recommendations will be implemented.
Many people have referred to the bravery of the various public services, fire services and others. I do not think I would want to sit down without saying that to me the bravery of those young people, many of whom in terror without any direction or any guidance in this awful occurrence, went back time after time to save their friends, deserves the highest possible commendation.
It is clear and beyond all doubt that the Minister and the Government and the Members of this House and of the other House are all extremely anxious to ensure that the fullest possible inquiry is held into all the circumstances leading up to this appalling tragedy. Consequently no inadvertent use of words in the motion itself, or no inadvertent absence of words should prevent the tribunal from investigating all relevant matters.
I believe that it would constitute a subsidiary tragedy, and perhaps ultimately even a more far-reaching tragedy, if at the end of the day the tribunal had to report that it could not examine a certain relevant question because it was not empowered to do so. If that should happen then the findings of the tribunal would themselves be inadequate. Accordingly, I would support the motion and all amendments designed to give the fullest possible scope, power and authority to the tribunal.
I should like to join in all the expressions of smypathy to those who have suffered under this dreadful catastrophe. I should also like to express a certain amount of commendation to the Minister for the speed in which he has got us to this position. Only five days have elapsed since this tragedy and he has had discussions with the Fire Prevention Council and he has been in touch with other countries. Denmark and Scotland, to fix up personnel for the inquiry. He has been in touch with local authorities on action to take pending legislation which he proposes to have enacted as soon as possible.
Senator Robinson has quite correctly pointed out that if the local authority seek an order to close premises which in their opinion are dangerous 14 days must elapse, but in actual fact if there is publication of the fact that the local authorities seek a closing order, will not that have the effect of preventing people going into that building? Is not the Minister correct in doing what he does, even though he has not got the power of legal backing behind him at the moment, because he is doing something to help people to prevent further tragedies?
We are here today to set up an inquiry and we are asking two experts on fire and an expert on buildings to tell us as soon as possible what in their opinion caused this tragedy. We want them to tell us as soon as possible what is wrong and what should be put right. There has been a certain amount of momentum attached to what has been done so far and it is our job to keep that momentum going if we can. We do not want to have here this morning our own private inquiry on what happened. To a certain extent private inquiries have been held already; we have had semi-inquiries on RTE. I do not think this should have happened when it was known from the first day that there was to be an inquiry. I do not think we should add to it here today.
I also refer to the responsibility which the Government have in this, but there are other people who have responsibilities. Architects, engineers, builders, the owners of these premises have a certain responsibility, even though there are not legal terms delineated as to what they should do. Any person who has such a responsibility, whether the statute is there or not, should accept his responsibility and contribute to the safety of people.
We are asking for an inquiry. We are trying to get speed. There are amendments to the motion before the House today, but I feel the motion without the amendments is sufficient. The Labour Party amendment refers to the building regulations, but the motion includes reference to the draft building regulations, including those published on 29 November 1976. The Fine Gael amendment goes into more detail, but if we want to get an answer from this inquiry as soon as possible, we cannot go into detail. It is far better to be satisfied that the motion as it stands is sufficient to get the information we require. I do not think we should delay and have amendments holding up the start of the work of this inquiry next Monday. From this tribunal will come recommendations which will require further detailed examination and the Government propose a commission for that. Even though commissions take time, surely a commission in the interest of the safety of the population will speed up and get the information we want as soon as possible. I am in favour of passing this motion without amendment.
As someone who in my professional life deals with students, both in work and play, I have some experience of entertainment facilities such as were provided in the club in Artane. I am not being hard-hearted and callous about this when I say it is amazing, considering these facilities, that such a tragedy has not happened before. There is widespread winking at regulations. The pious hope expressed by Senator Jago that something that has not a statutory force but is just a recommendation will be put into practice will remain a pious hope. Our job is to legislate; we are not here to make recommendations. We must see that the recommendations are given statutory force as quickly, as expeditiously as possible.
One of the unpleasant facts that emerges from such a tragedy is that vast sums of money are being made out of these places of entertainment. Fortunes are being made, and when there is that amount of money going around then we find all sorts of pressures and skipping of regulations and failure to observe what should be observed. You get the unpleasant situation that many of these halls where such entertainment is provided are death traps.
I cannot agree with the feelings of some speakers here that in some way the media should overlook this whole thing. It is desperately important that the media act in a responsible way and conduct their own full investigations. It is one of the ways in which this incident is brought into public consciousness, if the media act in the way in which they should, in a proper and professional manner.
I want to refer to what I believe to be the focus of public disquiet since this disaster. It is the allegation, whether correct or incorrect, that the reports of the fire prevention officers have not been acted on by the Department of the Environment. It is important to find out whether or not this is the truth. Therefore, I believe that the phrases in amendment No. 1, which specifically mention the Department of the Environment, are appropriate and should be inserted in the terms of reference of the tribunal. I would like the Minister to show in his reply why they should not be included. If there have been bureaucratic failings which are in some way connected with the tragedy, we should be made fully aware of them and it is the job of the tribunal to judge this clearly. I do not believe that bureaucratic failings should be overlooked when other failings are to be pinpointed. They may be there; they may not be there, but if the Department of the Environment are in some way involved then it is correct that this should be specifically stated and that the substance of amendment No. 1 should be accepted.
I should like to join in the expressions of sympathy to the families of those who died and the unfortunate people who have suffered injuries. I welcome the steps taken by the Minister, his Department and the Government in establishing the tribunal, which is the subject matter of our discussion here this morning. Praise has been rightly given to the Dublin Fire Brigade services.
The terms of reference of the tribunal should be as wide as possible and for that reason I support the amendments which have been put down. It is possible to have as many patrons attending similar functions in any part of the national jurisdiction in rural areas or county towns where we do not have the services of a full-time professional body. I fully accept and I am proud of the fact that the voluntary part-time fire fighting services in the 27 county council administrative areas are a top-class service doing an excellent job, but I would like to ask the Minister how many proposals have been with his Department waiting for sanction either to purchase new modern appliances or to build a new fire station?
The last time I had the honour of being chairman of Laois County Council, some six years ago, we got a plan put through for the erection of a new fire station in Abbeyleix. The appliance that they have there is 25 or 26 years old. There is a new appliance for the place waiting in Portlaoise, which is ten miles away, but there is no place to put it because the old fire station is too small.
It is one thing to say that the people who risk their lives and limbs in fighting fires on a voluntary basis do so as a public spirited gesture, but at least they should have the advantage of the new modern appliances. There must be an order of priority. A number of patrons similar to the number in Artane could be found in many towns and an added difficulty is that the surrounding area is jam packed with cars, many of them badly parked so that an appliance would have difficulty in getting down the street. I think a blind eye is turned to all the regulations in this area. I hope that this latest awakening of the national conscience in this area will be followed up by an acute appreciation by those in authority and by the Government of the situation in every part of the country where regulations are absolutely ignored and where the safety of life and limb is something that we do not take seriously.
I would ask the Minister if he would at this stage, and in view of the unfortunate happening in this city, give a higher priority to financing the fire fighting services throughout the country. I would like to see the county fire officers having complete control over their duties and not answering directly to administrators who would not have the experience of seeing the problem at first hand. I hope and expect that the fire officers and second officers will be visiting every place of public entertainment and every place of work within their administrative areas. It is not good enough to have their recommendations either shoved under the carpet or shelved or ignored by administrators, whether they are in the Department of the Environment or whether they are county managers or county secretaries. There should be a new order of priorities for the fire fighting services throughout the country to ensure that there will be prompt sanctioning of all reasonable applications for the purchase of modern equipment and appliances and for the erection of modern fire stations. I hope the Minister will be able, as an indication of his concern, to get some movement in this particular area. One has only to go to a place of public entertainment either in France or in Germany to see their serious approach to fire prevention.
When I visited a famous Russian Circus in Paris some years ago, the Paris fire brigade had their hoses primed and filled with water for the whole performance. I have never seen the fire brigade near a circus in the Republic. The same applies to all public performances in the theatres on the Continent. Fire brigade personnel are in attendance because they take the job seriously. They are obviously financed to do so. It might be no harm if we looked at the way in which other countries approach their responsibilities. A county fire officer has a responsibility for fire prevention in his jurisdiction and the buck should rest with him. He should not be answerable to any official and he should not allow anybody to hinder the progress of his work in ensuring the safety of the people under his charge.
On reading the papers over the last number of days, it was evident that the State Pathologist is working in extraordinarily difficult conditions. Obviously the service provided does not easily cater for a disaster of the magnitude of this unfortunate experience. Perhaps the Minister could use his good offices to influence the Government to ensure that adequate services and facilities are provided for the State Pathologist so that he could easily carry out his function. It is also necessary to ease the grief and the problems of those who are bereaved to have a more modern approach for that entire area.
I hope that the Minister will in his approach to the setting up of this tribunal endeavour to give it the widest possible scope so that we can gain from their work the knowledge and the dedication to ensure that adequate steps will be taken so as to safeguard our population from a recurrence of such an event.
A number of the amendments put down here today are similar to the amendments put down in the Dáil. Yesterday I said that they seemed to envisage a major and comprehensive review of the entire legislative and statutory provisions covering fire and public safety. The Government are satisfied that such a major review should not be undertaken by a tribunal of this sort. The Government are influenced in this matter by the need, in the interests of all those affected by the tragedy, for the tribunal findings to be available at the earliest possible date. Their progress should not be impeded by a detailed investigation of the matters referred to in the amendments. The Government consider that these matters should be looked into in depth by a full scale broadly based commission of inquiry, and the Government have in mind as a separate matter the establishment of such a commission of inquiry. Our wish in bringing this motion before the House is that, as far as possible, the terms of reference would get total unanimous support of both Houses. To that end we have negotiated with the Opposition parties and with an Independent Member of the Dáil to try to meet all reasonable demands by the Opposition with regard to the improvement of the terms of reference as suggested in the motion. To that end we accept a Fine Gael amendment which is now no. (6) in the motion. It refers to:
the adequacy of the legislation, statutory regulation and by-laws relevant to fire prevention and safety, so far as material to the granting of planning and by-law permission for, and the conduct, running, supervision, and official inspection and control of, the Stardust Club, and the adequacy of the application, observance and enforcement of such legislation, statutory regulations and by-laws in relation to the Stardust Club:
That is a very wide-ranging item indeed. Also to meet the wishes of the Labour Party we accepted and widened an amendment referring to section (2) of the motion:
making such recommendations as the Tribunal, having regard to its findings, thinks proper in respect of the statutory and other provisions in relation to fire, fire prevention and means and systems of emergency escape from fire, their adequacy and enforcement and any other matters that the Tribunal considers relevant.
Also on the special request of one member of the Labour Party in item (5) of the motion we included the words:
the measures (including the application of the draft Building Regulations published on the 29th November, 1976)...
We had felt that we were meeting the overall wish of the Labour Party in doing this but at a later stage we discovered we had not met their wishes fully. We have been at pains as a Government to get the clearest widest range of terms of reference for this tribunal and at the same time to recognise the need and demands of the parents of the deceased and of the injured and that the tribunal would not go on forever so that we would have a speedy response and a speedy result from this tribunal while at the same time not allowing the speed to in any way damage the effectiveness of the tribunal.
Senator Robinson spoke of the public disquiet about the terms of reference of the motion. I would make it quite clear that there is no attempt at a cover up; there is no question of a cover up. The terms of reference are such as to leave the broadest and widest possible scope for the tribunal. It is my wish and the deeply felt wish of the civil servants that the workings of the Department should be subject to the examination by the commission of inquiry which is to be set up and that the commission should include in that examination the allegations that have been made both inside and outside the House by some people with regard to the behaviour of the civil service. I back them totally on that. However, if we were to go into some of the items on the wide ranging inquiries suggested by Senator Robinson and others this tribunal would never give a response and would never give the necessary answers that everybody wants to have as to what happened on the night of that tragedy. We are anxious on behalf of the parents and relatives of those who were involved in that tragedy that the tribunal should report as rapidly as possible. To say that there is a cover-up is to reflect on the integrity of the judge and the assessors. To suggest that they would co-operate in a cover-up is beneath contempt. How could any reasonable person suggest that the two assessors, one from Scotland and one from Denmark, and a judge of the High Court, would in any way involve themselves in a cover-up? We as a Government are determined on behalf of the people to make sure that there is no cover up by anybody as to what happened on that tragic night.
Senator Cranitch made the point that the finding should get to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and I agree with him fully. However, we have this time constraint with regard to the report of the tribunal, and it is everybody's wish that the tribunal should report as quickly as possible. There are many areas of fire and public safety which in the light of events need to be looked at and we have committed ourselves to set up as a separate matter a commission of inquiry. That commission of inquiry can investigate and examine every item they want to examine.
The Fine Gael amendment suggests an interim report. The tribunal may decide to issue an interim report on the first portion of their terms of reference but we should not tie the hands of the tribunal as to how they carry on their business.
In the case Senator Robinson made for her own amendment, she was making a case for what is already covered — including the draft regulations of the Department of the Environment. We accepted that amendment last night. The Senator made a very good case for the commission of inquiry and I trust that her party and her party leader will agree to this commission of inquiry as a matter of urgency.
Much play was made on the cause for the inquiry by the Chief Fire Officers Association. The Chief Fire Officers Association, as I understand it, are calling for the type of general commission of inquiry that is suggested by the Government. On the question of the chief fire officers; much has been said in the past few days in the Dáil and again today in the Seanad, about the reporting relationship of chief fire officers under county councils. My predecessor issued a circular letter on 26 October 1976 on the subject stating that arrangements should be made to have chief fire officers report to the county managers in respect of specified matters which covered the key features of the job. Included in the matters were fire prevention, operational fire fighting, staffing and training, fire stations and equipment and preparation of estimates. A further circular letter was issued on 25 March 1980 to the same effect. Following on these letters, seven county councils adopted the arrangement wholly in addition to Dublin, where it has applied for many years, and another two counties adopted it on a partial basis. In other counties, the arrangement has not yet been put into effect because of industrial relations considerations. National negotiations have been proceeding on this matter, and my predecessor and I and my Department together with the Local Government Staff Negotiations Board have been active in seeking a solution. I hope that in the light of the present situation and with good will on the part of the different staff groups it will be possible to bring matters to a successful conclusion. In the meantime, the filling of six vacant posts has been held up because of the failure to reach agreement on the new conditions. I have decided that arrangements be put in train for the filling of these vacancies on the basis of the old conditions with an addendum that these conditions are at present being reviewed. I will expect co-operation of all concerned in having these vacancies filled as speedily as possible.
Senator Robinson in her contribution referred on a number of occasions to adequacy of measures. If the Senator examines the motion in my name she will see "the measures and their adequacy" right through the whole motion. All matters are there in the terms of reference for the tribunal.
But not the responsibility of the Department. That is not there. Why does the Minister not put it in?
Senator Robinson had her opportunity and I did not interrupt.
One point was made by Senator Robinson and again by Senator Hussey on my notification and request for action by local authorities with regard to inspection of all potentially dangerous buildings. I would remind the Senators of the situation in law. I sent a telegram for the personal and immediate attention of the county manager in each case saying that arrangements should be made for immediate inspection of all potentially dangerous buildings such as dancehalls, discotheques, night clubs and other places of public entertainment in which large numbers of people may be placed at risk in the event of fire, and that any premises which failed to meet requirements should be closed, using existing powers pending the taking of remedial measures. The powers are there. Local authorities have the power to serve notice on the proprietor of a potentially dangerous building to refrain from using the building or to refrain from using the building unless specified precautions are taken. There is a right of appeal to that. We live in a democracy. There is a right of appeal to a district court which may confirm, modify or annual a notice. If the appeal is not followed up, the notice takes effect after 14 days have elapsed. There is nothing to stop the proprietor complying with the notice.
Senator Hussey also mentioned the details of the Fire Services Bill that I will bring before the Government. It would be totally wrong to go into the details before bringing it to my colleagues in cabinet, and I hope the Senator accepts that. However I can tell the House that the scheme is mostly based on the recommendations contained in the report of the fire services.
Senator Robinson alleged that there was a lack of political will to improve the fire services. The staff of the Department of the Environment have been greatly increased in recent years in the fire services section. A separate section was set up in 1978 and greatly increased financial provision has been made for fire stations, equipment and training. The main recommendations of the report of inquiry into the fire services in 1979 have been put in train. I take personal responsibility for the work of the fire services committee who were set up in the Department in 1978 and who report directly to me.
Senator Robinson also referred to the power of the tribunal to call witnesses, and I would refer her to page 3 of my opening remarks where I said —
The Tribunal will be empowered to require the attendance of witnesses, the giving of evidence and the production of documents, and the terms of reference will provide the tribunal with full scope in its conduct of the inquiry
Senator Harte made a point that there should be an investigation of the draft building regulations and how they related to the Stardust fire. Yesterday in the Dáil this point was made by a Labour Deputy and we felt that they could already have been investigated under the terms of reference, but just to remove any doubt we put it in at No. (5)
the measures (including the application of the draft building regulations published on the 29th November, 1976),
Senator Harte also asked why the fire adviser to the Department of the Environment was not included as an assessor in the tribunal. It would be totally inappropriate for a civil servant whose responsibility is fire adviser to the Department to sit on a tribunal when so many matters affecting the operations of the Department will come before it; such matters as
the adequacy of the legislation, statutory regulation and by-laws relevant to fire prevention and safety, so far as material to the granting of planning and by-law permission for and the conduct, running, supervision, and official inspection
for example. It would be totally inappropriate that the fire adviser of the Department would be a member of the tribunal.
On the Fine Gael amendment, as I indicated yesterday, considerable negotiations went on between the Whips and the Party Leaders with the aim of securing unanimity on the terms of the motion and we accepted the Fine Gael amendment that now reads as no. (6) in the terms of reference. Fine Gael also had an amendment similar to amendment no. (2) here. In the light of the commitment on a commission of inquiry and a commitment that the terms of reference would cover the points raised in that amendment, the Fine Gael Party in the Dáil withdrew their amendment. For the information of the House I once again commit myself to including in the terms of reference of the commission of inquiry the points raised in the Fine Gael amendment.
On the aspect of that Fine Gael amendment relating to the question of the adequacy of public liability insurance I do not want to refer to the adequacy or not of the public liability insurance in the Stardust. That is something for the tribunal and other people but not for me today. In relation to the question of adequacy of public liability insurance in relation to places of entertainment and to other areas the Senators will probably be aware that the preparation of a major insurance Bill is nearing completion, and one section of it will include the powers to extend the terms of compulsory insurance. At the moment we have compulsory insurance on motor vehicles. There will be power in the Bill to extend the list of items requiring compulsory insurance. My personal view is that public liability insurance in places of entertainment should come under the heading of compulsory, and compulsory not only in having insurance but compulsory in the adequacy of the limits.
Will it come under it?
It will. I give that assurance. A number of other matters were raised but it would not be proper for me to reply to them here because they come under the matters to be decided upon by the tribunal in relation to water pressure, if doors were closed or not and other matters. On the question of an interim report we should not tie the hands of the tribunal as to whether they will give an interim report or not. This is something that they should decide upon themselves and we should not tie their hands on it.
A point was made about what would happen if such a tragedy were to occur in another part of the country. As the major accident plan was put into operation in the Dublin incident on last Friday night-Saturday morning there are similar accident plans for every local health board area. The effectiveness could be seen in the Cork region, for example, after the tragedy at the Buttevant rail crash. After each major incident the whole operation of the major accident plan in each area is reviewed as to its effectiveness or otherwise.
Senator Markey mentioned the question of the building regulations, and I would refer the Senator to no. (5) of the terms of reference. The tribunal can examine the whole question of the application of the draft building regulations published on 29 November as they relate to the Stardust Club.
Senator Mulcahy expressed admiration for the work of the fire service on their behaviour at the Stardust, and I could not agree with him more. I have already said this on a number of occasions. Senator McGuinness mentioned the polyurethane foam. Powers came into force in October — November to restrict the sale of furniture using this polyurethane foam for domestic use. We will have to await the report and recommendations of the tribunal with regard to the use or otherwise of polyurethane foam in the Stardust, also the question of ceiling tiles that Senator McGuinness mentioned. These are matters for the tribunal and it would not be appropriate for me to go into them today.
I have already answered the point made by Senator Hussey with regard to what powers I was using and whether I was aware of what powers I had with regard to the action that I took in the instruction I sent to the local authorities.
Senator Hussey contrasted my speech yesterday with today's speech in relation to the inspection of potentially dangerous buildings. She is reading far too much into a change in the text. Surely she would not expect me to read exactly the same speech here as I did in the Dáil. There are many other changes in the speech as well as the ones that she picked up.
It happens a lot.
I did not say anything about the inspection of buildings. Perhaps it was someone else.
I agree fully with Senator Kennedy that the terms of reference should be wide. They are wide and they will, I think, meet any fair minded person's expectation of what is required at this point.
Senator Jago made the point that now we have the momentum going. I will admit to anybody that it is a tragedy that it took a tragedy of that type to get the sort of momentum going that we have going now. I can assure Senators that, now that the momentum is going, it will be continued and I will continue to move it. I should like to assure Senator Cassidy and also the House and the country at large that when the tribunal makes its recommendations those recommendations will be acted on immediately by myself and my Department. The terms of reference of the tribunal, including as they do all the items with regard to building regulations, the adequacy of legislation, statutory regulations, the adequacy of safety measures, the means of escape, the composition of the tribunal and the assessors, should in my view and the view of the Government, get to the core of what happened last Friday night so that the families and those who are injured will get the results of the tribunal as fast as possible. As far as the Fine Gael amendment is concerned, I have already given that commitment with regard to the commission of inquiry and I stand over it.
A very short question. I want to take up the last remarks made by the Minister that if it found that somebody is responsible and there is not adequate insurance, payment will be made by way of compensation to the injured. God knows nobody wants to be making points here and I do not, but did he mean that, if there is a defect in our provisions, if the existing provisions do not ensure the flow of what would be considered enough there will be a movement to provide compensation. I do not want to take advantage of the Minister. If he would prefer to reflect on that I would be quite happy.
The difficulty in replying directly to that is that, first of all, there is a malicious damage claim lodged with the local authorities, the outcome of which nobody knows at this stage. I was referring to the need for a compulsory form of insurance in places of public entertainment and in other areas in the future. As to whether they did or did not have insurance in the Stardust Club I have no knowledge at this stage.
Could I also ask a specific question? The main thrust of the issue I raised was a legal issue relating to the terms of reference. The Minister has available to him the advice of a senior official from the Attorney General's office. The Minister said he wishes this tribunal to investigate the response of the Department of the Environment. I should like to know whether the legal terms of reference we have here allow the judicial tribunal to investigate, for example, the reports submitted on other major fires? Will there be the evidence of Captain Connolly of the Department, and other officials of the Department? Will these reports be made available to the judicial tribunal? We are entitled to know that, because that is the purpose of including the responsibility of the Department of the Environment in this Labour amendment.
It is a matter for the tribunal.
It is not a matter for the tribunal.
The Chair would like to point out to the House in general that the procedure is that, where there are amendments to a motion, the amendments and the motion are debated together. Then usually the Chair looks around and, if nobody else is offering, the Minister is called. The Minister concludes and nobody else has the right to speak afterwards.
It is customary for the Chair to allow a couple of specific questions following a reply from the Minister. The Minister has not replied on the point, the whole essential basis of the Labour amendment. He said he wishes the judicial tribunal to investigate the Department. I am asking do the terms of reference enable it to do so? That is the important question.
I allowed questions. I cannot allow any further discussion.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 20; Níl, 9.
Tá
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Cassidy, Eileen.
- Conroy, Richard.
- Cranitch, Mícheál.
- Crowley, Flor.
- de Brún, Séamus.
- Donnelly, Michael Patrick.
- Doolan, Jim.
- Dowling, Joseph.
- Herbert, Anthony.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jago, R. Valentine.
- Lambert, C. Gordon.
- Lanigan, Michael.
- McGlinchey, Bernard.
- O'Toole, Martin J.
- Ruttle, James.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, William.
Níl
- FitzGerald, Alexis.
- Harte, John.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kennedy, Fintan.
- McDonald, Charles.
- Markey, Bernard.
- Reynolds, Patrick Joseph.
- Robinson, Mary T.W.
- West, Timothy Trevor.
Tellers: Tá, Senators W. Ryan and Brennan; Níl, Senators Harte and P. Reynolds.
Question declared carried.
Is amendment No. 2 withdrawn?
In view of the Minister's undertaking I will withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion agreed to.
Would Senator E. Ryan tell the House when it is proposed to sit again?
It is proposed to adjourn sine die
Before the House agrees to adjourn sine die, could I ask whether it is possible for the House to meet, preferably next Wednesday as we normally meet on a weekly basis, to take the Domicile Bill which I raised yesterday? This is an important legislative measure. If there is no Government legislation coming before us, all the more reason for the House to sit and consider this legislation. I would ask that we adjourn to next Wednesday and then take the Domicile Bill. The Minister has had the text of it for three months now, and he must know what the official decision is on it. I oppose the proposal to adjourn sine die. Surely there is a lot of business to be done and, as I say, that item is an important legislative item, an important measure of reform. I would ask that the House sit next Wednesday.
I should like to support Senator Robinson. It seems quite extraordinary that, with so many defective areas remaining in legislation, we are not to sit next week. I support most strongly the proposal that the Domicile Bill be taken next week.
I am not in a position to say what business is available at the moment. It is possible the House may meet next week but as I am not in a position to say definitely, I am proposing that the House adjourn sine die.
Could we not agree to meet next week and, if there is no Government business, take the Domicile Bill? We have business. We have reason to meet next week. There may be other Government business and there may be Government business that would take priority on Wednesday. I quite accept that, but the point is we have business to do and we should not adjourn sine die. I propose that we adjourn until next Wednesday. I propose that we amend the motion and adjourn until Wednesday next.
The proposal is that the words "sine die” be deleted and the words “until Wednesday next” be substituted. I am putting the question: “That the words proposed to be deleted stand.”
Question put and declared carried.
Amendment lost.
Motion carried.
The Seanad adjourned at 1.20 p.m.sine die.