Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 18 Feb 1993

Vol. 135 No. 2

State Authorities (Development and Management) Bill, 1993: Committee and Final Stages.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Sherlock

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 2, before section 1, to insert the following new section:

"1.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, 1963 to 1992, no State authority shall be exempt from a general obligation to seek and obtain planning permission in respect of any construction or development which, if undertaken by any other body, company or individual, would require such permission.

(2) The provisions of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to any constructon or development which was completed prior to February 14th, 1993.”.

The section referred to gives wide-ranging powers to the Minister and the Office of Public Works — they have the right to build or demolish as they see fit. There is a general consensus that the Office of Public Works and the State agencies should be required to get permission. There are other factors coming into this debate and distorting it. These are particular issues which are affecting people in local areas at this time. In Cork County Council we have been debating the five year development plan for the past six months and we will be debating it for another six months. Every minute detail will be gone into and yet the State agencies will not be subject to any plan. Times have changed. New issues have been raised and, consequently, there is a need to move this amendment to the Bill.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Ms. E. Fitzgerald)

Senator Sherlock's amendment would require that in respect of all developments not completed by 14 February 1993 it would be necessary to seek planning permission. It would contradict the basic purpose of the Bill which is to protect work in progress or about to commence, for which contracts have been issued. The Government yesterday, on the part of the Taoiseach in the Dáil, gave an undertaking to adhere to the commitment in the Programme for Government in relation to making public bodies accountable under the Planning Acts and I have repeated that commitment in this House. As soon as the Supreme Court has clarified the current state of the law on planning issues, the Minister for the Environment, who is working actively on this, will proceed with all speed to implement a law in relation to the planning provision, as promised in the Programme for Government.

There are two points I wish to make. First, this amendment would contradict the basic purpose of the Bill which is to safeguard work in progress. Second, the principle of the amendment will be achieved. There is an undertaking by the Government to that effect and as soon as it is practicable that will happen.

Mr. Howard

I have considerable sympathy with the amendment tabled by Senator Sherlock, particularly with the first part. However, I have a difficulty which I have explained to Senator Sherlock in relation to the second part of it. I would be quite happy to support the second part of the amendment if the word "completed" in the last line was replaced by the word "initiated".

I wish to say to the Minister that my intervention at this stage in the debate would perhaps not be necessary if a certain gap had not been left in her reply on Second Stage. I do not want to discuss Second Stage, but I asked a question and I will repeat it. I believe the response to it will govern my attitude to supporting or otherwise what has been proposed by Senator Sherlock. Does the Minister agree that when this legislation is passed its effect will be to validate all works undertaken by the Office of Public Works, including that already done at Mullaghmore?

I spoke earlier today about the problem I had in accepting legislation which appeared to validate so much, but somehow did not apply to three separate projects. That was not responded to and I am repeating the direct question. In the Minister's opinion, does the legislation if and when passed, validate all works undertaken by the Office of Public Works including that already taken place at Mullaghmore? In my view, what is under appeal to the Supreme Court is to establish if there is an obligation on the Office of Public Works to require planning permission for future works. The Supreme Court is being asked to decide something in general and not a specific issue such as Mullaghmore. Will the Minister please clarify the effect of the validation which this legislation will give on work already undertaken, specifically with regard to the works already done at Mullaghmore?

Mr. Sherlock

It is contended and argued by the Minister that it has been made necessary to have a decision to regularise the activities of the Office of Public Works in the light of the High Court decision and the works already undertaken. Nobody has any objection to that, but this is specific. Section 2 of the Bill states that the State authority shall have, and be deemed always to have had, power to carry out development and maintain, manage, repair and improve buildings and structures. This is legislating to consolidate that position and to give far-reaching powers to the Office of Public Works and the State agencies.

I want to make it clear that nobody has any objection to regularising what has been done in the past. I appreciate Senator Howard's concern and his point bears out my earlier argument that people's thinking or attitude might be coloured by developments in certain locations.

If the word "initiated" was substituted for "completed", it would be difficult to get a correct interpretation of "initiated". At what stage is it deemed to have been initiated? Is it deemed to have been initiated when a plan has been drawn up? The word "completed" is clear, distinct and precise and, for that reason, I will stick with it.

Mr. Norris

I am in broad sympathy with the intention of this amendment. Senator Howard has put on the record what I was going to say. I fully support the first paragraph of the amendment. However, I would have the difficulties Senator Howard has indicated with regard to the word "completed". I have no such difficulty with regard to the word "initiated" because I imagine there is a legal definition of "initiated" and I assume that such works would be considered to be initiated from the signing of contracts. Perhaps I am incorrect in this, but this is what I imagine it means.

With regard to the Minister's commitment, I am quite certain she means this; but with regard to the Taoiseach, I have received commitments on a number of occasions before. They varied in intensity and resolution and one cannot always be convinced of the time-scale involved. One can get commitments but they may be at the bottom of the scale of priorities. I also recall a time some years ago when the then Leader of the House — not the present Leader — gave a commitment to the House on a particular matter. This commitment was flagrantly breached and when my colleague Senator O'Toole, challenged him he said he gave a commitment but it was not an absolute commitment. I would like to ask how absolute is this commitment?

May I draw to the Minister's attention, somewhat anachronistically, that she will have an opportunity to comment further, if and when we get to amendment No. 3. This amendment is in my name and would permit the Government to do what she has committed herself to do, with no great difficulty. I do not see the need to agonise over implementing what we have given as a commitment. All sides of the House have said that the Office of Public Works and various other agencies should be subject to the same planning requirements and regulations as citizens.

I look forward to hearing the Minister's further comments on amendment No. 3, but in principle I support this amendment. I have precisely the difficulties that Senator Howard indicated; if it is possible to alter the wording by substituting the word "initiated" for "completed", then the amendment would have my full support.

Mr. Howard

May I suggest to Senator Sherlock that by staying with the word "completed" he is not achieving what he seeks. The word "completed" is not a precise term in this context. To all intents and purposes any large contract can be completed, but it is not really completed if a gatepost remains to be painted. The point can be argued that if, for example, a tap is leaking or a light switch is not working, the project is not completed. The word "completed" could be used to prolong a project over a considerable period. While Senator Sherlock is hesitant about using the word "initiated", it would be as effective as the word "completed" and I would be happier with it.

Mr. Sherlock

I bow to superior knowledge in this regard.

Acting Chairman (Mr. T. Fitzgerald)

The amendment would be an amendment to the original amendment.

Mr. Sherlock

Does that mean that I have to rewrite it?

Acting Chairman

Yes.

Mr. Roche

The principle that public authorities should be subject to the same planning laws as everybody else is one that I endorse. I have railed against these exclusions as a county councillor, particularly where statutory agencies, not least the county councils, were concerned. May I suggest to the people proposing these amendments, well intentioned though they are, that planning law is so complex that they could accept the undertakings, notwithstanding the points made by Senator Norris about the time for a commitment. The introduction of planning requirements for all statutory agencies is such an important principle that it requires detailed discussion. One of my fears would be that when we come to look at the introductions, there may be further exclusions. All statutory agencies should be covered by all planning requirements in the same way as all individuals, whether corporate or private, are covered.

The problem with these two amendments is that they seek to achieve something which is required and desirable in planning law by an addition to legislation which has a very specific effect. Senator Quinn's tests of legislation were very good and one of them was how specific are the changes introduced. I agree that when emergency measures are introduced, they should be very specific and focused. To try to cover lacunae in our planning law by additions to a specific piece of emergency legislation would not be a good principle. The principle that the planning laws of this land apply to all agencies, both statutory and private, is one I personally endorse. However, I will not be supporting these amendments because I do not believe this is the perfect legislation to achieve those desired ends.

Mr. Norris

I have no difficulty with "completion" because I imagine that completion occurs in a contract when the final payment is made. One frequently finds the phrase "final payment on completion". When the final payment is cashed in by the contractor, that is completion. It does not matter whether the gatepost is painted or not——

Mr. Howard

Two years down the road.

Acting Chairman

Senator Norris, without interruption please.

Mr. Norris

When the cheque is cashed it says "final payment on completion", but this may be academic. I am very glad Senator Roche, who has wide experience in county councils, has railed against the exemptions from planning permission. This is a very good thing. I have a nasty and suspicious mind and the Seanad is the place where nasty and suspicious minds ought to operate because we are supposed to bring critical intelligence to bear on this sort of legislation to expose flaws, subterfuge, etc. It seems that one intention of this Bill is to continue exemptions from planning legislation — if I am not mistaken, section 5 is an almost direct quote from planning law.

Mr. Calnan

Are sections 1 and 2 in order since this matter is with the Supreme Court? Should we be discussing it?

Acting Chairman

Yes. They are in order.

Mr. McGowan

These amendments would negate the Bill. I do not want to criticise my colleagues, but it is obvious that they lack an understanding of planning, contracts and the fundamentals in this area. Work starts once the contract is signed. Surely no Senator would suggest that the Office of Public Works should be put in the position where they would have to cancel contracts, with all the consequences that would follow. The question of planning permission would not arise at this stage; it would be an application for attention.

Mr. Farrelly

We are discussing this legislation and the amendment on the basis that 50 projects can continue. However, three of these 50 projects will not be decided on until the Supreme Court makes a decision. If this legislation does not cover all 112 projects is it right? If it is going to cover them why are three left out? This is a very important question. The legislation under consideration either covers all projects or none. I would like that question answered.

Ms E. Fitzgerald

There are two issues involved in the High Court decision. First, did the Office of Public Works have a general authority to engage in building work? The court said no and that is what we are addressing in this Bill. Second, should the Office of Public Works apply for planning permission? The court said yes, where a previous court judgment on the Luggala case said no. There is a conflict between these High Court judgments. The planning aspect under appeal in the Supreme Court is specifically in relation to Mullaghmore and Luggala because they are the two centres on which this conflict of High Court decision exists.

Mr. Howard

But the effect of this applies to all.

Ms E. Fitzgerald

The Bill refers to the general powers of the Office of Public Works to engage in building work, to manage property and so on. That applies to all property, including Mullaghmore, Luggala and the Boyne Valley. There are two conflicting planning decisions on Luggala and Mullaghmore which are being appealed. These two projects will stay frozen. For safety reasons, the Government have decided to delay the Boyne project, but every other project is going ahead.

The planning issue is separate and is being examined by the Minister for the Environment. Planning law is a complex area. Any of us who has been involved in local authorities know the ramifications and difficulties involved in planning law. Although I sympathise with the sentiments I gave an undertaking, which is written into the Programme for Government, the planning issue will be dealt with. It is not appropriate in emergency legislation dealing with specific issues on the right to build. It would not be appropriate to bring in an amendment to planning law when the relevant staff in the Department of the Environment have not completed their examination and when there is an issue of conflict between two High Court judges still to be resolved by the Supreme Court.

From a legal point of view and from the point of view of the proper examination that this serious planning issue deserves, it would be premature to deal with it in this way. There is an undertaking by Government to deal with it as soon as the matter has been resolved in the courts and as soon as the necessary examination of its ramifications has been carried out by the Department of the Environment.

Concern has arisen in the course of the debate that this legislation is being rushed through without adequate time to scrutinise it properly. It is important in that context to focus the legislation on the minimum that needs to be done to preserve the jobs in question which is to restore power to the Office of Public Works to build and manage property. The wider planning issues will undergo detailed examination in the relevant Government Department before being submitted to the Cabinet in the light of the Supreme Court decision and will then go through the full rigours of examination in both Houses before being finally adopted into law. We know how complicated planning law is and how important it is to get planning issues right. It is important that amendments would be teased out in the normal course rather than encompassed in emergency legislation. I accept the general point made by the Senators.

I agree with Senator Howard that one could not possibly rule out projects where work is in progress; that would leave all the work in progress up in the air. The reason the House is dealing with emergency legislation with such attention is that we need to pass this Bill as a matter of urgency so that work in progress may continue and people painting walls and knocking in nails at the moment are not stopped midway and told their work is illegal.

Mr. Sherlock

On a point of information arising from the Minister's statement, does she envisage this legislation being repealed immediately following the consultation and discussion by the planning authority which she mentioned and as a result of the court decision?

Ms E. Fitzgerald

There are to issues involved here, as I explained: a right to build and a planning issue. The right to build is required permanently in our legislation so that the office of Government charged with building works, managing State property and looking after our heritage has the power to engage in physical work such as painting, decorating, repairing and conserving together with other good work done by the Office of Public Works. For example, when renovating this Chamber they required the legal power to put blue paint on the blue bits and yellow paint on the yellow bits. That legal power was called into question by the High Court in the Costello judgment and is being restored by this Bill.

I do not think there is any intention of repealing the power to engage in works because the Office of Public Works was always envisaged as a body that could engage in ordinary building work. Since this legislation was prepared in a hurry because of a decision that nobody anticipated in the form in which it came, flaws or faults that emerge in the course of practice will be addressed under normal procedure and practice.

On behalf of the Minister for Finance I am giving the undertaking that when the planning issue has been resolved the operation of this particular Bill on the building side will be looked at to see that it meets the requirement it was intended to meet. It is important for the Office of Public Works to be able to continue its day to day, bread and butter work.

Mr. Dardis

I accept the Minister's point about the distinction between the planning aspect, which has been appealed to the Supreme Court, and the competence of the Office of Public Works to deal with the building, maintenance and management of public buildings. With respect, that is not the point at issue, I dispute that the Minister for the Environment may, at his discretion, decide what the planning law might be. We are the Legislature. We make the law and can decide unilaterally, without any reference to the Minister for the Environment, what the law should be. It is within our competence to decide on the reasonableness of an amendment.

In my view Senator Sherlock's amendment is reasonable. There is widespread public disquiet about the fact that the State can invoke one set of rules for itself whereas a private developer or company must go through a different process. We can address that point irrespective of legal proceedings taking place in the High or Supreme Court. From that point of view I support that part of the amendment.

I have the same difficulty as Senator Howard about the matter of completion or initiation and how that might be defined. I will come back to this matter with an amendment to section 3 as to what the State's competence might be. While I accept that what the Minister said in relation to the court case and about the point of this legislation, if this House has any significance, we can decide this matter for ourselves without the Minister for the Environment's direction as to what we may decide.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

I welcome this amendment and thank Senator Sherlock for agreeing to include the word "initiate" in the second part of the amemndment.

Acting Chairman

We cannot accept the amendment to the amendment at this stage. It should have been tabled prior to Committee Stage.

Mr. Howard

On a point of order, Senator Sherlock can introduce that amendment on Report Stage, if there is a Report Stage.

Mr. Sherlock

On a point of order, can you quote the Standing Order which precludes the inclusion of this amendment? Is this a different House to the other one.

Mr. Norris

They are different Houses, yes.

Mr. Roche

It is a different House.

Acting Chairman

At this point we are on Committee Stage and I am informed that I cannot accept an amendment to the amendment. It can be taken on Report Stage.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

The broad thrust of this amendment is acceptable. One point I would like to raise with the Minister refers to her clarification of earlier contributions in relation to the distinction between the general authority of the Office of Public Works and the planning aspect of this Bill. When this legislation is passed this evening will it empower all works to continue or recommence and if so give full authority for Luggala and Mullaghmore to proceed? If the works at Luggala and Mullaghmore are frozen it will not be by this legislation but by a Government decision to proceed with the planning appeal.

It concerns me that this legislation, which has been hastily introduced because of the Mullaghmore decision, will have the opposite to its intended effect which was to allow the Mullaghmore project to proceed and get people there back to work as quickly as possible. If the 50 people in Mullaghmore are not back at work on Monday it will not be because of an inhibition included in this legislation but because of a Government decision to proceed with the planning aspect of it in an appeal to the Supreme Court?

Mr. Sherlock

To expedite matters and in view of the fact that I agree to amend the amendment, could I withdraw that amendment and resubmit it on Report Stage?

Acting Chairman

It would be in order to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Sherlock

May I ask you, Sir, because I am concerned, whether there will be a Report Stage on which the amendment can be taken?

Mr. Norris

It is highly unlikely.

Acting Chairman

That is entirely up to the House and depends on how quickly Members get through the other amendments.

Mr. Sherlock

In that case the amendment stands.

Mr. Daly

Can I take it that what has been done at Mullaghmore to date is made legal by this legislation? Can the car parking facilities, the contract for which was completed some time go, be now operated and managed by the Office of Public Works? Last Sunday thousands of people were at this site. Can the Office of Public Works manage the car park at Mullaghmore as and from now?

Ms E. Fitzgerald

A number of points have been made. Senator Dardis said that it is the Oireachtas and not the Minister for the Environment who legislates. That is correct. The point I was making was that as there has been criticism that legislation that is needed urgently does not get the proper consideration, it would be prudent that matters dealing with planning be looked at by the appropriate Minister before introducing legislation to this House.

This Bill confers a general authority on the Office of Public Works to build. If this Bill is passed, the Office of Public Works will have authorisation in respect of building at Mullaghmore but under the planning Acts they will not have power until there is a determination of the matter by the Supreme Court. The High Court ruled in favour of Luggala on planning grounds but ruled against Mullaghmore on similar grounds and, as a result, there is much uncertainty.

In relation to the three interpretative centres the Government decided to end uncertainty and to clarify the situation. They are appealing the decision to the Supreme Court and in the light of its ruling appropriate legislation will be framed to deal with the planning issue. Senator Taylor-Quinn may wish to interpret that as the Government stopping work on the project but when there are two conflicting court decisions and the law is unclear the prudent course of action is to clarify the law.

Mr. Norris

Earlier during the debate the Minister suggested that nobody anticipated this situation. Of course they anticipated it. They should have anticipated it. I put information on the Official Report this morning that the Office of Public Works had been written to by a solicitor expressing concern on precisely these grounds and the solicitor's letter was ignored. It was answered only when a question was raised in the Dáil. The answer given was based on an apparently defective interpretation or a very shaky foundation in law relying on law such as the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924. I put all that on the record this morning. If they did not anticipate it, they should have anticipated it. There is no reason they should not have anticipated it. It would be normal to anticipate something after receiving correspondence from a solicitor.

I assume that what we had from the Minister is an undertaking or a commitment that no further work will go ahead until a decision is reached as a result of the appeal in the case of Mullaghmore. It would perhaps be considered a contempt if work continued while a matter such as this is on appeal. I do not want to anticipate too many of the arguments that may arise if we get to my own amendment, amendment No. 3, which has a similar intention. If such an amendment were inserted it would obviate the necessity of trundling back once again to the Supreme Court, which would be an expensive course of action.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

From what the Minister has said, may I take it that work may not recommence at the Mullaghmore site for months until the Supreme Court has given its decision and further legislation following that decision is introduced to the Houses of the Oireachtas? May I take it from what the Minister said, that the workers in Mallaghmore will not go back to work next Monday?

Ms Gallagher

I wish to address the matter in hand, that is, the amendment proposed by Senator Sherlock. First, on a technical point, the word "construction" used in that amendment is unnecessary as the definition of "development" would include construction. Second, and on a more serious point, the amendment intends to insert in legislation something which requires full and proper debate, in essence, that is the requirement of the State authorities to obtain planning permission for all functions. This is a complex and wide-ranging matter and should not be inserted in a slipshod fashion at this stage. It requires proper debate as a separate issue. Our opponents in this House have argued today for time to debate the current Bill before us; they now seek to introduce major change in legislation without any debate whatsoever. This cannot be possible and on that basis I object to the proposed amendment.

Mr. Howard

Senator Gallagher has made the perfect argument why this Bill should not have been introduced given the limited amount of time available for this House to discuss it.

Mr. Roche

I wish to speak briefly in support of Senator Gallagher. The amendment, as drafted, refers to "no State authority". What does that mean? Does it mean local authorities? Very shortly local authorities will be told that up to 3,500 new local authority houses can be built. Senator Sherlock, like most other public representatives, would welcome this but would say we need even more houses. Do the words "no State authority" in this amendment mean that planning applications will have to be made in all such cases?

Mr. Norris

Why not? It is a good idea.

Acting Chairman

Senator Roche, without interruption.

Mr. Roche

This is precisely my point, what we mean by extending planning rules to State authorities should be debated in full. I have believed for a long time and have expressed it publicly that all State authorities should be subject to planning applications. Other public representatives would have different views and would argue that caution is needed before requiring that local authorites should be subject to planning applications. Who would hear the planning application from, say, the urban district council in Bray to build houses? Bray UDC is the planning authority for Bray. Who is to hear the planning appeal in that case?

This is a matter of considerable importance. The proper way to extend planning law is not by an adjunct to legislation which has been introduced because of a peculiar set of circumstances. We all agree that emergency legislation should be avoided as far as possible and to use such legislation to make a major extension to planning law would be bad lawmaking. We would be guilty of doing precisely what Members on the other side of the House suggested today that the State should avoid. I suggest we move on because there are other issues that have to be discussed.

Acting Chairman

I intend doing that after the Minister has spoken.

Ms E. Fitzgerald

First, in relation to the legal status of Mullaghmore, which was raised by Senator Daly and Sentor Taylor-Quinn, according to Mr. Justice Costello's judgment the car park is an illegal development under planning law. Work will not be resumed until a decision is made in the Supreme Court and they have been asked to deal with the issue as a matter of urgency.

Second, on the point Senator Norris made, namely, did the State authorities not anticipate a decision and had Dr. Yvonne Scannel not written to the Office of Public Works, I have great respect for Dr. Scannel and for her legal expertise but ultimately the law depends for its interpretation on the presiding judge. Legal advice is available on both sides of any question; it is a case of "You pays your money and you takes your choice."

Mr. Norris

Were they put on notice?

Ms E. Fitzgerald

The Office of Public Works were written to and they referred the matter to the State Solicitor. The State Solicitor's advice was different from that of the person who had written who advised that they had the legal power, a power everybody assumed they had for 160 years. One could, of course, obtain legal advice that they did not have the power, but the general consensus of legal opinion up to Judge Costello's judgment was that the Board of Works had legal powers to engage in building works. This had been confirmed in the Luggala decision. Both sides of the argument can always be advanced on legal grounds, but the general consensus among most was that the Office of Public Works always had legal power to operate although many questioned the planning aspect which was considered to be the more open aspect. That is how matters stand at present.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 20; Níl, 31.

Tá

• Belton, Louis J.
• Burke, Paddy.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Cregan Denis (Dino).
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Dardis, John.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Henry, Mary.
• Honan, Cathy.
• McDonagh, Jarlath.
• Manning, Maurice.
• Naughten, Liam.
• Neville, Daniel.
• Norris, David.
• Reynolds, Gerry.
• Ross, Shane P.N.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.

Níl

• Byrne, Seán.
• Calnan, Michael.
• Cashin, Bill.
• Cassidy, Donie.
• Crowley, Brian.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Fahey, Frank.
• Farrell, Willie.
• Finneran, Michael.
• Fitzgerald, Tom.
• Gallagher, Ann.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Kelleher, Billy.
• Kelly, Mary.
• Kiely, Dan.
• Kiely, Rory.
• Lanigan, Mick.
• Lydon, Don.
• McGennis, Marian.
• McGowan, Paddy.
• Magner, Pat.
• Maloney, Seán.
• Mooney, Paschal.
• Mullooly, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Jan.
• Ormonde, Ann.
• Quinn, Feargal.
• Roche, Dick.
• Townsend, Jim.
• Wall, Jack.
• Wright, G.V.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Sherlock and Cosgrave; Níl, Senators Mullooly and Magner.

Amendment declared lost.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Dr. Henry

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 2, line 20, after "manage" to insert "protect,".

This amendment is meant to be positive. The officials of the Office of Public Works have grave responsibilities towards the buildings and projects they manage and I recognise as the Minister said earlier that other Acts contain provisions for the protection of buildings. However, as Senator Taylor-Quinn pointed out, much of the legislation under which the Office of Public Works functions is 160 years old. What happens to buildings now did not happen 160 years ago. Times, sadly, have changed. This is why I suggested that the word "protection" was needed.

While I take the Minister's point that there are other relevant Acts, these Acts were also there when the destruction of the stables I mentioned earlier took place and I mention the removal of fireplaces from Georgian houses, etc. I pointed this out to be helpful to the officials of the Office of Public Works. I am sure the suggestion that security is not necessary was not intended seriously by the Minister.

This Bill does not focus solely on interpretative centres. Many of these buildings however are being erected in isolated areas and in my experience of visiting them, are rarely frequented in winter. At times when I have visited the Connemara centre it has been closed although there were a number of visitors about. I wonder if the security question has been looked at seriously enough. This was my reason for tabling this amendment and I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about it.

Ms E. Fitzgerald

I sympathise with what the Senator is trying to do. We all share a wish that the Office of Public Works should protect our heritage and treasured buildings. It might be possible to achieve what the Senator suggested if the Office of Public Works reviewed its policy in relation to the management of centres and buildings under its control to ensure that the security aspect, which Senator Henry referred to, is properly attended to and that there is proper concern for conservation and protection of our building stock and national monuments. The latter are already protected under the National Monuments Act. I assure Senator Henry that the points she raised will be seriously considered at a policy level.

It may be counter-productive to insert the word "protect" into the legislation, even though the reason may be a good one. Unfortunately, at this stage we are not in a position to make a detailed examination of the case. Nobody wants to introduce measures which would not achieve the objective of protecting our building stock. The phrase in the Bill which says that the Office of Public Works has the power to manage State property implies protection.

I will consider the points made about the destruction of the stables and I will ask the staff of the Office of Public Works to write to Senator Henry on those points. Having given these assurances, I ask Senator Henry to withdraw her amendment.

Dr. Henry

Given that the Minister has a long family association with the Office of Public Works and I have a long association with the Minister, I accept her assurances and withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Norris

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 2, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following new paragraph:

"(e) the exercise of such powers shall be subject to the requirements of planning legislation.".

As I put forward many arguments earlier this evening in relation to this, I do not intend repeating them. However, since there is a strong degree of unanimity in the House that the Office of Public Works should be made amenable to planning law, this is a resonable amendment. I am not going to make detailed arguments because it would be better to deal with all the amendments in the allotted time.

Ms E. Fitzgerald

First to clarify the what Senator Norris is trying to achieve in this amendment. This Bill deals solely with the powers of the Office of Public Works and State authorities to build and maintain property. These powers are not only subject to the normal planning laws but also to exemptions in the planning Acts and to future amendments to planning legislation. The provisions in this Bill will be subject to current planning legislation, and to any amendment to such legislation which it is hoped the Government will bring in following the Supreme Court decision on the planning aspect. The powers in the Bill are also subject to the control of the Minister for Finance. There is thus another check in the system.

Mr. Norris

We have had assurances, commitments and undertakings from the Minister with regard to the Government's attitude on the matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Dardis

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following new subsections:

"(4) The powers referred to in subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall not be exercisable without the making of an order under subsection (5) of this section where—

(a) the development in question consists of or entails the demolition or alteration of any building which is listed for preservation or conservation under the provisions of any county or county borough development plan for the time being in force under the provisions of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, 1963 to 1992 or

(b) the development is part of a development or series of developments the value of which is £5 million or more.

(5) An order for the carrying out of a development under subsection (4) may be made by the Minister but the order may be revoked by a resolution of either House of the Oireachtas not later than 21 days after the date on which the order is laid before the said House".

The scope of this Bill is wide-ranging. It gives the Minister immense powers which, in my view, are unwarranted. The definitions are too wide.

Yesterday there was a discussion about the electoral system in respect of the House. Senator Norris and Senator McGowan made points about the election of university Senators. I realise some people here would like to see Trinity College demolished. Although I accept that is an extreme example, under the terms of this legislation it would be possible to do so.

It is extremely important that we protect our heritage and that is the reason for our amendment. We must limit the powers of the Executive and the Office of Public Works in this respect. I do not wish to discuss this in detail because I want to proceed to the next amendment. However, I commend the amendment to the Minister.

Mr. Roche

I was fascinated by this amendment and I am even more fascinated now that Senator Dardis has introduced, as the basis for his amendment, the possibility of demolishing Trinity College. Are Senator Dardis and Senator Honan serious about this amendment? Let us look at it for a moment.

A ministerial order will be required in two instances. The first is where a demolition is about to take place; the second is for any public work costing £5 million or more. Let us consider an unfortunate case where a major building in the charge of the Office of Public Works is subject to a fire and is in danger of collapse, thus endangering the public. Before that building can be demolished or altered, a ministerial order would have to be made. This point illustrates the fallacy of introducing perhaps well-intentioned but what I regard as daftly worded amendments in the context of emergency legislation. Senator Dardis wants to ensure the protection of the built environment. However, unintended developments, such as the demolition of or alteration to a building, could take place if this amendment were accepted.

This amendment is extraordinary because it is a formula for bureaucracy. Yet, it is tabled by a party who at one stage espoused the removal of bureaucracy as far as that was possible. If the State or any State institution sought to destroy, sell or offer as a gift any part of our valuable heritage, surely the Oireachtas would be able to deal with it without introducing another layer of bureaucracy and more inflexibility.

In the management or protection of a building by the Office of Public Works demolition or alteration may be necessary. If this amendment were accepted, necessary changes, alterations or even demolition could not take place without introducing time-consuming bureaucratic procedures.

Mr. Dardis

I am pleased to hear Senator Roche say it was well intentioned. It is well intentioned. The point needs to be made that if bureaucracy protects the heritage, which has been destroyed so systematically over the years, then that is a proper bureaucracy. The question arises of who is accountable in these circumstances. Under this amendment the Minister would have to come into the Houses of the Oireachtas to defend the action taken. That brings us back to the question of parliamentary accountability. Does the Executive wish to decide unilaterally in all cases what is good for the State? Are we going to close down the Dáil as well as the Seanad? We want the Legislature to decide the laws of the country and the Ministers to be accountable to the Legislature.

Mr. Howard

The amendment tabled by Senator Dardis is a genuine attempt to insert safeguards against possible adverse situations that could arise. I listened carefully to the comments of Senator Roche. The problems he spoke about are because we are dealing with rushed legislation. Senator Dardis, in the limited time available, is endeavouring to insert safeguards into this legislation. I commend him for doing that; and I support him.

Senator Dardis said the definitions in the Bill were far too wide and sweeping. I made the same comment myself today. Under section 2 (6) "development" means "the carrying out of any works on, in or under land...". Therefore all the work the Office of Public Works has done in relation to structures on land or under land will be safeguarded after the passage of this legislation. What about the projects not under or on land? What about the work on piers and harbours? Under water archaeological sites, the wrecks of the Spanish Armada along our coast and fish farms are excluded and apparently will not be covered by the protection being restored by this measure to structures on land or under land. Anything in water or under water is not covered. This is an example of the difficulties that can arise from a panic response to a situation when there is not adequate time to consider how to deal with everything involved.

I am disappointed that the attempt by Senator Dardis to guard against possible deficiencies is not accepted as a genuine attempt to improve the legislation.

Ms E. Fitzgerald

First to clarify the point about land and water, in law, water is deemed to be land for the purpose of the definition of "development", so that development on water and development on land are covered.

In relation to Senator Dardis' amendment, I appreciate he is trying to ensure we do not get overnight demolition by the Office of Public Works under the building powers restored to them by this legislation. The way he is trying to do this contains practical difficulties. We are reviewing the planning Acts because there is the issue of demolition and the protection for demolition. A few years ago one had to get permission under the housing Acts to demolish a habitable house, and that was removed. There are relatively few protections against demolition in the planning Acts. That may be the place to put the amendment rather than in this legislation.

The way his amendment is phrased would cause enormous practical difficulties. For example, if the Office of Public Works was renovating an old castle and that involved demolishing a piece of wall in order to rebuild it, would we have to go through this rigmarole and lay the matter before the House? Often conservation involves taking down something which is unsafe because it is very old. One of them reconstructs it by numbering the bricks and the odd stones and putting them back together again. The practical difficulties of this, especially in national monuments, would be great. It could involve a whole series of orders which would be unworkable for a clerk of works on a site. I am sure that is not the Senator's intention.

I ask that the amendment be withdrawn. I undertake to raise the matter with my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, and pursue it in that context.

Mr. Dardis

I am encouraged by the Minister's statement in the sense that she recognises the problem and is prepared to take it on board. In the spirit of generosity prevailing within the House, the amendment will be withdrawn.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 2 agreed to.

Section 3 agreed to.

NEW SECTIONS.

An Cathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are alternatives and may be discussed together.

Ms Honan

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 3, before section 4, to insert the following new section:

"4. This Act shall have effect until 31st July, 1993, and upon that date this Act shall cease to have effect.".

The purpose of this amendment is to limit the time for which this legislation would apply and to give a date at which it would cease to have effect. This Bill has been described as emergency legislation to protect jobs at risk. If it is emergency legislation, we believe it should not sit permanently on the Statute Book but should have a limited shelf life.

Mr. Howard

I will be brief because I dealt with the purpose of our amendment earlier.

Because of the emergency nature of this legislation, the circumstances of the decision that gave rise to it, and the haste in which it was produced, it is reasonable to expect that in time deficiencies and difficulties will arise from it, some of which can be foreseen and some which will inevitably arise over the next number of months. Since that point of view has found expression on both sides of the House, it is reasonable to ask a time limit be put on this legislation. It should lapse after a certain date and be replaced by another measure, or its provisions should be incorporated in other legislation giving effect to what is necessary and desirable in it, taking care to eliminate those parts from which difficulties are likely to arise and which can already be foreseen.

We have responded as positively as we could to the introduction, presentation and discussion of this Bill. It is our duty to be critical of the parts of the Bill that we consider likely to give rise to difficulties. Therefore, I ask the Minister to respond to the attitude here by agreeing to put a time limit on this legislation for the reasons I have mentioned that I believe are accepted on both sides of the House.

Ms E. Fitzgerald

This point was made on Second Stage and I replied to it at the conclusion of that debate. People are concerned because this emergency legislation is being rushed through to deal with the loophole which emerged as a result of the Costello judgment and that we may not have got it right first time. I have given an undertaking that the Government will re-examine this legislation after the Supreme Court decision on the planning issue. If problems emerge in relation to this Bill, they will be dealt with when planning issues are being addressed in the planning Bill.

There is the possibility that wording may not be perfect but to allow the Bill to lapse would not meet the real concern of Members on all sides. If the Bill lapsed the Office of Public Works and the State authorities would no longer have the authority to build, maintain or manage property, a position not favoured by anyone. It is more reasonable to enact the legislation and if faults or unforeseen technicalities emerge, in the light of experience as they may in any legislation, they will be looked at and suitable amendments tabled.

The specific undertaking given to re-examine the legislation after the Supreme Court decision answers the point the Senators are making. This re-examination is to be distinguished from the general eye kept on all legislation to see if it is becoming obsolete or if loopholes are emerging. To put a time limit on the Bill would return us to the original position, depending on whether one accepted the amendment of Senator Dardis and Senator Honan or that of Senator Howard and Senator Farrelly and next July more emergency legislation would be required to restore the powers of the Office of Public Works to involve itself in building and maintenance work. That does not make much sense.

The Senators' point would be resolved more satisfactorily by a review of the legislation and by an undertaking to re-examine it. There is widespread agreement on this point. We all want to see existing jobs continue; we do not want work stopped mid-stream where people are building schools or engaged in conservation work on castles, etc. No Member wants to take away the general powers of the Office of Public Works to do what they were set up to do and what we all thought they had legal power to do. Nobody wants to take its powers away next July or next February either so the Bill should be allowed stand in the light of the undertaking given in the Seanad that any problems or loopholes which emerge as a result of the speed at which this legislation was produced will be examined. That is a fair undertaking and I ask the Senators therefore to withdraw their amendments.

Mr. Quinn

This is my first full day in the Seanad. I have been so impressed by this constructive discussion that I have changed my views having listened to the Minister and to Senator Roche on the matter of the previous vote. I had spoken in favour of the viewpoint expressed by Senator Sherlock but changed my mind subsequently.

I listened very carefully to what the Minister said earlier when she appeared to say that legislation with long-term effects should never be passed as emergency legislation. Now the Minister has worried me because she has just said that we are considering passing emergency legislation but are not willing to put a time limit on it of 18 months in the case of Senators Howard and Farrelly's amendment. It is essential that emergency legislation be subject to a time limit in order that in the fullness of time we may study it carefully and scrutinise its details. The proposed amendment, which suggests that this Bill should automatically lapse if another Bill has not been presented to us and passed by July 1994, is worthy and should be accepted. No emergency legislation should be passed and become permanent as a result of as short a period of discussion as we have had today.

Mr. Dardis

I am encouraged by some of the things the Minister said but I am not completely satisfied. I accept the need for work to progress and the need to protect jobs. Those matters are not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether passing legislation of this nature through the Oireachtas rapidly makes for good law. Experience suggests that it does not. There may be parts to this Bill that we may not have considered here today which will become problematic in the months and years ahead if the Bill remains on the Statute Book. That is why I favour adopting a time limit. I am flexible as to what that time limit should be, whether that proposed by Senators Farrelly and Howard or our own time limit but I oppose an open ended situation in this Bill. It is our duty and function here to make law for the people's benefit, not to enact measures which enforce the powers of Ministers or of the Executive.

The Minister in the Dáil yesterday showed flexibility when it was demonstrated by the Progressive Democrats that there was a deficiency within the law. That deficiency was rectified on Committee Stage in the Dáil. I submit that this is a similar situation and that it is important for us to put some limits on this legislation because of the legitimate fear that aspects of it may cause unforeseen problems.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

I appeal to the Minister to accept this time limit. Speakers on all sides of the House on Second Stage clearly stated their concern in relation to the Bill remaining permanently on the Statute Book and that is why my party has tabled an amendment providing for a time limit of a year from now. While I appreciate the goodwill of the Minister in saying that our concerns will be addressed in future legislation, she is talking about two different Departments, the Office of Public Works and the Department of the Environment which operate separately. We have often found in the past that co-operation which exists between Departments does not necessarily follow through into legislation.

If this Bill remains on the Statute Book it may be referred to and applied by the authority concerned forever more. This is unsatisfactory and the Bill cannot be allowed pass without a time limit. The Minister's assurance, while well intentioned, is not the equivalent of a guarantee because it will involve another Department. Huge difficulties may arise.

Mr. Norris

I support the spirit of these two amendments. Temperamentally I prefer Senator Dardis' because this Bill would cease to have effect on my 49th birthday — a rather nice birthday present.

Ms E. Fitzgerald

The August weekend.

Mr. Norris

On the other hand, taking a broader view, if we accept the suggestion of Senator Howard and Senator Farrelly of 1 February, it would fall on the eve of the nativity of "St. James Joyce" who will be 112 years old then so I yield to his seniority.

Seriously the point made by Senator Quinn is the effective one. Emergency legislation should have a terminal point. It seems to me that the Minister agrees with that principle because in addressing a valuable amendment of Senator Henry's she said that one would have to tease out the implications of this Bill. Senator Henry, therefore, graciously withdrew her amendment because of the emergency nature of the legislation and I withdrew one of my own. I recognise that the adoption of an amendment would necessitate the Bill being returned to the Dáil and that technical problem is not always welcome in Government circles but the arguments are so strong and have been so effectively made — there is a degree of sympathy on the other side of the House; I am not making a partisan point — that the Minister should strongly consider accepting it. In addition, the acceptance of a time limit imposes a certain discipline and constraint on Government to resolve the situation. If it is necessary for a more refined form of legislation to be introduced subsequently, surely a period of 18 months is plenty of time to allow the Government to do so? Should the Minister in future circumstances bring forward a more considered Bill with which to replace this, I am sure it would be considered with the same care and scrutiny as in this case and would stand a good chance of being passed. I do not see what the difficulty is, apart from the practical one of recommitting the Bill to the Dáil.

Ms O'Sullivan

As one of the Members from this side of the House who expressed concern that problems could arise under emergency legislation, I fully understand the difficulties of Members from the other side of the House. However, we should take the suggestion of the Minister on board that the legislation would be subject to review rather than simply that the legislation should fall and have to be replaced by other legislation, as inevitably would happen and we would be back in the same situation.

What if there are no problems and it turns out there was no need to be afraid? What if the legislation turns out to be good? Would it not be a dreadful waste of time to have to initiate totally new legislation on the subject? We should accept the Minister's proposal that the legislation would be subject to review rather than have it fall on a specific date and have to be replaced by other legislation. We should take the Minister's proposals that it be subject to review rather than fall on a specific date.

Mr. Howard

Time may show that this is excellent legislation. However, if we established that a certain amount of time would be devoted to renewing it, the time would be well spent if the alternative was to be stuck with legislation that was harmful in several aspects. I accept the Minister has made a genuine attempt to reassure us on this and I do not doubt her good intentions but the experience in this House has been that similar promises have been forgotten. It occurred to me that it might not be possible for the Minister to deliver on her promise if, for example, on the basis of performance, destiny might decide that she was due for a more senior position at Government level and her successor might not feel bound by that commitment. We must guard against all eventualities as far as possible; that is our duty as legislators.

I do not want to repeat statements already made; after all, this is emergency legislation. We have been denied through no fault of the Minister, the opportunity to give it the mature and detailed examination it should receive. I hope what Senator O'Sullivan has said will happen but, should it be otherwise, there is a duty on us to ensure that we provide against the situation in which damage could be done either to individuals or to others. The guarantee that this legislation will be reviewed is to put a time limit on it.

Ms E. Fitzgerald

If I did my shopping in Senator Quinn's supermarket in a hurry because there was not a thing in the house and then discovered that I had not done the shopping I had planned, I would not clear out the cupboards, put everything back on the shelves and go back around with a new shopping list. I would see what I had forgotten and would go and buy those items.

Mr. Dardis

This is the law. This is not shopping.

Ms E. Fitzgerald

Rather than throw out the baby with the bath water, should flaws emerge in this legislation, because it was drafted in a hurry to deal with a situation that arose suddenly, then they should be dealt with by review rather than by putting a time limit on the legislation. It takes two days at the minimum to draft legislation quickly and weeks to do it the slow way. There has been a fair offer to review the legislation if problems emerge because of the haste in drafting.

There seems to be some misunderstanding about the nature of the emergency. The emergency is that there are people working in a situation in which, due to a court decision, the legality of their ability to wield a paint brush or to knock in a nail on behalf of the Office of Public Works or other State bodies and the maintenance of those jobs have been called into question. It is not an emergency that in principle the Office of Public Works should be involved in building work or in the management of property. That is an ongoing situation and it does not cease on 31 July 1993 or 1 February 1994.

The time limit would create practical problems in the business of property management: for example, where contracts are taken out for a five year period for work being carried out on conservation like the work at Dublin Castle which took years to complete. Who will take a contract if they feel the legality of the Office of Public Works to continue the job will be questioned suddenly in six months time? In the case of buildings there are service contracts for 35 years operating with building leases. Are they going to be called into question?

The point that there should be a review of the legislation has been accepted by the Government. In relation to my potential elevation to other responsibilities there is a collective responsibility in Government and undertakings given in the House will be followed up. There is an intention to review the operation of the Bill and if a loophole emerges it is in everybody's interest that it be closed. I do not think there is any disagreement in the House about that. It is a reasonable undertaking to give. In that spirit I ask the Members to withdraw their amendments and we can proceed to the final stages of the Bill.

Mrs. McGennis

At this late stage I welcome the Minister to the House. I served with her on Dublin County Council and I am well aware of her acknowledged dedication to conservation and the protection of the environment. A Bill such as this is safe in her hands.

I agree with the Minister and Senator O'Sullivan. The Minister has given us a commitment that she is prepared to re-examine the legislation in light of experience and in light of the result of the Supreme Court case. There was a debate yesterday about the function of this House, the need for reform and to do our business well. It strikes me that our paymasters, the taxpayers, will not be greatly amused by the fact that the first piece of legislation brought unto us was sent back, in one case for a number of months and in another for a year until we look at it again. There is an old adage which says "if something is not broken, do not fix it". What we should do in this House is address legislation that needs reform or updating and if that is the case with this legislation I am sure it will be brought before us again.

I support the Minister and ask the Members to withdraw the amendments and support the Bill.

Mr. Magner

The moving of emergency legislation is a difficult task for the Government and doubly difficult for the Opposition because the Government has substantial resources while the Opposition has to respond to emergency legislation literally on the run. We must acknowledge that it is extremely difficult for the Opposition.

The use of the words "emergency legislation" triggers off a kind of psychological warfare inside many people's heads. Many Bills which have been debated in this House over great lengths of time and with great skill have been blown asunder subsequently in the Supreme Court. Ironically, some of the rushed legislation which we introduced in Government with the support of opposition colleagues has withstood the test of time. It does not follow that a "quickie Bill" will be defective or found flawed. We say that hanging concentrates the mind; when drafts people have to introduce legislation quickly they must concentrate their considerable skills in a much more focused way.

There is no history of legislation introduced to address a particular situation being found defective immediately afterwards. The opposite has been the case. Legislation which has been argued over line by line has often been found in other legal fora to be entirely defective in some of its major sections. This side of the House accepts the difficulties of the Opposition in dealing with emergency legislation.

Mr. Sherlock

If the Senator was on this side of the House I wonder if he would accept this legislation?

Mr. Magner

I accept that and I do not know why my old friend Senator Sherlock, should get upset. We have argued at each other down the years; it is not necessary to start today.

The Minister has given some very unequivocal guarantees. She has been warmly welcomed today and we should accept her bona fides until she proves otherwise. The House will discover over time that what Minister Fitgerald means what she says and that she will deliver.

Mr. Dardis

There is no dispute about whether people should be allowed to continue to do this important work. We all accept that they should. The point at issue is whether the words in this legislation will stand the test of time. Given that this is emergency legislation we wish it to return to the House. Our paymasters demand that we get it right and have also told us frequently that they wish us to be here more often.

Mrs. McGennis

That is not the issue.

Mr. Dardis

The issue was raised on the other side and it is appropriate to respond to it.

Mrs. McGennis

Attendance was not what I was referring to.

Mr. Dardis

We will press this amendment.

Mr. Roche

I would like to respond to a point made earlier by Senator Dardis when he proposed abolishing the Dáil and the Seanad. It should not be necessary for me to remind Senator Dardis that this is the only Irish political party with the stated objective of abolishing a House of the Oireachtas.

I share the sense of unease mentioned regarding emergency legislation. There has been much discussion in both Houses about Dáil and Seanad reform and in that context I consider it necessary for some form of standing committee on legislation in both Houses to monitor the currency of legislation and the continued efficacy of legislation introduced under emergency circumstances. As Senator Magner said, legislation introduced and discussed at length has often been blown asunder very rapidly in court.

Mr. O'Toole

The need for this emergency legislation has arisen out of the legal position taken by the courts. It is utter nonsense to think that the Government had a choice. There was no choice but to bring in emergency legislation and I support this legislation for that reason. It is a practical way of dealing with a difficult situation.

There should be no time limit on this legislation. This morning on "Morning Ireland" the Progressive Democrats' spokesperson told us that public servants are becoming less and less efficient despite the increasing amounts of money they are paid. In this case, the public service has responded within 48 hours to this problem and put forward a solution. There is a resolution on which we can vote and we can bring in new legislation next year if it does not work. Let us not insert a clause to require new legislation. In the real world people are waiting to get work and Office of Public Works schemes have been called to a halt because of this development. It is utter madness to do anything other than correct the current position and I am not making any statement on the environment.

I have seen this House blow hot and cold about the powers of the Office of Public Works. I could not believe the praise I heard today for the Office of Public Works. They have been described as superb people who could do nothing wrong and to whom we can entrust our heritage. Now, the Office of Public Works can only be trusted for six months or a year.

Putting a time limit on legislation suggests an attempt to legislate for a democratic deficit. People are indicating that they do not trust the Government when they seek to place a time limit on their powers. I agree that legislation should contain constraints.

An Cathaoirleach

May I interrupt you for one moment? As it is now 5.15 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with the order of the House today.

Question proposed: "That the section undisposed of is hereby agreed to in Committee and the Bill is hereby agreed to in Committee and reported to the House without amendment, that the Title is hereby agreed to and Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed, and the motion for the earlier signature of the Bill by the President is hereby agreed to."

Question put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 28; Níl, 19.

Tá

• Bohan, Eddie.
• Byrne, Seán.
• Calnan, Michael.
• Cassidy, Donie.
• Crowley, Brian.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Fahey, Frank.
• Farrell, Willie.
• Finneran, Michael.
• Fitzgerald, Tom.
• Gallagher, Ann.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Kelleher, Billy.
• Kiely, Dan.
• Kiely, Rory.
• Lanigan, Mick.
• Lydon, Don.
• McGennis, Marian.
• McGowan, Paddy.
• Magner, Pat.
• Maloney, Seán.
• Mooney, Paschal.
• Mullooly, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Jan.
• O'Toole, Joe.
• Ormonde, Ann.
• Roche, Dick.
• Wright, G.V.

Níl

• Burke, Paddy.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Cregan, Denis (Dino).
• Dardis, John.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Henry, Mary.
• Honan, Cathy.
• Howard, Michael.
• Manning, Maurice.
• Naughten, Liam.
• Neville, Daniel.
• Norris, David.
• Quinn, Feargal.
• Reynolds, Gerry.
• Ross, Shane P.N.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Mullooly and Magner; Níl, Senators Cosgrave and Neville.

Question declared carried.

An Cathaoirleach

May I take this opportunity to warmly congratulate the Minister who put the Bill through the House. She showed a great deal of competence. That may be because her father worked in the Office of Public Works for 40 years but she had a great grasp of the Bill. She showed a great deal of flexibility and competence and I congratulate her on your behalf.

Can I ask the Leader when it is proposed to sit again?

Mr. Wright

It is proposed to sit on Thursday, 25 February, 1993 at 10.30 a.m.