Private Business. - Local Government (Planning and Development) (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1997: Second Stage. – Seanad Éireann (21st Seanad) – Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997

Private Business. - Local Government (Planning and Development) (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1997: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. S. Ryan

I welcome the Minister of State. After the debate he may see the wisdom of our proposal. I thank the Leader of the House and Senators for giving me and my Labour colleagues the opportunity to bring forward this planning legislation which, hopefully, will have the support of all Senators.

This Bill amends the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, by providing that an application for planning permission may be denied —"may" is the important word — if the applicant or connected person has failed to complete works that were a condition of the granting of planning permission for a previous development by them.

It will also allow the Minister to make regulations forcing an applicant to provide information in relation to previous permissions and whether they were completed in accordance with the conditions attached to them. The Bill provides a simple mechanism to enable planning authorities to tackle rogue builders or developers who have previously failed to properly complete works in new housing estates, whether by failing to complete them in a reasonable time or by failing to complete them at all. This obviously includes the standard of work of the houses, the taking in charge of the estate, the dedication of the open spaces and the health and safety standards for workers during construction.

Irish people have a tradition of aspiring to home ownership. We are unique in this regard among EU member states. Over 80 per cent of the dwellings in the State are owner occupied. Families and single people are willing to mortgage themselves up to the hilt to achieve this objective. This has also been a great boost to the State and the demand for local authority housing has been reduced accordingly.

The average price of a new house for which loans were approved in Dublin has increased from £62,375 in 1992 to £94,375 in 1997. The repayments on such loans are in the region of £650 to £700 per month. With such repayments there is no alternative in most cases to both partners having to work outside the home. What do buyers expect in return for this, the biggest investment of their lives? They expect their houses to be constructed up to a certain standard, roads to be usable, public lighting to operate, grass verges to be planted and maintained, and open spaces to be developed and maintained so that their children can play, and they expect these facilities within a reasonable period. Given this scenario is it any wonder that residents are rightly angry when any of these items, normally conditioned in a planning permission, have been delayed or, in many cases, deliberately ignored?

Since becoming a public representative in 1983 the two main planning issues that have consistently been brought to my attention by residents are indiscriminate rezoning and unfinished estates. Regarding unfinished estates, I committed myself to pressurise Government about this scandal, which is being caused by a minority of builders. Apart from causing grief to buyers, they are also giving the building industry in general a bad name. I believe that the Construction Industry Federation itself, which is well aware of this problem, should have dealt with this. Given that it has not, it is imperative that legislation be put in place.

I intend to use examples from my own constituency, although I know that all of my colleagues will have similar examples. An estate in Balbriggan was built 19 years ago and in that time a generation of young people has grown up without an open space to play on. An estate in Donabate is nearly 15 years old and still has not been taken in charge; Bord Gáis has refused to install natural gas to the houses because the roads have not been taken in charge. There are two other estates in Balbriggan and Swords where the houses were so badly built that in one fungus was growing through the floors, which had to be replaced. In the other estate the roofs had to be replaced. In one of these cases, the residents were covered by the home bond scheme which was some consolation to them, notwithstanding the delay, inconvenience and trauma caused. In the other case the residents were left with no alternative but to take legal action against the developer. This went on for years, at their expense. It should be noted that not all builders are part of the home bond scheme.

The planning department of Fingal County Council has sequestered security from seven developers who have not brought estates to the taking in charge standard. Furthermore, legal action is current regarding the dedication of the open space in nine other developments. It has taken from five to 13 years to get to this stage. Imagine, there have been no footpaths, no public lighting in some cases, defects in houses and no open spaces in other cases during that time and people paid between £50,000 and £80,000 for those house.

The most galling aspect of this whole sorry saga is that while the council is endeavouring to achieve agreement with the developers, and the house purchasers have had to bear the brunt of the unfinished nature of their estate, the same developers have the right under current planning legislation to apply for and be granted further planning permissions. Developers are entitled to seek and be granted further planning permissions while they have left other estates in a shambles. This is unacceptable. Disgruntled angry residents pose the same question to me and to other representatives: how can they get away with it? The Minister of State will have to convince me and thousands of people who are in this situation why he is doing nothing.

As regards possible enforcement action against these cowboys, present planning legislation is totally inadequate. The 1992 planning Act imposed limits of up to five years from the date of the planning permission to the period in which the planning authority may take action. This was a retrograde step. Developers are driving a coach and four through the system. The planning authority may take action in a District Court in the first instance and the maximum fine which may be imposed is £1,000. Some developers are prepared to go down this road as it is a paltry sum to pay given the huge profits most make.

Another ploy used allows the developer to wait until shortly before the court hearing to agree to a programme to carry out outstanding works. If this is not fully adhered to, another court date is sought thus causing a further delay. The planning authorities, even working under the constraints of current legislation, should be more aggressive and be prepared to go straight to the High Court if necessary.

I look forward to hearing Members' contributions and I hope they and, in particular, the Minister will acknowledge this problem. I hope the Government and the Minister will not push this issue aside. It is not an issue with which to play politics, so let us agree to this legislation, which may not be perfect. I am prepared to allow the Minister to take this Bill in the spirit in which it was put forward and to return with better legislation. We must all do something about this scandal.

Mr. Costello

I second the motion. I hope the Minister will agree to accept this Bill and see it through to a conclusion because the matters contained therein are extremely important as Members will note from Senator Ryan's impassioned contribution. For all the years I have known him, Senator Ryan has complained about incomplete and poor quality work on a large number of housing estates in suburban areas. I congratulate the Senator on his initiative in bringing forward this Bill. It is the first legislation to be brought forward in the House by a non-Government party and I hope it will be the first of many.

This is a simple Bill which provides for the refusal of future planning permissions to a builder who has not completed works which were the conditions of previous planning applications granted. It also allows the Minister to make regulations seeking information on the track record of a builder. The legislation provides a mechanism to control builders acting like cowboys, not carrying out work according to the conditions of the applications and leaving housing estates and apartment blocks incomplete either in relation to work on blocks or surrounding estates. This is extremely valuable legislation which I hope will be passed into law.

This Bill is timely considering the high profile attention paid to the largest apartment block developer, Zoe Developments, in the High Court on Monday. Judge Kelly described the firm as a recidivist criminal because of the number of times it had been before the courts for breaches of health and safety regulations. He castigated the manner in which the firm operated in fulfilling conditions of employment for its workers.

On this occasion, 15 breaches of health and safety regulations were discovered. That was compounded by the tragic death a few days previously of a worker on the site. He was not the first worker to die on a site in the capital. We require high standards from the building industry. However, with such low standards for workers, one can imagine that, in certain circumstances there are low standards in terms of the materials being used to construct houses.

I ask the Minister to seriously consider introducing an offence of corporate homicide so the directors of building firms may be charged with manslaughter because they get off virtually scotfree. They may get a tongue-lashing in the courts and a fine — the maximum fine which may be imposed is £1,000 — for breaches of health and safety regulations but they are safe from criminal prosecution. Profits in the construction industry are considerable so we should expect the highest standards.

While I do not know about the experience elsewhere, we all know about housing estates in Dublin that are unfinished or which are poorly maintained and constructed. As a public representative, I attend meetings of residents associations at which complaints are made about unfinished pavements and landscaping, lack of amenities and the inability of the Corporation to take an estate into charge because work is still outstanding by the builder who is working on another estate. It is virtually impossible for local residents to get hold of the builder to complete unfinished work. I know of estates which have not been taken into charge by the local authority for up to 25 to 30 years and where work will probably not be completed. Dublin Corporation has had to forfeit the bond in respect of estates on the Navan Road and in Inchicore because the builder would not come back to carry out work.

We must put pressure on builders who are getting huge contracts and who are making enormous profits. We still have low standards in terms of construction and the completion of work. This proposal would allow us to monitor a rogue builder so that his previous record could be made available under regulations made by the Minister. If a builder does not fulfill the conditions of contracts for which he has applied, we should be in a position not to allow substandard work to continue. People are paying large sums of money for homes for their families and will be in debt for the rest of their lives, yet they are left in the lurch in terms of repairs and so on by builders who are making a fortune.

This is the most simple and straightforward legislation which has come before the House for a long time. It is a simple mechanism to deal with a serious problem. Every resident association would applaud us if we put in place a mechanism which would prevent builders of apartment blocks and housing estates from riding off into the night like cowboys leaving people in the lurch as if nothing had happened.

I commend this Bill to the House. I ask the Minister to accept it and ensure it is brought to a conclusion.

Mr. Walsh

Aontaím le morán atá ráite leis na Seanadóiri as Páirti an Lucht Oibre ach ní féidir liom glacadh leis an mBille. Most Senators agree with the sentiments expressed in and the motivation behind the Bill. We are all aware of estates in our localities which are unfinished. This has caused tremendous hardship to the people purchasing those houses.

However, to be fair to the construction industry, a small minority of builders and developers give rise to this problem. In most cases they develop a reputation and their track record identifies them easily. They cause much misery and financial distress especially for young first time buyers who are working to a tight budget. There is a need to ensure that the practice in a number of isolated cases is rectified and dealt with efficiently and effectively. It does not matter what price houses are, it is essential that people get value for money. Because of the high prices paid for houses today, it is even more necessary that it is not left to the individuals involved to deal with these problems.

The Bill raises many legal and constitutional issues. It is a blunt instrument to resolve a minority problem in one sector of development which comes before local authorities for adjudication. Nobody supports rogue builders but an examination of the Bill uncovers many anomalies which will create greater problems in the planning process. The specification of connected persons in section 3(a) of the Bill could mean that people applying for an extension for a disabled person could encounter difficulties because they are obliged to provide information on their planning record. If it is not as impeccable as it should be, this could result in difficulty with their planning application. This is unfair and may result in constitutional problems.

The practicality of the Bill needs to be looked at. Developers and builders, particularly those who are highly active, submit many applications to a local authority annually. Many small builders who build 12, 13, or 14 houses in a year may go through the planning process having to provide, on an ongoing basis, all the information on how they complied with each condition of individual planning applications. This surely adds to existing bureaucracy, which needs to be addressed in the Minister's current review.

Section 3(b) requires local authorities to make a judgment on a planning matter based on past experience of the applicant. Does this change the thrust of planning? Each case must stand on its merits and the criterion for proper planning and development is eroded as a result. Most developments comply with the conditions. We should deal with the problem rather than imposing conditions on 99 per cent of the applicants to catch the 1 per cent who do not comply.

Bonding should be looked at in the review on planning. Tighter arrangements need to be put in place. The adequacy of the bond needs to be examined to ensure that where one is put in place it is sufficient to meet any incompletion of the estate. The local authorities also have a role to play. There has been a significant improvement in the enforcement of planning regulations although there is a lack of resources in local authorities to properly police all of them. However, in the case of housing developments, large or small, there is a need for ongoing inspections in the course of development to ensure there is compliance. Planning authorities should consider phasing developments so that the bond can be applied to each phase, and therefore will not prove a prohibitive factor to a developer because of the quantum that would be required if one looked at shortcomings in a large estate. However, I would be loath to interfere with the cost efficiency of developments. The courts are a last resort to local authorities in ensuring compliance.

I commend the Labour Party Senators on introducing this Bill. However, a parochial note has been injected into the debate. The Labour Party was in Government for the past five years. I would like to think they acknowledge the expeditiousness with which the current incumbent of the office of Minister for the Environment and Local Government has moved to implement an overall, root and branch review and revamp of the development process. There have been many submissions and a national planning conference is arranged for 27 November to give everyone a chance to have an input prior to decisions being taken on the new Planning and Development Bill. This is an opportunity for the Minister to embrace the sentiments expressed here.

While justifiably criticising builders and developers who have failed to meet their obligations, one must acknowledge the tremendous contribution of the construction industry to the provision of homes. We can be proud of our home ownership levels. I hope the House rejects the Bill but I ask the Minister to consider the motivation inspiring it in his overall review of the planning process.

Mr. J. Doyle

I wish to share my time with Senator Ridge.

An Cathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. J. Doyle

I understand the anxieties that forced my colleagues to introduce this Bill and I thank the Government for publishing it and allowing it to be discussed in Private Members' time.

This matter is not a problem in the part of the city I represent although there may be a problem in Senator Ridge's area. We lack land for building in the city so the problem does not arise although it did in the past. The way of getting around the problem was to have sufficient bonding to cover the cost of the local authority moving in to finish an estate. I understand why this should not happen and I was disappointed to hear Senator Costello refer to a case where the bond was not sufficient and had to be returned to the builder.

The real weakness in our planning system is the lack of enforcement of regulations. Enforcement is a slow and tortuous procedure which provides no real satisfaction for councillors or the public. I support Senator Ryan's suggestion that local authorities should be allowed go to higher courts. Judge Kelly made that point in the High Court recently when he said the only penalties in the lower courts for breaches of the health and safety regulations were small fines. The higher courts can deal in a more specific way with such breaches. At present, actions for breaches of the regulations must be taken in the District and Circuit Courts and then, if possible, in the High Court. The Minister should allow local authorities to go to the higher courts to seek enforcement of the regulations and provide them with the necessary funding to so do.

This Bill should make provision for the safety of building site workers. On a chilly afternoon this month, a young man called James Masterson stood on a half finished roof of an apartment block in the inner city. He moved nimbly on the top of a half constructed building on Charlotte Quay in Ringsend, which is down the road from this House, laying down the cladding around which the roof was to be built. There was no fencing between that 24 year old and the vast docklands skyline, except for polythene sheeting. When he stumbled there was nothing for him to hold onto to prevent his fall. He plunged straight through the polythene onto the concrete 25 feet below. He lay there for an hour before he was discovered by a 16 year old apprentice. He was taken to hospital and died shortly afterwards.

He was the third builder in seven years to die on a site owned by Zoe Developments in the city. The company has 12 criminal convictions for breaches of the Health and Safety Act. The senior health and safety officer said that Zoe Developments has an appalling safety record. This displays a shocking disregard for the safety of its workers.

Zoe Developments has had more influence than anyone else in the past decade on how Dubliners live by building apartment blocks faster than any other developer. A price has been paid by members of its workforce in the carrying out of these projects due to the lack of safety on these sites. The health and safety officer said the proprietor of Zoe Developments comes from a school of thought, which is not unique among builders, that if workers are injured on sites it is because they do not look where they are going. Such sentiments are rubbish — a safety fence around the hole though which that young man fell would have saved his life.

I would like to see a provision in the Bill to deal with the safety of workers. We must address that paramount aspect of the issue of planning and development. The sentiments expressed in this Bill should be part of the revision of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act.

Mrs. Ridge

I support the thrust of Senator Ryan's remarks. We all share the same bitter experience. The four topics at every residents' meeting in Dublin, and probably other urban areas, are litter, travellers, traffic and the taking in charge of housing estates. What I find most insulting about the process is our apparent lack of ability to deal with these matters.

The same builder has built in excess of 2,000 houses in my area over 15 years. It is not putting it too strongly to say he has caused heartbreak to people. People have had continuing construction outside their houses for ten years. He has built in small plots with no cohesive pattern and there is continuous mud and dirt. I live in a housing estate which took 21 years to be taken in charge. It is timely to review these matters which affect people gravely. The most important purchase made by young couples in urban areas is their home.

The most disgusting aspect is that when building companies build in better off areas of Dublin they finish the estate to the extent of shaving the grass. However, the same builders have a different attitude when they build in less socially desirable areas. I heard a foreman tell a group of residents they were not used to anything better because they were originally from corporation houses. Those residents had originally been shown a map of a beautiful estate with an open space, the road reservation for which the developers had forgotten to include in the planning application. About five years later, after the residents had got used to having a nice open space, there was uproar when the builders arrived to build the road which the developer had omitted to show on the plans when the residents were buying their houses.

The Construction Industry Federation is great at sending us glossy brochures on how well builders are doing. They are doing very well for themselves. It is time they gave some of that back to the people who are making them wealthy and keeping them in jobs.

I appreciate this Bill will probably not work because I can see difficulties with it. However, I will support it because we should do whatever we can to remedy the appalling situation whereby these rogue builders benefit from the court system. I have seen them settle outside the court after being pursued by the council for two and a half years.

There have been many incidences in my area of small builders' sites not being taken up leaving, in some cases, a crescent of houses with gaps between them resembling a set of bad teeth. That situation has pertained for the past 15 years. Such estates can never be taken in charge.

In some cases the developer has absconded and cannot be found, or his company has gone into liquidation. I do not know what legal redress exists in such cases. We always have to tell the residents that apparently there is nothing we can do. That is not good enough.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I understand Senator Dan Kiely is sharing his time with Senator Ormonde.

Mr. D. Kiely

I agree with the spirit of this Bill, which I welcome.

I do not understand why there are unfinished estates when house buyers are forced to pay such high prices. It is getting to the stage where young people cannot afford to buy houses. The Minister should inquire into the escalating price of houses, particularly as inflation has never been so low. Last month inflation increased by 1.2 per cent, mainly as a result of increases in the price of liquor. Many builders are creaming profits off the top by charging exorbitant prices. There is no excuse for unfinished estates.

There is a bonding system and perhaps it should be re-vamped and improved. In Kerry, for example, in new housing estates the builder does much of the preparatory work such as roads, footpaths and lighting in advance. We have had problems with unfinished estates in Kerry for a number of years but the local authority acted to ensure that a proper bonding arrangement was implemented. In many cases, as well as a bond, the local authority take a number of sites from the builder on a guarantee basis and if the estate is not properly finished planning permission is not given for these sites.

I compliment the Minister on his swift action in bringing in legislation. A national planning conference will be held next week where Senator Ryan and members of all local authorities will have the opportunity to express their views. I understand that the Minister has received more than 100 submissions for that conference and I believe this will be a very good conference on planning. I am concerned about safety on building sites and I implore the Minister to include safety matters in the Bill.

Over the past five years, local authorities have greatly improved the situation with regard to fly-by-night builders who left unfinished estates and I compliment them on that. I am glad we have the opportunity to discuss this matter in the House but I wonder why Senator Ryan introduced this Bill at this time? Would it have anything to do with a by-election in Dublin North? It is unfortunate that the Labour Senators did not introduce such a Bill when their party was in Government.

Ms Ormonde

The introduction of this Bill has opened up a discussion which is very welcome. I am glad that we are having this debate in light of the national planning conference which will be held next week.

I agree with the thrust of the Bill. Every Senator and Deputy has experience of housing schemes where the taking in charge by the local authority was well overdue. We only need one fly-by-night builder to tarnish the whole industry and for that person to be used to penalise the 95 per cent of good, respected developers who honour their commitments and the conditions laid down by the planning authority. It would be a pity if I spoke for this motion because I have experience of many builders and developers and 99 per cent of them are well respected.

There are two issues involved the first of which is the granting of planning permission. The second is the monitoring of the conditions laid down in the planning permission and how the planning regulations are implemented. This may be where the weakness lies. We must look at the certificate of compliance and see if we can hold back the sale of houses until phase one of an estate is completed. This is a measure that could be looked at. The question of bonding could be tidied up. I do not know how bonding can be enforced. We all know of the fly-by-night developer who moves on from one company to form a new legal entity. Legislation is lacking in this area because, where there are defects the local authority can only get an injunction to stop building and not to force a builder to remove part of a building.

This debate is a golden opportunity to highlight the weaknesses in our planning legislation but we must not penalise the very good developers. Every professional organisation has one fly-by-night who tarnishes the entire profession.

I agree with the thrust of this motion but I cannot support it. We should apply the conditions attached to planning more stringently and involve bodies such as the Construction Industry Federation and the Home Buyers' association who have a role to play in bringing about a better finished product. Residents' Associations are often dissatisfied when an estate is being constructed but when it is finished they are usually satisfied. There are often hiccups in the building of estates and at local authority committee meetings we often find that two or three years elapse before an estate can be taken in hand. It might be possible to insist in a time limit for the finishing of an estate. I agree that it should never take longer than four or five years before an estate is taken in hand unless something extraordinary happens. We may have to analyse why things go wrong in a particular area or we may find that a particular builder fails because of something outside his control. Although I agree with the thrust of the motion, I cannot accept its implications.

Mr. Cosgrave

I compliment Senator Ryan and his colleagues on bringing forward this short but very timely legislation. Many Members have dealt with planning issues and with the problems associated with unfinished estates. Only a certain percentage of builders cause problems. Many Members who are aware of the difficulties will support this Bill. I hope that the Minister will take the contents of this Bill on board and not reject it entirely if amendments can be made to it. I am sure that the proposers of the Bill would accept such amendments. I am sure that, because of their limited back up in preparing the Bill they will accept it could be improved.

The problem of builders leaving unfinished estates was greater some years ago when the bonding system was inadequate. Builders sometimes sold the houses quickly, left things in a horrific state and rode off into the sunset. Some of these, as Senator Kiely said, could not be pursued because they dissolved one company and then registered another. The situation has improved and will further improve under a bonding system. If people are dissatisfied with fly-by-nights, the planners will be able to liaise with their colleagues in different authorities. Previous convictions and operating malpractice can be taken on board. For example, previous problems can cause difficulties for renewals of pub licences, even where there have been changes in pub ownership.

Many conditions are often imposed on planning applications. For example, it can be stipulated that planning permission will only be granted when difficulties elsewhere are resolved. In this regard, problems often arise with extensions or buildings constructed without planning permission on the basis that retention orders will be granted. Penalties are rarely imposed. People without a track record should not be allowed build in areas and previous malpractice should be taken into account when considering planning applications.

Senator Walsh referred to an extension for a disabled person. Perhaps he was looking for the sympathy of the House; it does not appear that we are being asked to consider the case of a poor invalid. Senator Joe Doyle referred to the question of safety. Those on building sites and on streets must be protected. The Minister must be more vigilant in this area.

I support the concept of the Bill and I hope the Minister will respond positively to it. If there are defects I hope they will be addressed by way of amendments on Committee Stage rather than rejecting the Bill on Second Stage. Many of us, especially those of us on local authorities, agree with the Bill's provisions.

Mr. Cassidy

All Members concur with the thrust of the Bill. Nobody, especially members of local authorities, could condone the actions of developers in leaving estates unfinished.

The high cost of housing today means that young couples must undertake big mortgages. They are to be commended for starting off in the right way by providing their own home and legislators must provide them and others with the best safeguards. For the prices charged by some building contractors for houses buyers could expect marble driveways. This Bill seeks to address a minority of builders. There are always one or two bad apples in an orchard and the construction industry is no different to others in this respect.

As legislators and local authority representatives, we can take credit that Ireland has the highest rate of home ownership in the EU. People in Ireland are proud of their homes. They agree with the words: "Your home is your castle." In contesting elections we canvass people in their homes probably once every 18 months. People are to be congratulated for the amount they spend on their homes.

Living standards today are unbelievable, especially when compared with the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. In those years the first thing one did each morning was to get a bucket of water from the well.

Mr. S. Ryan

Break the ice.

Mr. Cassidy

Most Senators, especially those from rural areas, will recall the daily hardships incurred. By contrast, living standards today are fantastic and everybody associated with local government, including the Minister and his predecessors, should be congratulated. Local authority members get little credit for the work they undertake on a voluntary basis at county council meetings. As a representative of that great body that elects most of the Members to this House I congratulate them.

I am heartened that Deputy Dempsey was appointed Minister for the Environment and Local Government. He is committed to the local authorities and to his stewardship as secretary of LAMA. As a member of Meath local authority for a number of years he has served his apprenticeship and knows the requirements of local authorities.

I am confident that the review being undertaken by the Minster on behalf of the Government, which is not even five months in office, will introduce the right solutions to the problems this Bills seeks to address and, doubtless, the Minister will cover many aspects which are not included in this legislation.

There is a need for this Bill and I congratulate the Minister and his officials on seeing that need at such an early stage in the lifetime of the Government and for promising legislation through the review which is taking place. I suggest that the House reject this Bill but request the Minister to consider its objectives on unfinished housing estates in the review of the planning process.

Mr. Gallagher

No speaker has objected in principle to what this Bill seeks to achieve. Notwithstanding the contributions made by Senators on the Government side, I ask the Minister to consider agreeing to Second Stage, given that it is a debate on the general principles of the Bill. As outlined in the explanatory memorandum, the Bill provides a simple mechanism to enable planning authorities tackle rogue developers. Senators from both sides of the House who are members of local authorities have spoken of the difficulties experienced by their councils in trying to ensure rogue developers are tackled and prevented from causing further problems.

This problem is not as great in my area as it is in Dublin and other cities. There are four planning authorities in my constituency and I have only heard complaints about one of them. The first question which comes to mind is why that authority does not use its power in the same way as the others to ensure rogue developers do not continue their work in the area. I have had to attend public meetings in that area and defend the reputation of the planning authority and officials. Those of us who are familiar with what happens at such meetings will not be surprised by the type of accusations levelled against councillors and officials.

Residents who object or complain about the non-completion of their estates are told they can take proceedings under section 27 to oblige the local authority to enforce its own conditions. That is unsatisfactory because these people are operating in a voluntary capacity for the benefit of their communities. They should not be forced to spend time and money taking legal proceedings against their council. I fail to see why this Bill cannot be accepted on Second Stage as a means of tackling this problem when everyone has said this must be done.

The Minister is undertaking a fundamental review of the planning process. I would have liked to have attended the conference, but the invitation to my local authority unfortunately specified the attendance of two members and one official. I contributed my views to the submission which my local authority compiled on the matter. I hope the conference leads to action and I expect it will. We do not need another conference or report to tell us about this problem. What we need is action and the Bill provides that in principle. I have not heard many Senators disputing its detail, but I am prepared to accept that it can be improved on Committee and Report Stages.

On behalf of all residents' associations, I appeal to the Minister to take urgent action to alleviate the concern, hardship and occasional financial losses suffered because of rogue developers. I would like to bring the Minister to one specific area and show him six estates built by the same developer, none of which was ever finished and where unauthorised developments were undertaken. In all cases retention was sought and granted, but even those conditions were not complied with. It is indefensible to stand up in front of people and accuse certain developers and companies of not having finished estates, while at the same time the council has given them permission to build other estates which they probably will not complete either. That is intolerable and we must tackle it.

Enforcement is lax in most local authority regions because the councils do not have the staffing resources to implement it. I asked at a meeting of my county council on Monday why 18 conditions were being attached to a planning permission when we knew no one would ever check to see if they had been complied with. Enforcement is one area I would like the Minister to examine in his wider review.

We do not need to wait for the completion of that review to tackle this problem. This Bill is enabling legislation. The concerns expressed by Senator Walsh would not arise. Any of us who deal on a day to day basis with local authorities and planning know that it is handled in a common sense fashion. The type of extreme examples given would not arise because this Bill would allow for the real rogues, to whom Senator Ormonde referred, to be tackled without impeding genuine developers who comply with the law and whose reputation is known by the planning authority to be good. I appeal to the Minister to accept this Bill at this late stage. We will co-operate with him in amending it accordingly to ensure its aims and objectives are achieved and that the people, from whose concerns it has arisen, can be satisfied the Oireachtas is taking prompt action to deal with their problems.

Minister for the Environment and Local Government (Mr. Dempsey)

If I were to accept the Bill, it would not solve the problem of unfinished estates to which Senators referred. It is accepted by all that it is a major problem, but as Members will know, especially those who were Members of the other House, this legislation cannot be retrospective and will not, unfortunately, solve the problem of unfinished estates. Many of them have remained unfinished for up to 25 years and they are spread throughout the country.

Much as one would like to pursue the builders who built those estates 25 years ago to make them compensate people for the pain and suffering they caused, there is nothing in this Bill which would allow us to do that. However, in the spirit of what Members have said, it is perhaps time, under a new and reformed local government system, that we examined the issue of local authorities doing something to resolve the problem of unfinished estates. This is a topic to which I might return when we discuss the funding and structures of local government. No matter how much we exercise our mind in amending the Bill to make it legal and constitutional, it will not solve the problems of the people for whom Senators on both sides of the House expressed concern.

I condemn, in the strongest possible terms, unfinished estates and builders who fail in their duty to ensure that housing estates are properly completed. House purchasers invariably pay high prices for their homes and they are entitled to expect the highest standards in terms of the basic infrastructure being installed, open spaces being properly landscaped and footpaths and lighting being provided. As Senators have said, the planning system has a critical role to play in ensuring that happens and that developers meet their obligations in that respect. It is true to say that, because of weaknesses in the legislation and in local authorities in the past, it did not always happen and we live with the consequences of that. While we talk about it, people must live with it on a daily basis. They lack a proper quality of life because a rogue builder decided he had made enough money out of an estate and left it unfinished. As far as I am concerned there is no excuse for taking shortcuts in the completion of housing estates. The recent significant rise in house prices has meant that there is a very high profit margin on housing development. Such profits cannot be further inflated by allowing builders to leave estates unfinished and avoid their obligations.

I welcome the opportunity offered by the Second Stage reading of this Bill to air these issues at a time when we are engaged in a wide ranging, fundamental review of the Planning Acts. I assure Senators that the specific problems of unfinished estates will be considered in the review. I invite any Member of this House to make formal written submissions to the review process. The national conference will take place on 27 November and we will accept written submissions from interested parties up to that date. I formally issue an invitation to Senator Gallagher if he wishes to attend the conference. He would be more than welcome.

Mr. Gallagher

I would be delighted to attend.

Mr. Dempsey

We will work out some system in which the House will be proportionately represented. In the words of the explanatory memorandum the objectives of the Bill are to provide "a simple mechanism to enable planning authorities to tackle ‘rogue' developers who have previously failed to properly complete work in new housing estates."

Senator Ryan outlined the reasons for introducting this Bill and I sympathise with him. I am sure that all Senators, TDs and councillors have come across the problem of unfinished housing estates. There is no doubt that the minority of builders who leave estates unfinished do a grave disservice to their trade and to the people who buy their houses. The construction industry is a very important part the economy and its output accounts for around 17.5 per cent of GNP. It is unfortunate that such a major industry is being tarnished in the public mind by builders who operate on a fly-by-night basis and leave estates with unfinished roads, lighting and public areas. Such estates are a hazard to the safety of adults and children and seriously detract from the quality of life of residents, many of whom pay huge prices for their houses.

Builders carry the primary responsibility for these matters. Bodies such as the CIF and the Irish Home Builders Association have a role to play in regulating the conduct of builders. There have been some efforts in this direction but more can be done. I will raise this matter with the Irish Home Builders Association in the near future. It is in the interests of the building industry that the public at large have confidence that builders will complete developments to the satisfaction of their clients. In this regard, I would particularly ask Home Bond whether it should continue to register builders who fail in their duty to properly finish estates. Representative industry associations should organise themselves in such a way that membership is only available to companies and individuals who comply with best practice in the industry.

The report on the strategic review of the construction industry, commissioned by my predecessor and published in June, recommended that there should be a registration scheme for contractors in the building industry to ensure consumer protection, quality, health and safety and efficiency in the industry. This report, entitled "Building Our Future Together", also recommended the introduction of a national physical development bond scheme with the fundamental aim of guaranteeing the proper finishing of developments. Such a scheme was drafted by the Construction Industry Federation some time ago but without consultation with local authorities. Therefore, the scheme did not have widespread acceptance. However, the report recommends that this CIF bond scheme should be reviewed and amended by the CIF in agreement with local authorities. The report further recommends that the agreed scheme should then be applied universally.

This is one report which will not gather dust. Three weeks ago I launched the Forum for the Construction Industry which is charged with overseeing the detailed implementation of the report. The forum has been formed on a partnership basis between the Government and the construction industry and this will ensure successful implementation of the report's recommendations.

The report contains almost 90 recommendations and a timetable for their implementation. I am certain that the forum will make good progress in implementing each of the recommendations. These initiatives will have a very positive impact on the type of problems which have prompted this Bill.

There has been considerable adverse publicity in the past few days regarding safety on construction sites. This is another aspect of the need to ensure the highest standards in the building industry with developers living up to their responsibilities to their workers as well as their clients. As the Cabinet Minister with responsibility for the construction industry, I have a strong interest in supporting any measures which will improve conditions for building workers and I have referred to this issue publicly on a number of occasions. Each year up to a dozen building workers die at their work; 1,600 are injured. This toll of death and injury on building sites is unacceptable and action must be taken to reduce it. It is more unacceptable when it is felt, anecdotally, that a considerable number of injuries are not reported.

The Strategic Review Committee on the Construction Industry also gave priority to improving the health and safety of building workers. A number of recommendations were made in relation to the health and safety code. However, the committee concluded, and I agree, that the core requirement is not laws, regulations, rules and so on, but the fundamental cultural change in attitudes to site safety by all the partners to the construction industry — clients, design professionals, contractors and workers. The HSA is doing its best to bring forward such a change and they have the full support of Government and myself.

Unfinished estates have been the subject of concern over many years. Since the early 1980s, my Department has taken a number of opportunities, both through the issuing of advice and through legislative change, to strengthen the hands of local authorities in dealing with unfinished estates. These measures have gradually contributed to the considerably improved situation.

Many of the unfinished estate problems arose from older permissions granted without laying down proper stringent conditions. Under section 26(2)(e) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, conditions may be imposed in granting planning permission requiring the giving of security for satisfactory completion of the proposed development. The development control advice and guidelines, published by the Department in October 1982, dealt comprehensively with this issue. Even at that stage it was becoming obvious that clarification was necessary. The guidelines emphasised the need for adequate security to enable local authorities to complete the necessary works to a satisfactory standard in the event of default by the developer. The advice has in general been followed and the use of bonds by local authorities has been generally effective, although we would all admit that, at the beginning of the scheme, local authorities failed to take sufficiently large bonds to finish estates, particularly in the case of estates which took up to ten years to complete. The stipulations, if properly enforced, are of benefit.

The Department's advice to local authorities has also emphasised the scope for attaching conditions regarding the phasing of housing estates as a means of avoiding the problem of unfinished estates. That advice was backed up by the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1990, which provided for the inclusion in planning permissions of conditions, without attracting compensation, relating to the giving of security, the phasing and completion of works and the occupation of structures. It may also be noted that we have moved some way from the type of large scale housing developments of the past which were more prone to problems associated with unsatisfactory completion.

In general, the planning Acts contain a considerable range of enforcement powers for planning authorities to take action in respect of any development, including housing, which has been carried out without the benefit of planning permission or where the conditions of permission have not been complied with. Anyone, including residents' associations, is entitled to seek enforcement action through the courts. I hope the review will deal with unauthorised developments and people commencing or completing work without proper, or any, planning permission. This is an offence, as it should be, but most people get around it by immediately applying for planning permission on being found out. Planning for retention should be a separate matter. At present, people are abusing a system which was meant to address situations where genuine errors were made.

The Bill contains two basic provisions. Section 3A amends section 25 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, to enable the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to make regulations requiring applicants for planning permission to submit information to the planning authority regarding previous developments carried out by that applicant or by a connected person. This provision aims to provide the planning authority with the record of the applicant and connected persons when the authority considers subsequent applications.

The second provision basically provides that the planning authority may have regard to any information furnished to it in relation to the past history of the applicant when dealing with a new application. The planning authority can consider that information as part of the assessment of the application and refuse permission where it considers there is a real and substantial risk that the development would not be carried out in a reasonable time and in accordance with conditions which might have been laid down. This provision introduces a significant new concept into planning legislation, namely, that a local authority should refuse to grant permission when it is satisfied that the conditions would not be fully complied with. This could have wide implications which need to be carefully considered.

The solutions put forward in this Bill pose very complex legal and possibly constitutional questions. The Bill raises significant issues in relation to planning and company law. It would not be possible to accept this Bill without carefully examining these complex legal issues in detail. For example, while the definition of "connected person" from the Ethics in Public Office Act may be suitable in the context of disclosure of interests, it is hardly a suitable basis for making decisions relating to planning applications. For instance, could the brother or sister of a rogue developer be held accountable for their brother's or sister's past failure where their two companies are unconnected? A number of people would have major difficulties with this, not least somebody like myself who has 11 brothers. It would be difficult to keep track of everything they were doing.

Mr. S. Ryan

I doubt if any of them are rogues.

Mr. Dempsey

They are definitely not, but it is a difficulty. I acknowledge, of course, the general perception that problems arise from the practice of setting up separate companies for each development. Although the principals of the companies are the same people, the companies are separate legal entities. In looking at these issues we need to consider whether the extensive provisions of the Companies Acts in relation to reckless trading and the disqualification of directors are of relevance.

It is also worth noting that the main problems relate to older estates and it does not appear that any new legislation can do much for them as there is a limit on what can be achieved by way of retrospective legislation. Senator Ryan does not attempt in the Bill to deal with the problem of older estates. The Bill would only apply to planning applications received by planning authorities after it was enacted.

We are in the process of carrying out the most comprehensive review of planning legislation since the introduction of the Planning and Development Act, 1963. It is appropriate, therefore, that this issue be examined in the context of this major review.

The public consultation phase of this review is nearing completion and the conference will take place on 27 November. Political parties, local authorities, people in the public and private sectors and other interested bodies have been invited to participate. If Senators who expressed a wish to attend have not received invitations, perhaps they might consult their party Whips and we will try to facilitate them. When the national convention is over, it is my intention to complete the review as quickly as possible and to bring forward legislation. That review of planning legislation is in line with the Government's Action Programme for the Millennium which states that "it is now time to start the process of updating and consolidating our planning laws to prepare for the challenge of the new millennium". It is all the more important that we do this particularly as the basic principles of the planning system were laid down 34 years ago. Many things have changed since then.

The review is general in nature. However, because of the wide scope of planning legislation I asked that the review focus on a number of key topics some of which are relevant to the issues raised in the House today, including the increased participation of the public in the planning process, an evaluation of how local authority development plans are adopted and the levying and application of development contributions.

By encouraging increased public participation in the planning process I hope to make it even more transparent than at present. This will encourage planning authorities to prepare better plans and to ensure the decision making process is of as high a standard as possible. That can only help to ensure that planning authorities are not remiss in using the full range of powers available to them.

I intend to look at how development contributions are levied and applied by local authorities. These levies play an important part in ensuring the adequate provision of services to housing estates, including roads, sewerage and water services. I also intend to consider whether the enforcement powers under the planning Acts should be examined to see if they can be rationalised.

It is appropriate that the issues raised today should be considered in the context of the planning review. The solutions put forward in the Bill raise complex legal issues which should properly be addressed in the context of the wider review. In that sense the introduction of this Bill at this time is opportune as it gives us a chance to debate the matter generally.

I ask the Senator to consider withdrawing the Bill for the reasons I have outlined. Complex legal and constitutional issues are not addressed in the Bill. The content of the Bill will form part of the review of planning legislation. In addition, the principles in the Bill would not apply to estates which have existed for the past 20 years and which have not been finished. The resolution to that problem rests with the local authorities. In co-operation with the Senators who have raised this matter, I am willing, in the context of local government reform and funding of local government, to examine how that problem can be resolved. I hope the Senator will withdraw the Bill and allow us to resolve the problem through the review and through discussions with local authorities.

Dr. Henry

I wish to share my time with Senator Brendan Ryan.

An Cathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Dr. Henry

I am glad the Minister referred to the "Strategic Review of the Construction Industry" because I have read the review and, being a doctor, I paid particular attention to the section on health and safety. There are 90 recommendations in the report but I hope they are not all as anodyne as the recommendations in the health and safety area, particularly in this dreadful week following the death of a young construction worker, James Masterson. He died on a site owned by Zoe Developments which was described by Judge Peter Kelly, not known for hyperbole, as a "recidivist criminal" according to The Irish Times of 18 November.

The Minister is correct to point out that not all construction companies should be tarred with the same brush. I note that the P.J. Hegarty construction company, for example, has an ISO award. It, therefore, must be possible to achieve safety in the construction industry. The section of the "Strategic Review of the Construction Industry" dealing with quality building, health and safety and the image of the industry is inadequate.

I listened to Dr. Sylvia Wood talk at length about this area. The death rate in the construction industry is second only to that of the agriculture industry. The Seanad recently held a debate on disability and how to help people with disabilities and, in the course of that debate, I suggested that we try to prevent people becoming disabled. Many people are perfectly well when they get up in the morning but by the evening they have serious disabilities.

The construction industry is one of the industries in which the worst accidents happen. At present, there is one death a month and over 1,000 accidents, although we do not know how many accidents are unreported. However, I have seen such cases in casualty departments and they are extraordinarily serious. People are permanently excluded from the workforce after accidents on construction sites. The same accidents, such as falls from heights and scaffolds collapsing, continue to occur. I live near Waterloo Road where another man was killed earlier this month when scaffolding collapsed outside St. Martin's House. It was a miracle other people passing on the road were not also killed. Collapsing cranes, electrocution and drownings also occur on sites. The HSA says, correctly, that it does not have a policing function. Its function is to advise people on how to achieve better safety practices in the workplace.

Look at the recommendations in the strategic review. It states: "The industry should strive for the highest quality in both design and construction consistent with its client's requirements. ..". If that requirement is financial gain, that recommendation is not very useful. It continues:

.. and for a fundamental cultural change in attitudes to worker health and safety by all parties in the construction process. The SRC endorse the core recommendations of the HSA Advisory Committee on Construction Safety (May 1995); and recommend that the HSA should publish an annual progress report on the implementation of the advisory committee's recommendations, as part of the annual report of the HSA.

That simply means putting one report into another report. The recommendations continue:

The Health and Safety Inspectorate should effectively enforce health and safety on site and then rapidly move from a policing role to one of supporting the industry to achieve a significant improvement in the on-site working environment.

That is a rather soft recommendation for an industry in which there are over 1,000 accidents per month. If one looked on this industry as a huge factory in which accidents occurred at that rate, in addition to many more which are unreported — only serious accidents end up in casualty departments so there are reports on them — we would not consider this attitude satisfactory. The fact that the industry is spread out across the country means less attention is paid to the dreadful practices that take place.

The report continues:

The HSA should assist clients in assessing the competence of the leading 2-3 bidding contractors, in contention for the award of contracts, as Project Supervisors.

That is a sensible recommendation. At least efforts have been made in the past to ensure Government contracts are awarded to people who comply with regulations in other areas. This is an area on which the Minister could make progress at once because Government contracts are important. Recommendation 3.10 states:

Improvements in quality and in health, safety and welfare should be highlighted by the industry in the communications media.

I have material from the communications industry outlining the appalling situation on building sites but the construction industry is not taking a great deal of notice.

Mr. B. Ryan

If any political party has received a contribution from a firm which has been described as recidivist criminals, I hope it will return the money immediately. It would not accept money from drug pushers so it should not accept it from other types of criminal. That would be the least good example a political party could give.

I support the Bill. I do not understand why Governments always say that because something is complex it should be taken from the Oireachtas and referred to experts. If the Bill is complex, why not deal with it in the manner outlined by the Constitution, that is, on Committee Stage? It could be done either through a committee of the House or through a special committee. The argument of complexity is regularly used by Government to avoid dealing with an issue, but it is not an argument against accepting the principle of legislation. The Minister accepts the principle and good intention of this Bill but he claims it is too complex.

The reason we have two Houses of the Oireachtas is that life is complex. If complexity were to be the reason for not dealing with things, we could not live because life is complex. If there is no argument in principle with the content of the Bill, the Minister should agree to Second Stage and attempt to organise a Committee Stage either through a full committee of the House or a special committee of the House, to deal with these mysterious complexities. Otherwise one is entitled to suspect that the first response of the Department of the Environment and Local Government was to say "no" without appearing to do so. That is a great pity.

Ms Cox

I join in the condemnation of the situation in which young house buyers find themselves when they buy their first dream house. Three or four years later they may find that the roads are not finished and the landscaping and play areas are not completed and may actually be dangerous for children. If the Minister is conducting a wide review, why are we trying to patch up the problem by introducing a Bill which, as Senator Gallagher pointed out, needs to be improved at this stage?

The Minister has instigated a review and 150 submissions have been made to date. Senators have not examined these submissions which may contain excellent suggestions but I am sure they are being examined by the Department.

I believe the Bill will add to the bureaucracy which already exists in the planning process. The move today, which I support, is towards a reduction in local authority red tape. Emphasis is being placed on making the planning process more accessible to people. Many of the people involved in the planning process are afraid of the unknown. They fear that if they do not do things properly they will be refused planning permission without any reasons being given. To add to the bureaucracy which already exists will make life even more difficult. We must make the planning process more easily understood by the man in the street. It is all very well to speak about developers and people with large staffs applying for planning permission and being able to ensure that all of the documents are correct. However, any change we make to the planning process will impinge on the man and woman in the street who are seeking planning permission for a three bedroomed bungalow which they are building on a small site in a rural area for which they paid £10,000 or £15,000. Some people may pay £50,000 for a site in a city.

If those of us who are local authority members were to look at the problems we spend most time dealing with we would see that the planning process is one of those. Dealing with planning officials, meeting them and liaising between the applicant and the planners takes up most of our time. That proves my point that it is not desirable to make the process more bureaucratic.

We debated the Ombudsman's report in the House recently. One of the areas highlighted as having the highest number of complaints was that of planning. We would do well to bear in mind that while our intentions may be good and while the problem we are attempting to solve is a difficult one, we cannot approach it in a piecemeal manner. The Bill would increase the workload for every applicant and local authority.

The workload of the planning department of Galway Corporation has increased significantly in the past two years. Increasing a workload for the sake of something which will not be of major benefit must be avoided. This measure would seem to equate with cutting off one's arm to ease a sore thumb. I realise that is probably not the intention of the Bill.

I agree with the Minister and some of the other speakers who stated that the problem lies with a minority of builders and developers. We must give credit where it is due. Not every builder or developer leaves estates unfinished. We cannot bring forward a proposal which will effectively create more problems than it solves. House buyers are entitled to get what they pay for. In my local authority area, some estates have not been taken in charge since 1987. That is a sad state of affairs. I know some of the people who live in these estates are frustrated by the problems they encounter and by the situation which does not allow the local authority to take them in charge. This Bill will not solve that problem; if it does not solve problems which have occurred in the past, it cannot be of assistance to residents particularly those who are trying to solve problems retrospectively.

I applaud the Minister for his quick move, since becoming Minister for the Environment and Local Government, to review the entire planning process. Some of the basic planning principles are older than I am so it is high time they were reviewed.

We must move towards greater transparency in the planning process. Unfortunately, with the best will in the world, the Bill does not seem to address the real problem. It is all too easy for disappointed applicants to hurl allegations at planning officials and local authorities. We all know that if sufficient mud is thrown some of it will stick. We will solve many of our difficulties by making the process more transparent and less bureaucratic.

I welcome increased public participation in the planning process, especially in the evaluation of local authority development plans, which will allow us to develop our cities, towns and rural areas in a manner of which we will be proud and not on a piecemeal basis.

I welcome the Minister's comments on the attitude he and his Department are adopting in regard to the development of a partnership between the Department and local authorities to address the problem of unfinished housing estates. This displays the Minister's understanding of the role of local authorities and the problems they encounter on a daily basis when it comes to enforcement; it displays his commitment and that of his Department to resolving the problem.

For every difficult and complex problem, there is a straightforward and simple answer and one which is not. This Bill is an excellent example of good intention. We would all like to see the problem resolved but the proposed Bill does not address the entire issue. We must wait for the results of the review and while I do not like waiting for anything to happen, we will be delighted with the results at the end of the day.

Mr. Glynn

I commend the Minister on the direction in which he is moving on this matter. As a member of a local authority for a number of years, this debate affords me the opportunity to condemn the minority of builders who leave estates unfinished in local authority areas. Pressure is brought to bear on the relevant local authority to take these estates in charge. It is ultimately the tax and ratepayers who pick up the tab. Money is channelled into areas where it should not be and the ordinary person is paying for the misdemeanours of a small minority of builders, as colleagues on all sides of the House have stated. Reference was made to the bonding system, which has worked to a certain extent, but a number of builders have a track record of not completing their developments.

We shall review those laws but the Minister has never made a commitment to introduce legislation like this. Many people told me the Bill would not be accepted by Fianna Fáil because of its connections with builders. I said that was wrong because the party had changed. I hope the Minister will accept the Bill.

Question put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 19; Níl, 24. Tá

Tellers: Tá, Senators Costello and O'Meara; Níl, Senators T. Fitzgerald and Keogh.

Níl

Callanan, Peter.
Cassidy, Donie.
Chambers, Frank.
Cox, Margaret.
Dardis, John.
Farrell, Willie.
Finneran, Michael.
Fitzgerald, Tom.
Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
Gibbons, Jim.
Glynn, Camillus.
Keogh, Helen.
Kett, Tony.
Kiely, Dan.
Lanigan, Mick.
Leonard, Ann.
McGowan, Patrick.
Mooney, Paschal.
O'Brien, Francis.
O'Donovan, Denis.
Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
Ormonde, Ann.
Quill, Mairín.
Walsh, Jim.

Question declared lost.

Burke, Paddy.Caffrey, Ernie.Connor, John.Coogan, Fintan.Cosgrave, Liam T.Costello, Joe.Cregan, Denis (Dino).Doyle, Joe.Gallagher, Pat.

Henry, Mary.Jackman, Mary.Norris, David.O'Dowd, Fergus.O'Meara, Kathleen.O'Toole, Joe.Ridge, Thére se.Ross, Shane.Ryan, Brendan.Ryan, Seán.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 19 Nov 1997