Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 18 Feb 1993

Vol. 135 No. 2

State Authorities (Development and Management) Bill, 1993: Second Stage.

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

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

I thank you, a Chathaoirligh, for your welcome. I extend my congratulations to you on your re-election and congratulate all the newly elected Senators. We are starting with important legislation that must be dealt with urgently.

The purpose of the State Authorities (Development and Management) Bill, 1993, is to restore to the Commissioners of Public Works the power to carry out building functions and ancillary activities, subject to the sanction of the Minister for Finance, and also to ensure that other State authorities have these powers. As I am sure you are all aware at this stage, Mr. Justice Costello ruled in the High Court last Friday that the Commissioners of Public Works, apart from specific statutory powers, did not have general legislative authority to build, maintain or manage public buildings or provide public amenities or supply services to the public. He also held that the State authorities were not exempt from the application of section 24 of the Local Government (Planning and Development Act), 1963. The High Court action did not deal with the environmental issues but focused on narrow legal arguments which affected all State projects.

On the planning issue, the Government has decided to appeal this matter to the Supreme Court as there are now two conflicting High Court judgments on the matter. Until we have a Supreme Court decision which clarifies the position, the proposals contained in the Programme for a Partnership Government regarding the introduction of further planning controls for State authorities cannot be further progressed at this stage. However, a clear undertaking has been given by the Taoiseach that there will be no delay in proceeding on this planning issue as soon as that clarification has been arrived at in the courts. Therefore, I stress that this Bill deals solely with the question of the powers to build and manage State property and provide services, and not with the planning issue for the reasons I have stated.

The legislation must be dealt with speedily, in view of the implications of the High Court judgment. As a result of Justice Costello's decision, the Attorney General has advised that all works in hand by the Commissioners not covered by specific statute should immediately cease. Contractors have been advised of the position. There are approximately 50 major projects involved in all and in many cases protective notice to the work-force will follow unless the law is amended.

I would like to stress at this stage that the High Court decision on the powers of the commissioners came as a complete surprise to the State's legal advisers and the commissioners. The fact of the matter is that the Office of Public Works has been building, maintaining and managing many public buildings since the middle of the last century with the approval of Parliament and on the instructions of different Governments and Ministers for Finance. Such work includes the erection of Garda stations, Government offices and the restoration of heritage property such as Dublin Castle and the Custom House.

While the Attorney General has advised that there are good grounds for appealing the ruling in relation to the powers of the commissioners, the implications of waiting for the Supreme Court decision in this specific area, particularly in relation to job losses, makes it more prudent to change the law. The Bill, apart from providing the general powers to build, maintain and manage properties also validates building projects predating this legislation.

Section 1 provides for the usual definitions. Section 2 (1) provides State authorities with the powers to carry out or procure development and maintenance and supply goods and services. Section 2 (2) allows State authorities to carry out all actions necessary for the carrying out of the powers set out in 2 (1). Section 2 (3) provides that the constitutional rights of any person will not be affected by the Bill. Section 2 (4) provides for the consent of the Minister for Finance for the exercise of powers under 2 (1) and 2 (2). This ensures accountability to the Oireachtas for all powers exercised under this Bill. Section 2 (5) provides that the new powers are not in substitution for the existing powers of State authorities. Section 2 (6) defines development.

Section 3 requires the sanction of the Minister for Finance for expenses arising from the implementation of the Bill. Section 4 gives the Short Title and collective citation.

I turn now to the issue which gave rise to the court action leading to this legislation — the siting of the visitors centre for the Burren National Park. The High Court action did not deal with the environmental issues but focused on legal arguments which affected all State properties. This proposed legislation makes no judgment regarding the pros and cons of any of the interpretative centres.

Some people queried why work continued on the Burren project pending the full court hearing. Therefore, it is important that I set the record straight in this regard. The High Court action on the Burren commenced when the first contract was in progress. The commissioners were ready to place the second contract and so inform the court but refrained from proceeding pending the judge's ruling on whether work should go ahead. Mr. Justice O'Hanlon in that case ruled decisively that work should not be stopped.

He criticised the applicants for the delay in taking the action and he praised the handling of the project by the Office of Public Works. Perhaps I should quote from Justice O'Hanlon's judgment in this regard.

Having regard to the course of events as related in the affidavit... and the documentation which has been placed before the court, it appears to me that the commissioners have been meticulous in the manner in which they have carried forward the project to date, in giving information to the local authority and to the public at large as to the nature of the planned development, in inviting comments and giving consideration to representations made, in commissioning the environmental impact report and generally in going well beyond what they conceived as their duties and obligations at law in this respect.

...Because I believe the balance of convenience lies in favour of allowing the work to proceed rather than in favour of halting it pending the hearing of the action, and because I believe the respondents have conducted their affairs in an irreproachable manner to date.... I have to refuse the present application for an interlocutory injunction.

The Office of Public Works' legal advice at that stage was that they had the power to build and the High Court had already ruled in the Luggala case that they had followed the correct planning procedure. There was, therefore, no reason in law not to proceed with the Burren project. The commissioners were also working to strict deadlines to draw down EC funds. These required the project be finished by December 1993. In these circumstances they sought and received ministerial approval to proceed.

There have been allegations the contractor proceeded with undue haste at the Burren. Again the facts need to be set out. Tenders for that project were very competitive. The contractor submitted that if he was to avoid losses he would have to complete the project within a strict time frame. Any overtime worked is a matter for the contractor.

As you are aware the Government has decided to suspend work on the Boyne, Wicklow and Burren projects pending the Supreme Court appeal in relation to the planning issue.

In all the analysis of the visitors centres' controversy, very few commentators have focused on the primary purpose of these projects which is conservation oriented. Dick Warner wrote recently:

The challenge of national park management all over the world is to balance conservation interests with the legitimate aspirations of visitors wanting to enjoy nature. This universal problem is at the heart of the Mullaghmore protest and the problems Office of Public Works are grappling with.

Even though there has been controversy over a few projects, most of the 15 visitor centre projects have progressed without dispute and, indeed, were warmly welcomed.

While it is necessary for me to refer to the Burren project to outline the background to this Bill I would ask Senators to focus on the purpose of this legislation rather than get sidetracked on the visitor centres controversy. The Government must have the tools to carry out policies approved by this House. It must have an agency with powers to erect, manage and maintain buildings for public purposes and provide services for the public. That is what this Bill provides, and no more than that. If work were to cease on projects on which people are employed and for which contracts are already out, there would be immense cost to public funds and immense hardship and disruption caused.

Work on the controversial centres has been suspended. What this Bill provides is a mechanism whereby work on ordinary projects, such as Garda stations, schools and repair work to Government offices — the basic day to day work on the Office of Public Works — can proceed and it is important that it would be allowed to proceed. This legislation is proceeding with speed because of the legal need to safeguard those jobs and the Government has given a solemn undertaking that the planning aspects will be looked at as soon as the planning issue has been clarified in the Supreme Court, and I repeat that undertaking today.

I commend, therefore, this Bill to the House.

Mr. Howard

My first duty, and I willingly do it, is to welcome the Minister to the House, congratulate her on her recent appointment and wish her every success.

I regret that I cannot extend the same welcome to the measure she has taken before the House. The reason that I cannot do so is summed up best in her speech, where she says:

I would like to stress at this stage that the High Court decision on the powers of the commissioners came as a complete surprise.

That I accept and that was the decision which we had on Friday last. Less than a week later we have emergency legislation. Because it is emergency legislation introduced within a very short time the examination that in normal circumstances we are obliged to give to any legislation is not possible on this occasion. The Bill before us is nothing more than a fire brigade response to an unexpected decision in the High Court.

The legislation has been produced in haste. While I accept the Minister's point that there is a need for legislation in the light of the High Court decision, there is a need to regularise and to legalise the role and status of the Office of Public Works in carrying out works that up to now we assumed to be legal but which were decided to be otherwise in the High Court. In these circumstances there is a necessity to protect the new situation that has emerged.

However the legislation goes far beyond that objective and is far too sweeping, particularly in the powers it proposes to extend not alone to works under the control of the Office of Public Works, but the work undertaken by Departments under the direction of Ministers. The legislation has been produced in haste, it contains flaws that will emerge in time with unsatisfactory consequences, and some can already be foreseen.

Concern has been rightly expressed that the extent of the powers given to the State agencies, the Office of Public Works and to Ministers under this legislation is much more extensive than is required to rectify the situation arising from the High Court decision last weekend. Because this is emergency legislation, there are fears being genuinely expressed by a number of people that certain implications may emerge over a period. There is one method which could be used to allay the fears that have been expressed and that is to recognise that as this is emergency legislation it would be wise to put a time limit on its operation. If a time limit was in place the impact of this Bill could be examined within a 12 month period and if certain aspects of its operation were found to be unsatisfactory, then it could be amended. That would be a reasonable way to approach the concerns of people like myself who regard what is proposed in the Bill as unnecessarily sweeping in its implication and in the power it confers on State authorities.

A measure like this is, I think all sides will admit, a panic reaction to an unexpected development. The indications are that in certain aspects it may prove unsatisfactory with undesirable consequences. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister to seriously consider imposing a time limit on the operation of this measure during which it could be reviewed and any flaws or problems could then be examined.

I am concerned at the extent of the powers the Bill gives to State authorities. I know that certain sections of the Bill should be dealt with on Committee Stage rather than on Second Stage but, in my view, some of the proposals particularly in section 2, are excessive. If this Bill is passed, a Minister with responsibility for the Office of Public Works can carry out any development, without regard to the attitude of the public or the effect it may have on any person or on a community. Because of the absence of the requirement that proposed works should be submitted to the scrutiny of the planning regulations, there are no checks or balances in this emergency legislation and I draw the Minister's attention to this. The absence of checks and balances may be due to the timeframe within which the Bill was produced. The legislation is all the weaker for their absence.

This Bill was introduced because of last week's High Court decision. I do not sympathise with some of the people who were responsible for bringing the case to the High Court; nevertheless they had legitimate concerns that their opinions were being disregarded by the State authorities and for that reason the case was brought to the High Court. The effect of the Bill will be to confirm and copperfasten that belief among some people. The Bill contains no provision by which work undertaken by the Office of Public Works or other State authorities and found objectionable by any community, irrespective of its size, can be effectively challenged.

In this Bill the State is empowering itself to benefit from certain powers, privileges and procedures that are denied to the ordinary citizen who is attempting to carry out development of any kind. By refusing to submit to the normal planning procedure that is required of the ordinary citizen the State is creating a privileged environment in which State authorities can carry out their functions.

I understand that Fianna Fáil and Labour in their programme for Government pledged to bring the Office of Public Works and State authorities under the planning system and rules, yet practically the first piece of legislation to emerge from that Government seems to be in complete contradiction of that undertaking, and I want to draw the Minister's attention to that fact.

The Government has suspended work on the Boyne, Wicklow and Burren projects pending the Supreme Court appeal on the planning issue. This legislation purports to enable work to continue on other projects but not at those three centres. I would like to know, why this split decision. Under this legislation work on all projects is either legal or illegal. It cannot be right in respect of some and wrong in respect of others. What is it that is not being disclosed? I will return to this issue.

I wish to re-echo some sentiments the Minister expressed in relation to the performance of the Office of Public Works. She complimented them on the quality of various projects and work they have done. I accept that excellent work has been done by the Office of Public Works. I am saying that deliberately at this stage because some of the remarks I will be making later in relation to the Office of Public Works' handling of the Mullaghmore project will not be as complimentary.

The Minister indicated, and I accept, that the issue that gave rise to the High Court decision and, in turn, to this legislation was Mullaghmore and the Burren. I am the only Member of this House who is a native of the Burren. I was born and lived there and I own the original family home. As a native of the Burren I have a deep attachment to it and I can speak with a certain measure of authority about what has been happening there. I also believe that I can be dispassionate about an issue which has caused unbelievable passion and bitterness in the area. That bitterness has been caused by an unacceptable level of arrogance by a few people on both sides of the issue.

The Burren extends over 100 square miles and Mullaghmore hill is but a tiny speck on the south-eastern rim. If one were to concede all the damage which the opponents of the project claim would be done there — and I do not concede it — the reality is that it would occur in an area less than one-thousandth of the entire Burren area.

Mullaghmore is but one of many hills; there are countless other hills throughout the Burren landscape that are equally as attractive and spectacular. Many of them are more accessible than this development. What Mullaghmore had going for it above the other areas throughout that 100 square miles was that it was owned by the Office of Public Works. The officials of that body were determined that the centre would go into Mullaghmore, irrespective of the suitability of other locations in and around the Burren. At a meeting of Clare County Council two years ago when Office of Public Works officials produced plans and a scale model for the development I had no problem with either. I do not accept that the centre would be in any way obtrusive on the landscape, and I say that having visited the site in recent days. I was against Mullaghmore as a location for reasons which are substantially different from those advanced by some of the objectors. I believe the beauty and the grandeur of the Burren should be available to all. The Burren is much more than Mullaghmore. I wanted a more central location and it was not Lemaneagh or any other point along the perimeter. The natural centre of the Burren was one village, namely the village of Carron, and that was the best location for it.

Secondly, the Burren is an area that has been devastated by emigration. There are empty houses and an ageing population. If the new found interest in the area brings tourists in large numbers, then whatever economic benefits result from that should be available to the people who have remained on the Burren. I believe that is only possible if the activity is in the centre of the area and not at a single point on the rim.

These views have not found favour with the Office of Public Works and did not find favour with their officials who were present at that council meeting and in subsequent discussions I had with them. I do not expect these views would find much favour with some of the people who are opposed to the development. The public statements of some of those opposed to the project are indications of an attitude that somehow the area should be the preserve of an elite. Indeed, some have gone further and implied that the farmers who live on the Burren and who earn their living from it are a nuisance. Those who in recent days have described the building that has taken place at Mullaghmore so far as an objectionable intrusion on the landscape are wrong. I have been there recently and I think the work has been carried out in a most sensitive manner. It is concealed in a dip or a quarry or hollow and, in my view or in the view of any reasonable person, it is not an objectionable intrusion on the landscape. However, people who make that criticism are, by implication, suggesting that every home and every farmyard on the Burren landscape is equally objectionable, and that is spreading fear and concern among the inhabitants of the area. Unfortunately, we are at a point where reasonable argument is almost impossible, where it is either black or white and there is not a single area of grey in the whole issue.

Some people among the opponents of the project have created a climate where the people living in the Burren are being made to feel they are a nuisance on it and that perhaps they should somehow be moved into local villages. If the Burren was to become an overgrown wilderness populated only by wild goats and pine-martens, foxes and badgers and wild fowl in the turloughs, then the ideal of these people would be realised. That might seem extreme; it is not, but it is a fair reflection of the views and feelings in the area.

I felt I was confronted by a certain arrogance on the part of the Office of Public Works in refusing to believe that the centre should be located in Carron village. Incidentally, I was not born in Carron village but, in fact, 20 miles from it. Furthermore, the arrogance of some of the opponents of the centre in exaggerating out of all proportion the supposed damage it might cause, and the manner in which they rubbish in a most distasteful way the hopes and expectations of many genuine people in the area has caused many of the difficulties we have there.

Rational argument has gone out the window in relation to the project. The position now is that you are either for or against it, it is a black and white issue, there is absolutely no area of grey there, no area of compromise. Bitterness has been caused between neighbours in the area; in fact, families have been divided. I unreservedly condemn those on both sides of the argument who by their tunnel vision have created that situation. That is the background and I give it to the House as fairly and as objectively as I can. However, the clock has moved on and we are now confronted with a building that is half complete on the site. Expenditure amounting to between £1 million and £2 million has been incurred. The other fact is that the vast majority of the people in north Clare, over 90 per cent, support entirely the location of the project at Mullaghmore.

We live in a democracy and despite the reservations which I had about the siting of the project at Mullaghmore two years ago, and reservations which I still hold for the reasons I advanced, I believe the will of the majority should now prevail. We will all be guilty of a scandalous waste of public funds if the work already done there is not completed. I visited the site in recent days and I can report that the standard of the work has been first class. It is well enclosed, well concealed in a hollow on the ground that was originally a quarry, and it will not in any significant way intrude in a visual manner on the landscape. I hope its early completion would end the row that has divided and inflamed passions in an area where normally the people are easygoing and generous. I deplore what has happened. I do not believe the economic benefits that could come to the Burren would be realised to the same extent if the project was located at another point.

The Bill fails to address one other significant aspect, namely, the position of the 50 construction workers who have been laid off in the Burren. While it purports to safeguard the position of other Office of Public Works employees in up to 50 other projects, it does not do that for the 50 construction workers at Mullaghmore. I ask the Minister what kind of an unsatisfactory legal concoction is this Bill if it has the capacity to protect the jobs of the employees at 50 projects under the auspices of the Office of Public Works and yet is unable to protect the employment of 50 workers in north Clare and 140 in two other projects in Wicklow and Meath? How can the Minister seriously expect us to accept a Bill which, she suggests, is capable of validating only part of the activities of the Office of Public Works and is somehow incapable of validating the work taking place on three projects? Either this Bill has the capacity to validate all work in progress under the auspices of the Office of Public Works or it has not the capacity to validate any of the jobs.

I am not accusing the Minister personally of this, but to suggest otherwise is an insult to the legislative process. If you look at it from a political angle, the most likely explanation is that the three projects have been excluded and the workers' jobs have been sacrificed to satisfy the inflated egos of some personalities among the junior partners in Government. There is evidence to suggest that that may be the most likely answer. Whatever the answer, I regret it.

I do not accept, and do not expect this House to accept, that this measure is limited in its capacity and that by some extraordinary set of circumstances it can validate activities in specific projects but not in all. I accept that it is necessary to protect the 2,000 jobs at various Office of Public Works centres throughout the country but how is it that all but 190 of these jobs are safe once this measure goes through? Why can this Bill not protect the 190 workers employed at Mullaghmore, Luggala and the Boyne when we are told it can protect the positions of their colleagues?

I believe the Bill's inability to protect these jobs goes back to the fact that it was produced in haste, in panic. It is an unsatisfactory measure and would require more time to gauge the consequences that are likely to arise from it, particularly in relation to the sweeping powers it confers on Ministers and the Office of Public Works. Coming from the Burren where 50 young people and a number of others who expected part-time and full time employment on the project, are now back in the dole queues, I cannot say that a measure which refuses to address their dilemma, but can address the dilemma of their colleagues elsewhere, is satisfactory. It is not, and for these reasons I will not be supporting it.

Mr. Roche

I compliment and congratulate my colleague who is now Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald.

The circumstances which bring us here today to deal with this emergency legislation are by any standards extraordinary. As the Minister and Senator Howard have mentioned, the decision last week in the High Court by Justice Costello came as a surprise not just to the State's legal advisers but to anybody who observes public administration. I cannot understand what the Office of Public Works have been doing for 150 years if they have not been involved in the business of public works. This is the most extraordinary judgment in that it reiterates in a literal way the old ultra vires doctrine which for many years reformers of public administration have rightly and properly criticised and called for an end to. Narrowly interpreted, the archaic and extraordinary doctrine of ultra vires renders impotent any creative activity on behalf of any part of public administration. It is nothing short of remarkable that in the latter days of the 20th century we should find any judge in any court prepared to reiterate in its most Victorian simplicity the bizarre notion of ultra vires.

The ultra vires doctrine is normally associated with the activities of local government and in local government for 21 years we have been arguing that the doctrine should be removed, that there should be a positive statement of powers for local authorities that would allow them and other public agencies to exercise the creativity that undoubtedly exists within those agencies. For example, in 1971 the White Paper on Local Government Reform accepted that the ultra vires doctrine — the concept that you must seek specific and absolute legal authority for each and every act no matter how minor — was a doctrine which was equivalent to an administrative millstone, the destroyer of creativity. It pointed out that the doctrine would provide a bolt hole for every person in public life who wished to avoid doing anything positive.

It reflects no credit on us that 20 years later the Barrington proposals in 1991 could return to the same issue and again deal with this extraordinary notion of ultra vires. In fairness to the courts, up to last week they took a view on ultra vires that if, for example, an issue could normally be regarded as a continuation of a specific legal power it would be permissible. I will illustrate this by an analogy which is used sometimes in public administration. It was found many years ago that local authorities had the right to build bandstands but they did not have the right to engage bands to play on those bandstands. Clearly it is a farce, a nonsense and a piece of judicial ridicule to suggest that having built a bandstand, one could not engage a band to play on it. The members of the council could not even go down there and mime, or members of the judiciary could not go down there and do a turn themselves.

Mr. Farrelly

I am sure the Taoiseach could.

Mr. Roche

What we find in last week's judgment is a complete reversal of what is regarded as the norm; that if public authorities were behaving in a reasonable way — and were exercising a reasonable extension of what would be regarded by the rational man as their authority, then those functions, provided they were legal and there was the necessary finance and sanctions, could go ahead. The judgment last week did land us in — as the Minister has said here and as the Minister said in the Dáil — in a extraordinary position. When Senator Howard called this a fire brigade exercise he was correct.

In the inadequate offices across the road which have been assigned to Senators there are officials from the Office of Public Works punching holes in walls, taking down partitions and putting up new partitions. If the letter of the law as handed down to us last week by the High Court was to be observed, all those officials of the Office of Public Works should go home and hang up their tools and we should gnash our teeth in frustration and wait until such time as we sort out this law.

Mr. Sherlock

That is an exaggeration of the facts, I would say.

Mr. Roche

I do not think it is. I think the Senator is wrong. I am illustrating the point that if it is wrong for the Office of Public Works to operate in the manner we are discussing here, it is wrong for them to operate in all manners. Every aspect of the Office of Public Works, whether it is driving a nail or building a Garda station or a school for children or trying to do something to improve some public building, is subject to question. That is the ridiculous situation we find ourselves in. There is no point in wringing our hands unduly about this issue. It is right and prudent that the Government should take emergency measures to redress that situation and they have done that in this Bill.

Senator Howard made the point that any form of emergency legislation, not just this legislation, is by its nature bad. I agree with that. It is wrong that we have occasionally to plummet into emergency legislation in this or the other House because, as the Senator rightly said, it does not allow time to consider every possible nuance of the legislation, but nonetheless we are faced with a predicament here. A huge number of public works contracts are in progress all over the country. They simply cannot be brought to a juddering halt while the judicial process grinds its slow, inexorable way. Emergency legislation in this case is necessary and must be supported by all reasonable people.

Senator Howard made another interesting point. As a general principle when emergency legislation is introduced, it might be wise to place a time limit on it to force us to come back and examine it. That is worthy of consideration. The Minister in her contribution and the Government in its pronouncements over the past two days indicated that the purpose of this Bill is to deal with the specific emergency in so far as public works are concerned. It does not deal with the planning aspects. The House has to accept the bona fides of the Minister and the Government in this matter. I welcome the Minister's undertaking today that the planning issues raised by these controversies are going to be subject to legislation, in the fullness of time.

It is right and proper that all people in this land be subject to the full rigours of planning law. We are a republic and we do not differentiate between corporate citizens, even when the corporate citizen is the State, and private citizens. It is wrong, therefore, that the State as a corporate citizen be excluded from planning law. I welcome the commitment in the programme for Government, given again by the Minister here and by Ministers in the other House, that the planning issue is to be dealt with. When that happens it should be dealt with fully and the full rigours of planning law should apply to all public authorities, and most specifically to local authorities. Some of the most hideous blots on the landscape have been put there by local authorities. They have ignored their own planning laws, they have built housing estates with badly designed double storey houses in scenic areas and have been responsible for some extraordinary planning travesties they would not tolerate from the private citizen.

While many people in County Wicklow have no specific problem with Luggala, they see a difference in planning law for public authorities who, in the minds of the public, can get away with anything they wish, and the ordinary citizen who is severely constrained in any planning matter. I illustrate this by reference to a specific case. A constituent of mine said the planning authority required him to spend several thousand pounds moving a gate post 18 inches because it had been put in the wrong position. He admitted he had made a mistake — he had put the gate post in wrongly — but he was not trying to evade the law. The wider gate was more efficient. Yet, the planning law in that detail applied to him. At the same time in County Wicklow the ESB put a 220 kV line right across the most scenic areas of the county and we all seemed impotent in the matter. The proposals the Government has announced to cover the planning considerations will deal with issues of concern to people namely, the possible or perceived iniquitous manner in which the law of the land has been implemented.

I turn to the planning issues on the controversial sites, specifically Luggala. As officials here know, I was one of those who urged caution in the case of the site in County Wicklow. I argued there should be the widest possible consultations and those consultations took place, a little later than I had hoped. Then it was argued that an environmental impact study of the Luggala site could be prepared. Strictly speaking that was not necessary but I consented and petitioned the then Minister of State with responsibility for the Office of Public Works that an EIS be prepared, and in fairness to the Office of Public Works that was done. The various interest groups met in this building in a room downstairs. I said to them: "When the EIS is prepared, if it puts forward a view which does not support yours, will you accept it?" Only one of the 19 people present had the honesty to say "no" and I gave him full credit on that occasion. I moved a motion in Wicklow County Council that there should be a further delay in the project in Wicklow until the Phillips report on the National Park be produced and in due course it was produced. It would not be unfair to say that all sides were disappointed by it.

The reality is that a project is being built in the Wicklow hills. Like Senator Howard, on Tuesday this week I went up to see that project. When I arrived at the site there were another four carloads of people, obviously interested because of the television coverage of the site. A gentleman from Dublin was frowning at a considerable amount of scarring on the landscape. I pointed out, to my wry amusement, that he was not looking at the site for Luggala. The scarring was where a landowner, quite properly, was removing boulders from his land in the process of rehabilitating the land for replanting. To view the Luggala site, this concerned citizen had to turn to his left, more than 90 degrees. The site was visible only because of a large crane protruding from the forest.

I was one of those who urged that this centre should be closer to the village of Roundwood, perhaps that it should be in the village. I accept the point made by Senator Howard. Logic seems to have gone out the door in this debate. People have become extraordinarily polarised. In my own county, anybody who urges a more balanced view is regarded as somehow betraying one side or the other. A discouraging and distressing fact of Irish life is that if you take the middle ground you are regarded as equivocating and not really genuine in these matters. It is extraordinary that in Dublin, a certain set the "chattering classes", seem to oppose everything without taking the trouble to travel to the centres. I do not know what the situation is in Mullaghmore because I have not been there but I know what the situation is in Luggala. I know that in the case of Luggala I needed a lot of persuasion.

One other factor was adequately dealt with in the last contribution. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation in Luggala, the 32 workers who will be laid off on that site next Monday bear no responsibility for this matter. I was pleased the last contribution noted the human tragedy for those 32 men in Luggala, the 50 workers in the Burren, the 20 local authority workers also employed there and the people in the Boyne Valley. In these discussions people have sought to sweep aside the human tragedy facing these workers. People who should know better have talked about only 50 jobs here or only 30 jobs there. That is not good enough.

The Government faces a conundrum on this issue. If it sought to progress with the Luggala site, which has been cleared by the High Court, it would be regarded as operating in a high-handed way, in a totally unacceptable manner for a society based on the rule of law. I hope our Supreme Court balances the two separate judgments. Remember the judgment in the Luggala case is completely opposed to the judgment in the Mullaghmore case. I hope the Supreme Court, which has always served this country well, will reach a conclusion speedily in this matter. I share the same concern as the last speaker about the well being of the workers who are involved in these sites. No matter who is right or wrong in this regard, these people bear no part of the blame.

I also share a concern, which has been expressed by few people, about the way public servants have been attacked on this issue. I spent a great proportion of my life in the public service and I believe that the public service serves the Irish people well. I have always been very upset that the public service is not allowed to answer its critics. On this occasion there have been a number of press statements from the Office of Public Works and the manner in which these statements have been treated is extraordinary. In this day and age I feel it is right and proper that public servants should be allowed to speak on issues such as this and to indicate the considerations which helped to formulate their policies on specific issues. I also believe that when public servants are criticised incorrectly, or invalidly, or when criticisms are mistaken in fact or are intentionally mistaken, they should have a right to correct them.

Above all what we should learn from this is the necessity for balanced debate. There are people I know well who have opposed the Luggala site and their bona fides are beyond question. There are others who have engaged in polemic regarding that site. I do not quite know the exact basis of their concern but I will accept, until I know otherwise, that it is genuine.

As Senator Howard said, one of the great tragedies of this debate has been the lack of balance and the extraordinary willingness of one side or the other to characterise their opponents in terms that are entirely black. It is a sign of national immaturity and it is time we had more balance in all forms of public debate. I make a suggestion to the print and the electronic media, but less so to the electronic than the print media in this case, that there is a necessity for balance. In the case of Mullaghmore, I am certain there are two sides to the argument; in the case of Luggala I know that there are two sides to the argument. All the angels are not on one side and all the devils on the other. It is about time we treated the Irish people with the respect they deserve. We must recognise in putting forward arguments that there is no argument that does not have two sides, with good and bad on both sides.

This Bill is very simple legislation that is necessitated by what can only be properly described as an extraordinary judgment. I could not believe when I read the judgment that we would be taking a step backward. Logically, I cannot understand how the Office of Public Works could have existed for 150 years without becoming engaged in the issue of public works.

I once again warmly and whole heartedly welcome the Minister and wish her well in her new appointment.

Acting Chairman (Mr. T. Fitzgerald)

Senator Quinn, I understand you wish to share your time with Senator Norris. How do you wish to share the time?

Mr. Quinn

Half and half.

Acting Chairman

Does the House agree? Agreed. Senator Quinn, tá fáilte romhat.

Mr. Quinn

I also welcome the Minister to the House. I do not find it as easy to welcome this Bill. I have been very impressed by Senator Howard and Senator Roche who have shown a constructive way of looking at this problem. They singled out the individual cases of Mullaghmore and Luggala but I prefer to concentrate on the essence of the Bill. It is a very short Bill but an important one. It was criticised by Senator Howard on the grounds that emergency Bills are not something to be welcomed, and we all agree with that but we do not always have the luxury of avoiding emergency Bills.

I have three basic tests I would put to any "quickie" Bill such as this. First, is it narrow in scope covering only the bare minimum required in an emergency Bill? Second, I suggest an emergency Bill should not be contentious; instead it should command wide assent among the Members of both Houses and should not rely on the power of the Government majority to pass it. Third, an emergency Bill should not be open-ended in time but should be restricted in its duration so that it can be replaced within a short time by a Bill which has been thought through, debated and considered. For these reasons I believe this Bill fails all three tests.

It fails the first test because it is unnecessarily wide in its scope. The Ministers has come into the House today, I suggest, carrying a sledgehammer rather than a nutcracker. It would have been possible to draft this Bill so that it simply extended the powers of the Office of Public Works to the specific activities not covered by the court judgment. Instead, it appears to give blanket powers to do everything under the sun not only to the Office of Public Works but almost to the entire Government, if I read it correctly. It reminds me a little of those articles of association that sometimes one sees perhaps at a corner shop which enables the proprietors of that company to run airlines, drill for oil and do everything else as well. This Bill is unnecessarily wide and consequently it is not suitable to be passed on the nod.

It fails my second test that it should not be unnecessarily contentious. It would be wrong of us not to acknowledge that the underlying issue here is the answerability of the Office of Public Works to the planning process. The Minister has assured us that this issue is being pursued in the courts and will then be addressed by separate legislation. That is not good enough. While we are waiting for this legislation, which we are told will bring the Office of Public Works under the planning umbrella, the Government is proceeding with its appeal against the idea that the Office of Public Works needs planning permission. Therefore, there is a gap between words and action and the promise to rectify the planning area is not consistent with the draconian tenor of this Bill. It could have been much easier. I suggest the Minister could have inserted a caveat every time development is mentioned along the lines of "subject to whatever planning constraints may be imposed by law". That would have acknowledged the underlying contentious issue without prejudicing the detail and would have shown good faith in the interim period.

The Bills fails my third test because it is unlimited in its duration. We should all be fully aware of the risks of what I call "quickie" legislation. Approximately ten years ago the Insurance Corporation of Ireland Bill was rushed through these Houses. In retrospect, we realise that the speed at which that Bill was considered resulted in an Act which had flaws. Given a choice, it would have been preferable to have limited that legislation to whatever was required. For this reason I believe all emergency legislation should have a time limit, after which it should expire unless it is replaced by legislation which has been considered in a more careful manner. It would be useful if a time limit was established as a basic requirement for all emergency legislation. Without that requirement we have the distasteful task of turning our backs on what is basically our responsibility in these Houses, that is, the careful scrutiny of all legislation. I was elected to this House on a promise of action and speed; this is not quite the speed I had in mind.

Finally, I acknowledge the need to regularise the position of the Office of Public Works. All of us are in agreement on that. Senator Howard and Senator Roche have made strong individual cases but this Bill is not the right way to do it. For that reason I will vote against it.

Mr. Norris

First, if I may do so without appearing patronising, I compliment my colleague, Senator Quinn, on an excellent, lucid and brief speech which addressed the principles behind the legislation, which we must all be concerned about. I doubt if I will reach his heights because I am a contentious person.

I feel very strongly about this Bill and I have great sympathy for the Minister because this has been an act of ventriloquism. My copy of the Minister's speech indicates that it was delivered by the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey. It is an act of political ventriloquism as it is the Minister of State who had to deliver this apparently bland material which contains some controversial suggestions and comments.

I have taken an interest in this matter for some time. In May 1991, for example, I debated on the Adjournment the Mullaghmore Interpretative Centre. At that stage I raised a number of questions about, for example, the degree of consultation that had taken place, which was virtually none. The Government had set its face against an environmental impact survey being conducted; there was no indication that it had consulted with the National Museum, the National Botanic Gardens or any of the expert advice which is readily available in this State from those institutions, and from the universities. There was a determined refusal to face the virtually unanimous opinion of the consequences of plunging ahead with this utterly reckless development of Mullaghmore.

Had the former Senator, Eamon de Buitléar, a nominee of the previous Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey, been here, I am certain he would have commented trenchantly on this proposal because he did speak eloquently on matters of environmental concern. Last week at a meeting in Trinity he spoke about Mullaghmore and expressed his real concern at the consequences that might flow from this development. I will come back to what I think those real practical consequences may be.

It seems to me that far from creating jobs by pushing ahead in this way with an interpretative centre we may kill the goose that lays the golden egg. If we destroy a sensitively balanced ecology or interfere with the environment in the way that is planned, we may find in 20 or 25 years' time we do not have that environment to interpret anymore, so one is left interpreting the car park rather than the Burren. That is a real danger. It may take some time for this to occur. It has occurred in the case of the Shetland Islands where oil spills were predicted yet people continued to use shipping lanes with inappropriate vessels and did not heed the warnings given. I have no doubt there will be accidental sewage spillage that will destroy the turloughs. We have not even had an in depth examination of the water tables in this area. The turloughs are curious phenomena and there is serious concern that their sensitive ecological balance could be tampered with and destroyed.

I deplore the haste with which the Office of Public Works went ahead with Mullaghmore. I am not not convinced by the Minister's statement in which it is alleged that there was no undue haste:

The contractor submitted that if he was to avoid losses he would have to complete the project within a strict time frame. Any overtime worked is a matter for the contractor.

That is kicking for touch if ever I saw it. I do not believe it; it is a classic Fianna Fáil ploy and I can have sympathy for the Labour Party becoming enmeshed in it.

This is exactly what Fianna Fáil did with Wood Quay. They tried to pour money into a situation which was controversial so that, despite the fact that it was controversial, there would be such massive State investment in it that it would have been difficult to reverse. This is essentially undemocratic as is the other problem that is, the exemption of local authorities and the Office of Public Works from the requirements of planning legislation. These bodies must not be exempt.

I have had experience of this in the inner city, for example, where local authorities can exempt themelves from planning requirements. They can demolish listed buildings, they can make unsympathetic developments as Senator Roche indicated and they are not required to pass the test that an ordinary citizen would be required to pass. If, for example, this was a multinational corporation developing a theme park at Mullaghmore they would have to — and quite rightly — apply for planning permission and be subjected to all the stringent requirements that operate in that circumstance. Why should we expect a less high standard from people who are vested with significant authority by the people of this land?

Some Senators have referred to Garda stations, public libraries, monuments and band stands and noted that they were erected without planning permission. Who cares at this stage? They are there on the landscape. Does anybody seriously suggest that there will be an army of builders going around knocking down Garda stations? This is a completely spurious argument for the rapid passage of this Bill.

There were interesting exchanges from the Government side with regard to the role of civil servants and I would like to comment on them. I indicated on the Order of Business that I thought it would be monstrous to ask that civil servants who sit in this House to advise Ministers be personally named. It would be grossly unfair as they do not have the opportunity to reply. I do not mind getting involved in a spat, in fact I rather enjoy it, but I do like the person I am opposing to have the opportunity to defend himself or herself. On the other hand, I would not protect the Office of Public Works with quite the enthusiasm and verve of Senator Roche, particularly in light of the fact that they have apparently hired the services of a public relations person who has involved himself in the caricaturing of opposition which Senator Roche slyly introduced into his own argument. Having said that he was going to rise above controversy in an Olympian fashion, he immediately set about giving anecdotal hearsay evidence that would not stand up in court by saying: when I was down at Luggala I saw this man and he objected to the scarring of the landscape. Of course, then the drop was given because he was talking about some legitimate development of a local farmer, and then the 19 people in a room downstairs would not be acceptable in court.

As regards Senator Roche's comments about the chattering classes and so on you might expect that in political debate but you do not expect it from a public relations expert, paid by the State, on this sort of developments. I quote from an article by this public relations officer:

It is also very fashionable to have an environmental cause in your CV if you are in the public eye, the details of the case are not very important.

That is an extraordinary and outrageous attempt to discredit people who feel strongly about this issue and have a legitimate concern. I do not think they should be rubbished in this way.

The suggestion that the people who opposed Mullaghmore through the courts were abusing their rights is extraordinary and inaccurate. I quote from a letter written to The Irish Times on 17 February by a collegue, Dr. Yvonne Scannell, an environmental lawyer. She said:

As long ago as November 1991, long before any final decision had been taken to build interpretative centres at Mullaghmore and Luggala, the Office of Public Works were asked by solicitor's letter what powers they had to build interpretative centres. Having ignored the first letter and a reminder, they were forced eventually to answer the question in the Dáil in May 1992. They relied on the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924, and State Property Act 1954 — none of which gave them any such powers — as they must well have known.

One would assume that any public body before contemplating carrying out a development, not to mind one which was bound to generate controversy, would question whether or not it had power to do so. We do live in a democracy, and public bodies are normally very careful to ensure that they are acting legally.

One is reminded of the words of the late and deeply regretted Mr. Justice McCarthy in the Carrowmore passage grave case: "they reckoned without that combination of private advantage and public-spiritedness that sometimes goes to law to bring bureaucracy to heel.

That in my opinion is the real situation. These were public spirited people who clearly, publicly and incontrovertibly put the Office of Public Works on notice that they were objecting. They questioned the basis for this activity and were accused of abusing their democratic rights. Those who are concerned about this legislation have a strong case indeed.

Someone on the Government benches said that there are two sides to every question, good and bad. I am surprised because that is not the Fianna Fáil line. The phrase, and it is a catch-phrase, is good, bad and indifferent. The tragedy of these developments is not that they are good or bad but that they are indifferent; they are spectacularly indifferent to the environmental requirements of these areas. What we see is not a group of people who are concerned about the environment but people who cruelly raise the spectre of unemployment.

I understand the feelings of people in Clare because there are many difficulties which they are courageously facing. It is cruel to manipulate a small number of people who may be, at least temporarily, deprived of legitimate occupation by this action to use them as front line troops in an attempt to defeat the democratic questioning of this Bill.

It is clear that there is political jockeying involved in this matter. It will be interesting to see how the Labour Party deals with this issue because this is an early test for them. Everybody was aware that Deputy Michael D. Higgins would be given responsibility for Mullaghmore once the last slate was in place and he could do very little about it.

It is a pity that the Office of Public Works do not have to meet the planning and legislative requirements in this Bill. It is a defective Bill. It would not have operated as the Government wanted if a Progressive Democratic amendment giving it a kind of retrospective constitutional immunity had not been accepted.

An effective land management policy, an area of dereliction for all Governments, is absent from this Bill. According to Professor Frank Convery, Professor of Environmental Studies at UCD:

The opportunity should be seized upon now to subject public investment to planning permission and thereby have public investments of the requisite scale, nature and impact go through the normal planning approval procedures. Such a development may add a year to the decision making process, but it would allow values of which the promoters of the scheme may be unaware to emerge and it would provide legitimacy.

Ms O'Sullivan

May I give five minutes of my time to Senator Ann Gallagher?

Acting Chairman (Mr. Howard)

Agreed.

Ms O'Sullivan

I welcome the Minister to the House and congratulate her on her appointment.

Democracy is an imperfect instrument but it is the best form of Government devised by man. Unfortunately flaws are exposed from time to time, frequently through the courts as in the case we are discussing, and as a result emergency legislation is necessary. I accept Senator Quinn's point that emergency Bills should be of a temporary duration.

The implications of the High Court decision are known. The day to day work of the Office of Public Works, the building of Garda stations, public offices, heritage restoration, projects on canals and so on, are at risk. The Minister in the Dáil yesterday indicated that there are 50 major projects and 1,500 jobs at stake. This Bill deals with the building and management of State property rather than the planning issue which will be dealt with at a later stage. My party is committed to dealing with this issue. This is the situation which exists despite claims made both inside and outside both Houses and by Senator Howard this morning.

I am satisfied there is no hidden agenda in this legislation because if there was my party would not be supporting the Bill. It is simple and direct in its provisions. Often legislation like this is used by the Opposition to introduce irrelevant matters, although this has not been done, to a great extent, in this House.

Emergency legislation is not perfect; it is an emergency measure and therefore a fire brigade act. It must be short and direct. This Bill is no more or no less than what is in front of us. It is designed to preserve jobs and protect projects which delays might put in jeopardy. I commend the Office of Public Works for the excellent work they are doing throughout the country.

This Bill does not affect the courts decision in relation to the interpretative centres at Mullaghmore, the Boyne Valley, and Luggala in County Wicklow. I defend the right of any group or individual to challenge such matters and I am glad other Members have defended their rights as well. In relation to the Mullaghmore project Senator Norris has no need to be concerned about my party because we favour the building of a centre there. We believe more full-time employment and wealth would be created there. Furthermore we are concerned about the threat to the environment particularly, in relation to the water system in the Burren which is interconnected with underground water connection systems — the turloughs and so on. If the interpretative centre were built which already has the essential infrastructure and amenities — such as shops, pubs, craft shops, etc. — it would be of greater benefit to the local people and more full-time and permanent jobs would be created than if the centre was built in the area suggested in Mullaghmore.

I reject the accusation that the people who took this case are being mischevious or arrogant. They have every right to take this case to court. They tried to make their case in other ways, but they felt they were not getting a hearing and that in the end they had to take their case to court. That is the right of any citizen or group if they believe it needs to be done. It is not fair to blame the objectors. It is unfair of Senator Howard to suggest that they are somehow threatening the well-being of the residents of the Burren. I have been there several times; in fact, I climbed Mullaghmore quite recently. I am also a Clare person, although I now live in Limerick city. There is no attempt to threaten the residents of the Burren.

I also wish to defend Deputy Kemmy's statement. I think it has been misinterpreted. Deputy Kemmy is a building worker. Of course, we regret that people's jobs are at risk, but it is a temporary situation. There will be an interpretative centre developed in the Burren; in my view, preferably, in an alternative location where more sustainable jobs will result. That is the bottom line as far as we are concerned that sustainable jobs be created. This is a short-term building project, but long-term jobs are more important.

On the larger question. The Labour Party intends to honour the commitment in the Programme for Government to make State authorities more accountable to the planning laws. I support the concerns of previous speakers, particularly in relation to decisions made at various times in the past. Contrary to what was said in the Dáil, the Government could not have brought in those planning measures as part of this Bill. This must be a matter for separate legislation. Given the time constraints it would not have been possible.

Those who spoke here, and in the Dáil, know that intricate new planning legislation is a complicated and a sensitive business requiring careful preparation and research. I am confident this legislation will be introduced in both Houses of the Oireachtas in the near future and I am pleased by the Minister's assurance on that matter this morning. Meanwhile this Bill is designed to ensure continuity of projects that were not a feature of the High Court appeal but are part of the ongoing work of the Office of Public Works. It has the support of the Labour Party members in the Seanad.

Ms Gallagher

I welcome the Minister to the House and wish her well in her new post.

Taking my lead from Senator Quinn, I hope to be brief. I will address the Bill which is short and sweet. While the legislation may have been produced with speed it is obviously brief and straightforward. Its purpose is simple: to allow the ongoing work of the Office of Public Works. It goes not further than that — I would like to alleviate the fears of the other side of the House on that point. As a solicitor I am au fait with the wording of this Bill and I can guarantee Members on the other side of the House that there is nothing untoward in it. There is no hidden agenda. It is a simple matter. It allows the State authorities to proceed with the work they have been doing since the foundation of the State.

A question was raised about the definition of development being extremely wide. It is a standard definition and I see no problem with that. With regard to a lack of checks and balances, I would point out that section 2 (4) of this Bill states clearly that powers of the Office of Public Works are exercisable only with the consent of the Minister who is, of course, answerable to the Government. These powers will also be subject to the usual planning legislation and I welcome the Minister's undertaking in this regard. I am anxious to see that there will be proper planning control. I do not think any State authority should be above or beyond that. I trust in the Minister's undertaking on this matter. Our discussion today has been diverted by discussion of planning matters and I intend to contribute fully to that debate when it comes to this House, and only then.

With regard to the employment of the workers in the Burren, I understand they have been suspended rather than laid-off. In any case, work will resume at a later stage and those workers will obviously be re-employed.

I would like to refer to Senator Roche's comments which I did not quite understand. I support the doctrine of ultra vires because I believe there should be control over Ministers, local authorities, etc. It has proved itself useful in various cases and I would like to see some control continue in that regard.

I welcome the Bill.

Mr. Farrelly

I welcome the Minister to the House. I am somewhat disappointed it is not my former colleague because I had a few questions to ask him. Perhaps the Minister will do me the honour of reporting my questions to him.

The development at the Boyne has also been controversial but has not received as much coverage as Mullaghmore and perhaps there is a reason for that.

The Bill is fire brigade action to deal with a problem arising from a decision made in the High Court last week. Even though there is a commitment in the Programme for Government to do something about the planning laws in relation to the Office of Public Works and other State agencies, it may be a considerable time before anything is done. It is long past time that something was done regarding the Office of Public Works.

I have in mind development in my town. Had an individual applied for planning permission to build a residence where the Office of Public Works decided to build a Garda station in Kells, beside the Colmcille Church which has been there for hundreds of years, they would have been refused permission. Coming into the town from the Dublin Road, all one can see now is the Garda station. In this case I endorse the views of Senator Norris; I would be delighted to see someone go and take it down, because it is a disgrace. The sooner the same planning controls that apply to everyone else are imposed on the Office of Public Works the better. No organisation should have a free hand to do as they like throughout Ireland.

The Bill does not really deal with the problem. This legislation should not be passed through the Houses of the Oireachtas without a limit being put on how long the legislation should last or until other matters are dealt with.

Senator Howard mentioned the 190 jobs that are excluded. I wonder how many local people are employed at the Boyne development?

I suspect we could count them on one hand. At certain times of the week there are very few people on that development and I will leave it to Members to draw their own conclusions. It is appalling that public money is being spent in this way. The speed of the development was mentioned. It was always thought the Office of Public Works needed an extra six months or a year to complete most jobs. I notice Senators are nodding in agreement. They are five months ahead of schedule at the Boyne. I wonder why? Have the Labour members of Government realised what is happening not only at the Boyne but throughout the country? Why are they ahead of time? I would have liked to ask Deputy Dempsey that question.

Several meetings have taken place with people who were not opposed in principle to the development of the Boyne site. They would have liked to see negotiations taking place with people in the Office of Public Works and the Ministers concerned listening to what the locals had to say. They would also have liked to see money dispersed throughout the area to help increase development, income and job creation in essential services in the area. Last year 130,000 people visited the Knowth, Dowth and Newgrange sites. They are now being asked not to travel on the new motorway. People in the local area are not pleased that places with enormous tourism potential, such as the village of Slane, are being bypassed for development.

I want to ask a question. Has the appropriate Minister any influence in the Office of Public Works? I doubt it. Are the concerned people who go to the Office of Public Works to make a prompt and proper argument for changing certain proposals ever listened to? Last October, I and two other politicians met the then Minister for the Office of Public Works, Deputy Treacy and the Government Chief Whip, Deputy Dempsey, and raised the problems that would be caused for 12 families locally by the development at Newgrange because we need proposals to allay their fears. To date we have not received a response. This is not the way to deal with the genuine fears.

Once the negotiations and consultations are completed, the Minister has had his say and the officials have made a decision on a project, it's a fait accompli. You can hold all the meetings you like but nobody will listen. We are going down the road of doing what we want regardless of the consequences. That is partly the cause of the problems in these three developments. The public feels the Office of Public Works makes the decisions, they are not bound by any laws and they do what they want without listening to anybody. As a result, nobody feels they have a say with the Office of Public Works.

It was mentioned that it would be unfair to criticise officials. As public representatives elected to both Houses it is only right that we should point out the failings as we see them, not by running down any individual but by looking at the position as the public see it. I will always be the type of politician to call a spade a spade and in this case the people are very worried.

When the development recommences, which I am sure it will, I hope the proposals made by many concerned groups in the area will be looked at sympathetically. This would give the local people a greater input into the long-term benefits for their areas. There will be a spin-off in long-term job creation. We are all concerned about job creation but there is no point in just thinking about it and not organising the development that will have long-term job potential — in shops, craft centres, etc. Unless we do that, we are using a system that has not worked over a period of years and as a result, there are at least 300,000 people unemployed.

This legislation — fire brigade action as it is — should have a time scale and then be replaced with more concrete proposals. Senator Quinn was correct in referring to the legislation passed vis-a-vis ICI ten years ago. We all had second thoughts about that legislation. It needed to be introduced but fire brigade legislation always leaves loopholes. That is what this is and I am very worried about it. If the problems and fears of concerned groups had been listened to more sympathetically and the necessary action taken we might not be here today dealing with this legislation.

The perception in rural Ireland is that the Office of Public Works can do whatever it likes and people wonder if the Minister has any say. At the end of the day we are debating this Bill today because the courts decided that the Office of Public Works are going too far, too fast and there is no control.

Mr. Daly

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this Bill. I thank all those who made it possible for me to be here. I wish the Minister every success. I held the position of Minister in various Departments in the past and I fully appreciate the difficult and onerous task confronting her. I hope that my contributions will be constructive and worthwhile

I welcome the legislation. I agree with the Minister that it is necessary to deal with the three projects at present suspended. There is no reason work could not proceed on these projects. I appreciate the points made but there is a responsibility on the Government to honour commitments entered into in good faith. The Government must not only honour these commitments but be seen to do so. I support the wish that the delay in work on projects at the three centres mentioned will be of a temporary nature. We should return as speedily as possible to completing work on those buildings to the highest standards.

For some time I had responsibility for the Office of Public Works and in my dealings with personnel, I found them to be highly competent and professional. The work executed throughout the length and breadth of Ireland, especially in the area of the conservation of our heritage, has been unique. It has been an example of what can be done through the utilization of the highly professional expertise in the Office of Public Works. I want to put on the record our appreciation for the magnificent contribution they have made to conservation throughout the years. This can be seen in the many projects executed by the Office of Public Works. They are a credit to that office and to the personnel who work there.

I am a conservationalist. I was for almost 20 years a member of the biggest fisheries conservation authority in Ireland, the Shannon Fisheries Board. I have worked for that board for nearly 20 years. I turned the first sod at Mullaghmore. There is nothing that would in any way conflict with the environment in Mullaghmore in the development that is taking place there. Anyone who cares to visit the area will see that the work being done there does not conflict with the environment of the Burren. If it did I certainly would not have been involved and I made that point clear at the outset. It is in total harmony with the environment.

Ongoing efforts to establish a national park in the Burren should be put on record. When Members here speak of undue haste and unnecessary speeding up of contacts they should remember that it is over 20 years since the initial decision was made to establish a national park in the Burren. For over 20 years negotiations took place between the Office of Public Works and the farming community there to acquire up to 3,000 acres, which is the area of land available for the national park at present. It is reasonable to point out that during those negotiations there was never any conflict with the local farming community. There were no compulsory acquisitions. Acquisition of the lands for the Burren national park was completed to the present stage through negotiation and good communication between the Office of Public Works, their agents, the local farming community and landowners in the vicinity.

This is borne out by the fact that in Corofin on Monday night a thousand people from the area gathered in the local hall to show their support for this project, urging that the Government proceed as speedily as possible with the completion of the centre there. Many of those present were people who two or three years ago had differing views on a suitable location for the centre. Some favoured Carron. Others favoured Lemanagh Castle and, like Minister Higgins, I favoured that location for a while. The Office of Public Works looked at that location at the time. Indeed, Fin-nore was proposed as the site for a centre much larger than that at Mullaghmore, catering for many more people in a far more sensitive area. This proposal was supported by some of the same people who object today to Mullaghmore. I do not want to delay the House by going into detail, but many of the objectors to Mullaghmore openly proposed and supported another project at Finnormore on the northern side of the Burren. Many professionals and observers, including many members of county councils — and as a public representative in Clare for the past 20 years I share that view — were quite satisfied that a centre at that site would be far more threatening and damaging to the Burren than the Mullaghmore development. I cannot reconcile the attitude adopted by those opposing Mullaghmore with the attitude they adopted to the Finnormore proposal which is put forward privately by the Burren Wildlife Foundation.

I sympathise with the Minister, Deputy Higgins. He appealed recently for a period of calm and reflection where harmony and goodwill could replace what are felt to be difficulties in that locality. I do not dismiss his efforts to bring peace and harmony into this controversy and to find a way in which developments can proceed speedily to help in the task of conservation of the Burren. He has the good of the area at heart but I can assure him that long before the plans were ever put in place or any building started many attempts at compromise were made by the Office of Public Works, by local bodies and organisations and by myself, when I held responsibility for the Office of Public Works, and afterwards.

I asked an independent, highly respected businessman from Ennis to chair a meeting of the objectors and supporters of Mullaghmore, with the Office of Public Works, SFADCo and the county council to find some formula to enable work to proceed in a reasonable and harmonious way. The chairman came back to me after many months of total frustration and said he was wasting his own time and that of everybody else, that they were being taken around in circles by the objectors and that any attempts they made to try to find a formula which would satisfy the objectors had been frustrated. They had returned to their original objection. If the project was not stopped then they would not be satisfied and they would not reconcile their views with those of other people.

I am aware that the Office of Public Works met the objectors. I am aware that several attempts were made to find a formula which would avoid confrontation. I am also aware that after some discussion on the necessity for an environmental impact assessment, a full assessment was carried out. Many of the objectors stated publicly that if an environmental impact assessment was carried out independently and showed no adverse impact on the Burren arising from the development they would withdraw their objections. They did not do so.

When the environmental impact assessment, which further delayed the project, was finally carried out it was rejected. The only reason given by the objectors for rejecting the assessment, which had been accepted by the Office of Public Works, by the county council and everyone involved was that environmental impact assessments had not been carried out on other sites. The promoters of the Burren Wildlife Foundation proposal for Finnormore had visited numerous sites in their quest to find a suitable location. As will be seen from their planning application, they visited several sites in the Burren before they came down in favour of the Finnormore site. Several sites were carefully examined in consultation with the planning authority in Clare and the greatest care was taken to look at alternative sites before a final decision was made on the Mullaghmore site.

What I cannot understand about this whole controversy is that the people who opposed the interpretative centre will publicly state that they have no objection to a national park in the Burren. They say they welcome it. Meeting after meeting, discussion after discussion, consultation after consultation, they will come out with the same line. They say that the land has been purchased for the national park and that work should proceed. What they do not acknowledge is that a visitors' centre, a facility for interpretation and a library of records is an essential and integral part of the national park. A national park without an interpretative centre is nothing. Visitors to the site will invariably say, as they have said on local radio and in the newspapers in the last few weeks, that they do not know what all the fuss is about because they went to see the site and did not see anything there that would create anxiety. If there was an interpretative centre they would come away from Mullaghmore with a different attitude because there is a lot to see there and in the Burren. Let us be clear, let it be on the record here and let objectors recognise that the Burren is nothing if there is not a place in it for the people who live there.

What has been the history of the Burren since the Famine? The Famine roads, broken down houses and the deserted villages are ample testimony of the decline in the population. The haemorrhage of young and old from the Burren continues to this day, unabated. This project has the whole hearted support of the local community in the sure knowledge that if at least one job and one family is kept in the Burren region, the effort will have been worthwhile.

What have we seen in the Burren in recent times? This issue was raised here in 1991 and at that time I challenged the person who raised it and asked if he had visited the site. He had not done so and I doubt if he has been there since. The people of north Clare are objecting to outsiders dictating how the area should be managed. These people have not visited the site or seen the locality and they do not recognise the necessity to take urgent measures to conserve and manage that region.

The people of the Burren welcome visitors to Clare, they have always done so and will continue to do so. I hope this controversy will not damage the good relationship that always existed between visitors and the local community.

I welcome the intervention of the Minister, Deputy Higgins, who has shown a deep commitment and interest in finding a way to solve the problem. I would support him in talking to the local community and help in any way I can to find a solution but we do not welcome interventions from Deputy Kemmy who, as Mayor of Limerick, allowed the desecration of King John's Castle. They installed what looks like a Bell Line container dropped into the middle of the castle. In fact, King John's Castle in Limerick looks more like a roll-on/roll-off ferry terminal than a medieval castle. While I welcome comments from Minister Higgins, Deputy Kemmy should look to his own conservation problems in Limerick city. When I hear people like Deputy Kemmy making unwarranted, unnecessary and unhelpful interventions in relation to the Burren I would remind him to look to his own back yard and the monstrosity they have made of King John's Castle.

Acting Chairman

Senator, it is not proper to refer to Members of the other House; they are not in a position to respond.

Mr. Daly

I hope this might be reported in the media because the comments of that Member have been widely reported in recent times and also his totally unwarranted and unnecessary attack on officials of the Office of Public Works.

Perhaps it would be worth while if some of the people who have not visited the site visited it, as you and I and thousands of people from Clare have done in the last few weeks who appreciate and recognise the necessity for urgent action in the conservation of the Burren which is the primary purpose of the exercise.

There are one or two other matters which have helped to confuse issues in Clare. In the early days when the project for Mullaghmore was mooted there was fear and anxiety in Kilfenora that the development at Mullaghmore would conflict with the developments which were taking place in Kilfenora which was going through an economic bad patch. I congratulate the co-op in Kilfenora on their work in the development of the interpretative centre there. I welcome the fact that they worked in close co-operation with the Office of Public Works in the development of this centre.

I want to make it very clear and put it on record that there is no conflict between Mullaghmore and Kilfenora. Both can work in harmony and the Office of Public works has always seen it this way. Recently meetings have taken place between the Office of Public works and the community in Kilfenora with a view to completing the Kilfenora project and making it into a centre which will blend in and dovetail with the developments at Mullaghmore. One can assist the other.

The belief that the development at Mullaghmore will in some way damage the villages of north Clare, like Ballyvaughan, Kilfenora and Corofin is not accurate. The facts are that the development at Mullaghmore will help these villages. If the necessary development of many other sites in north Clare can go ahead — the development of Lemaneagh Castle — each will blend in with the developments planned at Mullaghmore. Each will be complementary rather than in conflict; each will help to improve the economy of north Clare and the overall economic prosperity of the region. It will help to stem the haemorrhage of people out of the area which has devastated north Clare, reducing it almost to a wasteland.

In conclusion, we all want harmony and goodwill in the Burren. For some people it seems there will be harmony and goodwill provided you stop developments in this location. I do not think that is possible but there is still time to reconcile the different views and go ahead with the project at Mullaghmore. I believe there is also room for investing in developments like Corofin and Kilfenora so that they will be able to compete with the developments at Mullaghmore.

I believe this legislation is desirable, welcome and worth while. As I said at the outset, there must be a commitment from the Government to honour contracts where work has started and to honour the jobs of the people who are facing redundancy because of the decisions taken a few days ago.

Dr. Henry

May I share my time with Senator Sherlock?

Acting Chairman

In what proportion?

Dr. Henry

Like Senator Quinn, I will be brief.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Dr. Henry

I welcome the Minister to the House today; I am sorry we are meeting to discuss this Bill.

First, I regret that the Bill has been brought forward with such haste because, as a professional, I am a great believer in getting expert advice where necessary and it was almost impossible to do so in this case. Haste is the reason the Bill is before the House. While some Senators have said it is good to see the Office of Public Works working with such speed, I think the haste of the building there in the middle of winter, when Judge O'Hanlon had said there was a case for the Office of Public Works to answer, was very unfortunate. We were told that haste was necessary because of the EC Structural Funds but how much of these funds has the State offered to the private sector? Using these funds might have meant less trouble in the public sector.

Under section 2 (b) of the Bill the State has, and is deemed always to have had, power "to maintain, manage, repair, improve, alter, enlarge, reduce in size, remove or otherwise deal with buildings or structures..." but I do not see the word "protect". I visited the national centres in Glenveagh and the Connemara National Park. Since many of these centres are being built in remote areas, it is unfortunate that the word "protect" is being omitted. The first time I visited the centre in the Connemara National Park, there were some stables in this isolated park outside Letterfrack and I asked what the stables were for. I thought they were for keeping ponies during the winter but I was told the ponies were brought there only for grooming. If they were being used continuously someone would have to be there to protect the ponies. When I visited the park again, the stables had been burned down. In my view, the omission of the word "protect" in the Bill is most unfortunate, especially since I look on this as part of my property and I would like to think the State was protecting it. Perhaps we could stop the haemorrhage of people from the Burren if many of them were employed protecting the interpretative sites.

This Bill appears to give the State carté blanche to disregard all environmental laws. I thought that under EC Directives, no exception was made for the State. In fact, I thought that a lot of Irish environmental law was specifically enacted to implement those directives. Reading the Bill, I cannot see where it says the State must have regard for environmental law. Does this mean we do not have to comply with any of the EC Directives? Does it mean that the Office of Public Works could put a dump in an area they were in charge of without obtaining planning permission? Does it mean the Office of Public Works could have a building discharging untreated effluent without complying with environmental laws?

I am concerned about section 2 (d) which reads: "to supply goods, and to provide services, whether upon payment or free of charge". Several of the existing centres, have restaurants, etc. I presume this means that the Office of Public Works could set up a bun shop at one of these centres, even if there was another commercial outlet in the area. Would their outlet be under the consumer protection legislation or would it be free from this restraint? Would the commercial enterprise close by have to comply with various laws, unlike the Office of Public Works outlet? If these centres are in isolated areas, it is likely that they might set up tea stalls. I would like to think that the food hygiene laws would apply to them at least. This is where my professional experience in the public health field comes into play because this is extremely important, especially in places that operate on a seasonal basis and do not rely on commercial transactions throughout the year. I hope that sloppy habits could be avoided in the food outlets the Office of Public Works would set up in these centres.

Occasionally official enthusiasm has to be limited and even the backing of Ministers has to have some common sense. I regret that by introducing this Bill, the voice of ordinary people will be listened to less in the future.

Mr. Sherlock

I welcome the Minister and wish her well in her new portfolio. She advises that, while it is necessary to refer to the Burren project in outlining the background to this Bill, she also asks that speakers focus on the purpose of the legislation. This is what I intend to do.

The raison d'être of the legislation is the Burren problem. Senator Daly stated that there is support for the Burren interpretative centre, but he must also be well aware that there is a lot of opposition to it. One must accept that the opposition is based on a principle of people having genuine grounds for suggesting that a different location would be more appropriate.

The Bill gives the Office of Public Works and other State authorities the statutory powers to engage in their normal construction work and to regularise and validate the position of work already completed. There is no objection to validating the work already completed and retaining the people in employment, but why bring in legislation giving such far-reaching power to the Office of Public Works and State authorities? Over the years the Office of Public Works had too much power in this regard. It should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other person.

This Bill was introduced because of the High Court decision on Mullaghmore; it deals with Mullaghmore, Luggala and the Boyne Valley. The implications of this Bill stretch far beyond the necessary regularising of the works already completed by the Office of Public Works or the controversy over whether large interpretative centres should be located in areas of natural beauty. This is the nub of the problem.

The Bill is not about what should be done, but who makes the decisions and it raises the fundamental question about our understanding of democracy, our socalled commitment to the principle of subsidiarity, and the relationship between the Government and the governed. If any of the people attending the meeting in Clare applied for planning permission, they would have to comply with the planning laws but they were talking about a major project that did not have to undergo that kind of scrutiny.

The Bill gives the Government, the Ministers and the Commissioners of Public Works the absolute right to build or demolish as they see fit. This absolute power, unparalleled in any modern democracy, is not qualified by any requirement to subject the proposed project to public scrutiny or to apply for planning permission like any citizen must do. Senator Roche referred to a particular applicant who was refused planning permission because his project did not meet the required dimensions.

A debate is taking place in my local authority on the new five-year development plan. Major emphasis is being placed on the restrictions that are being imposed on people in carrying out developments that are vitally important, providing them with a house to live in. Yet, we find that the State introduces legislation that will give these far-reaching powers to the Office of Public Works and to the State agencies. That is not right.

We cannot deny that interpretative centres are a good development for tourism and so forth but they are the subject of considerable controversy. Consequently, there should be a mechanism to enable people to make their objections and their submissions before decisions are made on locations for interpretative centres. The Minister for the Environment has the power to build motorways at his discretion and the Minister for Defence can build any military installation as he sees fit. The Minister for Communications can build radio masts wherever he likes; the local authorities may not interfere with it and the local communities may not stop it. That is what we are talking about, giving that kind of far-reaching power.

It is argued that this Bill has been made necessary by the High Court decision to regularise the activities of the Office of Public Works to protect the jobs of employees. In Democratic Left we have no objection to the Oireachtas giving the Office of Public Works and other State authorities statutory powers to engage in their normal construction work and to regularise the position of the work already completed. Why should we or anybody mind? However, that is different from giving the far-reaching powers in this Bill which is designed to provide State authorities, the Minister and the Commissioners of Public Works with a general power to build, maintain and manage properties and provide services. The Bill deems these powers always existed. That is precisely the objection to this Bill — that that power always existed.

Democratic Left believe strongly that the position of the Office of Public Works must be protected. We believe that the High Court decision has been used to generate a grossly exaggerated fear about the security of the Office of Public Works employment and, in turn, this is being exploited by the Government to rush through legislation which it would otherwise find impossible to justify.

Why the rush? This is not the first time the courts have given a judgment that required legislative action but it is the first time the response from the Government has been so swift. Why does the Government consider the Mullaghmore case to be more important for State authorities than, let us say, the X-case was for women or the Norris case was for gay people or the Cotter and McDermott case for social welfare recipients?

Mr. Lydon

Because so many people are out of work.

Mr. Sherlock

The answer, of course, is that the Government's dictum is the people must wait. However, the institutions of State do not have to wait, not even until the Supreme Court has time to consider the appeal to the Costello judgment.

Where does all of this leave the new Government's promise to extend democracy? It is one of the pillars of the Programme for Government. Where does it leave the commitment to require State authorities to apply for planning permission? Where does it leave the Labour Party whose Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht must now be humiliated by this Bill? Democratic Left believes that State bodies should be required to submit their plans for public scrutiny through the normal planning process and we were pleased the Programme for Government seemed to suggest that legislation would be introduced to give effect to this. Last Thursday we put that commitment to the test when submitting an amendment to the Roads Bill in the other House which would provide that under the new Roads Bill it would be necessary to apply for planning permission for all major road projects.

This legislation being rushed through the House will give wide-ranging powers to the Office of Public Works and to State agencies. The public now perceives this for what it really is and we must not forget that people nowadays are better informed about issues. They want to have their say and that opportunity must be given to them because that is what democracy is all about. It is a welcome change that people are becoming more involved and more interested in the issues that concern them.

It is necessary to protect jobs, and I see nothing wrong with introducing legislation to validate the work that has already been done, but it is entirely wrong to introduce legislation to give the far-reaching powers proposed in this Bill. That is no democracy.

Mr. McGowan

I would like to join with other Members in welcoming the Minister to the Seanad. I hope her visits here will not always be as controversial.

Although I come from a county as far north of Mullaghmore as one can get, I have a special interest in this matter. In Donegal we have Glenveagh National Park which is the gem in the crown of all the development we would ever hope to have in County Donegal. It is a marvellous place and has been an outstanding success. The national park has been admired by nearly 250,000 visitors in a very short time and when inviting people to come to Donegal we always advise them to visit it. For that reason I am extremely interested in the Bill before us. It is a pity there is this controversy which cannot be helpful in the long term.

These days we have a new breed of animal out there who call themselves environmentalists. Having followed this up on other issues I have found there are genuine people who are concerned and these people are not unreasonable nor are they fanatics. They will talk and explain their concern and their interests. However, the fanatics who are involved, and who often have few qualifications, will listen to nothing. We had such people in Donegal. In the Glenties-Fintown area some years ago investigations for copper deposits were carried out and since there was also a possibility of uranium deposits objections were raised. The objectors came from all over the world, including the then East Germany. They did not obey the law; they destroyed valuable machinery and equipment and they camped on the site and threw their discarded waste around the place. Those who were carrying out the investigations on the land had to leave the site ever though they had a licence from the Government to carry out the investigations, which were merely to find out what deposits might be there. For that reason I am expressing my concern and my hope that this matter can be resolved.

The people I describe as being unreasonable like to take advantage of the fact that we have had a change of Government and a new Minister. They would like the new Minister to backdate the legislation in respect of projects already started. Not only the people of County Clare, but the whole nation is looking on and asking just how ridiculous we can be. We are talking about a project on which £2 million or more has been spent, which is two years down the road, and they expect it should stop.

Although I have had difficulties with the Office of Public Works I respect them. The Office of Public Works maintains this House and have responsibility for its decor and exterior maintenance. They do a marvellous job and it is a credit to those people who do that work.

I have been in disagreement with the Wildlife Section of the Office of Public Works regarding a bird sanctuary preserve in County Donegal. The Office of Public Works prevents people from planting in a bog beside an existing plantation. I had photographs taken, I went to the Office of Public Works and said to them it was most unreasonable to prevent the landowners from planting that land to realise its full potential. I went back to the landowners to tell them that the Office of Public Works were adamant that they should not plant that land because they wanted to preserve it as part of a sanctuary. I did not understand their decision but I respect the Office of Public Works. I highlight that instance to show that the Office of Public Works are very concerned.

If one goes to Glenveagh National Park one will see that the development work is covered with shrubs and heather. The heather is growing over the top of the buildings there. While I have not been in Mullaghmore I have formed the impression that the development there is concealed in the ground and will end up like Glenveagh National Park. I say to the Minister and the Office of Public Works that the buck must stop somewhere. We are a small country struggling to develop and provide jobs for our people. We do not have many national assets. We have natural gas and it stops there but one asset we do have is our clean and green environment. I think we are aware of this.

The Government and the Office of Public Works might have different views. There are fanatics on both sides; I certainly cannot agree with the person who takes the law into their own hands and stops development on the site. Perhaps this High Court decision is a blessing in disguise. People with strong views and objections want to use the change of Government to cause confusion. There are no major issues in dispute at the moment. The members of the new Government are hardly aware of the location of their offices. There are people who feel aggrieved and who welcome this opportunity to throw a spanner in the works.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. McGowan

If I had time I could tell the Senator where some of the problems came from. I have respect for the House, I have respect for the Chair and I am not going to get carried away in a debate answering catcalls from any quarter.

Mr. Enright

It is not a catcall and the Senator knows that.

Acting Chairman

Senator McGowan, without interruption.

Mr. McGowan

I do not interrupt anybody here. I am concerned about the development. I hope the fanatics who are hell-bent on stopping development at any price will not succeed. We have a great little country and we all have a stake in it. We have many school leavers — there are 12,000 in my own county — and they are asking who is going to provide jobs for them. We cannot afford the shenanigans and the indecision. We will make some mistakes and wrong decisions but we will do our best. The track record of the Office of Public Works includes the building of new Garda barracks in Letterkenny and Monaghan and the extension, renovation and building of schools. Given the budget available to the Office of Public Works to cover their research and their programme of development they are doing a reasonable job. I support the Office of Public Works.

The present position is unfair, and not only to the people of County Clare or the Burren. This is a bigger issue. The Burren is a national park as Glenveagh is a national park and everyone on this small island is interested in the issue. We must co-operate in developing our country, whether it is our fisheries, or a project in County Clare or Donegal. We must be aware that there are people who have no concern for anything but their arrogant attitude and who will stop development at any price. The buck has got to stop somewhere. I hope this legislation will put down a marker and that all of us at whatever level we are involved will be more aware and more concerned and that the right decision will be made as a result.

I believe that a major development by the Office of Public Works should be subject to a planning application. The planning of any development can be made so difficult that nobody plans or develops or does anything. I have been a member of a local authority for over 30 years and I am aware that it was necessary to make changes in regard to motions under section 4, particularly in relation to cities. I am in the Letterkenny electoral area which has seven council members. One of them, Sean Maloney, has been elected to the Seanad and I welcome him. He knows what I am talking about. I have to get five council members from the Letterkenny electoral area to sign a motion under section 4 if it is necessary. Such motions have to be approved by a minimum of 22 members out of a total of 29 members.

We are not lacking in legislation, we are not sloppy and we do not have a reckless approach to development. The danger is that one can be too restrictive. I hope a balance can be achieved and I believe that the discussion taking place now will help us to arrive at that balance. I wish those involved in the case will reach a solution and will do it more quickly as a result of this legislation. I hope the Ministers responsible will listen to everybody and act in the national interest. The nation is as concerned about Mullaghmore as it is about Glenveagh National Park. When the controversy is over, Mullaghmore and the Burren will be a major success and I wish it good luck.

Ms Honan

I welcome the Minister to the House and wish her well in her new portfolio. I am pleased that the first Minister to address this new Seanad is a woman. Unfortunately, I will not be continuing like that.

I am appalled to see that a Bill giving such sweeping powers is being put through the House today in such a rushed manner. I accept there is an emergency because jobs are at risk. No one would wish to put any jobs at risk in Ireland today but this does not mean we should rush through a bad law which could cause further difficulties down the road. I am glad to see that the Bill contains the saving clause proposed by the Progressive Democrats yesterday without which this Bill could be found to be unconstitutional. This shows the necessity for further scrutiny of the Bill. As was stated in this House yesterday, all legislation coming before us should be properly considered.

If the Bill is being put through as emergency legislation it should include a time limit. I do not believe that any legislation giving such extensive powers as this Bill proposes should be on the Statute Book indefinitely. Because my colleague and I are not happy with the extensive powers given in the Bill we will be moving amendments on Committee Stage.

I accept the goodwill of the Minister when it was stated yesterday that planning legislation will be brought in after the Supreme Court decision in accordance with the promises in the Programme for a Partnership Government. However, what was stated in the programme does not go far enough. The Office of Public Works and all State agencies should be subject to the same regulations as any individual in relation to planning. Only then can the Government say as it has said in its Programme for a Partnership Government, "the hallmark of our Government will be openness and accountability".

Mr. Enright

Emergency legislation should only be introduced in very exceptional circumstances, for example, where there is a threat to the State. I welcome the Minister to the House but I am saddened that she is introducing emergency legislation.

We are in a difficult situation in regard to employment, and I have great sympathy for those whose jobs or livelihoods are threatened. This emergency legislation has been introduced because of the speed with which this issue progressed. A similar situation arose at Wood Quay in Dublin a number of years ago, then regrettably, the process was pushed through with unseemly haste. It also saddened me at the time. The people who opposed the building of the Dublin Corporation offices at Wood Quay tried to have the project investigated to ascertain if there were items of historic interest there. Regrettably most of those people were referred to as fanatics and extremists. One of the people who fought that project was Rev. Fr. F.X. Martin. Members will recollect Dublin Corporation persisted in pursuing judgment against him and for money due to them, despite the fact that the had no means. The efforts of Fr. F.X. Martin will long be remembered. It was regrettable that the site of Wood Quay was destroyed and to add insult to injury, it was a tragedy to build two monstrosities in front of Christchurch Cathedral. I was in this House when the buildings in Hume Street were being demolished and when Molesworth Street, a magnificant street, was being destroyed. I remember former wealthy builders at the time sitting outside in Mercedes Benz and Rolls Royces — they do not have them now — and all that damage was done for the sake of development and greed. I am not from Dublin but I am proud of my capital city. I saw what was happening and I deeply regret it.

Wood Quay and the Burren were given to us by God and we have a great responsibility to them. What is happening to our country worries me. We must pause and reflect on where we are going and I am pleased that we have an opportunity, however limited, to do that now. I believe there are many people in this House who, given the opportunity, would examine this legislation, which regrettably, is being rushed through the House. I appreciate the concerns of the Government but I ask it to consider carefully its position on this issue.

If somebody outside Ireland was asked to name two or three beauty spots in Ireland they would probably mention the Giant's Causeway, the Burren and Killarney. If someone tried to defile the Giant's Causeway there would be uproar in the North, those criticising the Mullaghmore project should be viewed in that context. We should reflect on their viewpoint and not attack them.

With regard to the Office of Public Works I have dealt with them on many issues and have always found the staff courteous, diligent and hard working, but they are not infallible — and I do not think they would claim infallibility. Today we are proposing to confer on the Office of Public Works powers that are so extensive they would require careful scrutiny and consideration. I do not believe sufficient thought has been given to this matter.

When something of this nature happens, it gathers its own momentum. Large amounts of public moneys have already been spent. How we resolve this issue has to be faced. The powers which this Bill is proposing are so extensive that any legislature would have to stop and think. Section 2 (1) reads:

A State authority shall have, and be deemed always to have had, power — (a) to carry out, or procure the carrying out of, development. [That is a vast power.] (c) to procure the maintenance, management, repair, improvement, alteration, enlargement, reduction, removal or dealing aforesaid, (d) to supply goods, and to provide services, whether upon payment or free of charge.

The powers we are speaking of here are far too extensive to be granted. The Office of Public Works and Government authorities should have to apply for planning permission in the same way as any private individual or company. To allow them the powers they are looking for would be to confer infallibility upon them.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Enright

Prior to the adjournment I spoke about the necessity for State bodies and Government Departments to follow the normal planning procedures. In order to ensure a system of fairness, justice and equity it is essential that the normal process which applies to every citizen in this country should also apply to Government Departments and State bodies. Otherwise, bureaucracy will run rough-shod over people's rights and it would be unfair and unjust to allow that to happen. If we proceed with the Bill as it now stands, there will be widespread opposition from people who feel their rights are being trampled upon.

Section 2 (1) (a) of the Bill states: "A State authority shall have, and be deemed always to have had, power to carry out, or procure the carrying out of, development". Yet, an individual who wishes to construct a house is often prevented from doing so on very flimsy grounds. In my county I have seen restrictions imposed on private citizens. Yet, Government Departments are able to steam-roll through the planning procedures and the five year development plan may impose further restrictions on people's rights in County Offaly. It is also unfair that the EC can impose restrictions on people who wish to build small family homes on their property along primary or secondary roads. For these reasons, I am unable to support his Bill.

If we allow this Bill to pass in its present form bureaucracy will ride rough-shod over people's rights. I do not mean to make a personal attack on the Office of Public Works who are involved in this matter. I believe it applies to all Government Departments. I do not think they should have this power and I ask the Government to think seriously about this legislation.

Ms Kelly

There is a need for this Bill because the Office of Public Works must be allowed to continue its routine and less controversial work. Today, we heard about Mullaghmore, Luggala and the Boyne Valley, but we failed to draw attention to the other aspects of the Office of Public Works work. As the Minister said, the Office of Public Works have 50 major projects currently on hand and that does not take into account their routine work. Many Senators, including Senator Norris, have said that these projects should be of little concern to us. I would like to disabuse Senator Norris and others who think that just because a project does not make the headlines it is not of immense concern to the people involved.

I take this opportunity to thank the Office of Public Works for the many fine projects they have undertaken. I refer in particular to one project, the lynchpin of a vast development in my county, Limerick. At the moment the Office of Public Works are restoring the Desmond Banqueting Hall in Newcastle West, part of our medieval tradition, an inheritance from the past which SFADCo hope to use as the centre of a vast development that will make everyone aware of the richness of our medieval past, not only tourists but Irish people also. This development does not concern just one town. It will also take into account developments in Adare, Kilmallock, Askeaton and Tralee, encompassing various aspects of medieval life in County Limerick.

We must also thank the Office of Public Works for the great care they have taken over the years of the many towers, castles and keeps they have maintained. It would be a shame if their long years of preservation and hard work were to go to naught, because a ruling in the High Court has deemed they were not empowered to do this work in the first place. That is why we should support this Bill.

I agree with those who mentioned the need for all authorities, be they local or governmental to be subject to the same scrutiny as are ordinary individuals; in other words, the planning authorities. As a nation, we should be as careful in our scrutiny of what officials do in our name as we would be about our neighbours' concerns. If an ordinary person has to go through the planning process, so too should an authority acting in our names.

One aspect of the current dispute we should examine is the need to attract Structural Funds to complete many of these projects. Mistakes have been made in building these interpretative centres. Nobody is infallible and we should not stand over such mistakes, but many were made through haste because to get EC Structural Funds projects had to be finished before a certain deadline. It is tyrannous that we have to rush and complete buildings that will be there for evermore because of a deadline often imposed by powers outside the State. We should examine why there is a rush. If there is concern, if there is local or national opposition to any plan, it should not be rushed through because money is available. The powers that allocate EC Structural Funds should be made aware that projects should be postponed for one, two or more months while those local concerns, legitimate or otherwise, are heard.

I share the view of those Opposition Senators who said this power should have a limit. Emergency legislation rushed through like this can have flaws that we do not foresee at this time. For that reason, this legislation should be reviewed, perhaps in six months time. In the meantime, lawyers could go through the legislation and pick out possible loopholes in it. I ask the Minister to look again at that aspect of the legislation, but I reiterate that this Bill is necessary to allow the Office of Public Works continue the many fine projects it has already begun.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

We are discussing a Bill today because of a High Court ruling last week on an action taken about the Mullaghmore development in County Clare. The court ruled the Office of Public Works did not have a general power to build and maintain facilities and amenities. What we have here is a hasty response. Legislation is being proposed and guillotined through the Houses of the Oireachtas without serious and due consideration being given to it.

Interestingly, the Minister in her speech said: "The Office of Public Works has been building, maintaining and managing many public buildings since the middle of the last century with the approval of Parliament." That is a telling phrase, that it has been operating "since the middle of the last century". This Bill is ensuring the legislation passed at that time is re-enacted. That is regressive rather than progressive.

The site at Mullaghmore has caused consternation, difficulty and an unforeseen level of division in the community. In that area up to now, people lived on neighbourly, friendly terms but emotions have been aroused which have caused divisions. Over 90 per cent of the local people support the development of the Mullaghmore site, but a few locally do not support it and they have been strongly supported by people from outside the county, as is their democratic right, of course. In the final analysis, it is the people of Clare who are dealing with this problem.

This Bill has been introduced because it has been decided to make an appeal to the Supreme Court because of the two differing judgments, one in relation to Mullaghmore and the other in relation to Luggala, County Wicklow. In relation to Mullaghmore, we on Clare County Council were consulted about two years ago by the Office of Public Works. The model was presented to us and there was extensive discussion within the council. We were told no site other than Mullaghmore could or would be considered. If anything is learned from this schemozzle, it should be that there be much greater consultation in the future by the Office of Public Works with the local authority and in particular with the local community. It is my belief that if the Office of Public Works had had better and earlier consultation and was not quite so dogmatic and almost, dictatorial in its initial approach, the anger that subsequently arose would not have been as great.

I believe Mullaghmore must now go ahead because of the amount of work that has already been done. It would be ludicrous for it not to proceed, a waste of public funding and of work. There is no choice but that it go ahead. Having said that, I am concerned about what this Bill does. There is nothing in it to suggest that the 50 people in Mullaghmore made redundant last Friday will be gainfully reemployed next Monday or Tuesday as a result of this legislation. It deals with all Office of Public Works work across the country and I am concerned that while it will secure other works that are on-going, it will not secure those who were made redundant last Friday. I would like the Minister to clarify this in her reply to this debate.

The situation relating to planning is not addressed and this Bill would be much better if it stated clearly that this legislation will be enacted but will cease once the Supreme Court judgment is made or six weeks or two months subsequent to the judgment. It would cease when further legislation is brought before this House subsequent on the Supreme Court judgment. At least this legislation would have a time limit on it and would become redundant. For it to remain permanently on the Statute Book would be regressive because it is ludicrous in this day and age that local people and local authorities do not have an input into all planning matters in their areas. Currently that is the situation because all State and semi-State bodies and the Office of Public Works can proceed and build without having to apply for planning permission. That is most unsatisfactory.

Currently at Loop Head in County Clare the Irish Lights Commission is building a Loran C. transmitting mast. This is causing exteme concern both from an environmental viewpoint and as a possible health hazard. Clare County Council is not in a position to impose any type of restrictions or to do anything in relation to that development. It is totally in the hands of Irish Lights through the Department of the Marine. A 720 foot mast is being built in a peninsula which has huge tourism potential. The mast will be an eyesore situated on 147 acres and the local authority has no input. That is disgraceful and absolutely unacceptable. This Bill further reinforces the strength of all State and semi-State authorities to proceed in this manner.

We have a ludicrous situation in this country where local authorities can impose strict planning conditions on a private individual while they and their counterparts, State and semi-State authorities, can do what they like without being accountable to anybody. That is unacceptable and needs to be addressed urgently. There is also the situation where local authorities prosecute people for pollution offences while often they are the biggest offenders in this area. This too needs to be urgently addressed.

Mullaghmore and Luggala will go down in history, and I am anxiously awaiting the final outcome of the appeal to the Supreme Court. As far as this Government is concerned regarding the great promises and hopes they gave before the general election, the people are being sadly disappointed by their inaction and by the entrenched positions they have adopted over the years. There is nothing new, there is no foresight and there are no major breakthroughs. As I said at the outset, what we are doing today is ensuring that legislation passed more than 100 years ago is re-enacted on the Statute Book. Going into the 21st century this is unfortunate.

The Minister should have ensured that there was a proper and detailed debate on this matter in this House and the other House so that all aspects of it could have been considered. Reasoned and proper amendments should have been accepted so that a restriction could have been put on the time limit of this Bill. That has not been done and as a result we have legislation which is dubious in the extreme. It is reinforcing a position so that other developments, unacceptable to local communities across the country, will now proceed with greater force from the official point of view while the wishes of local communities are trodden on.

I refer again to the Loran C. station where there is serious concern in the Loop Head area about possible health risks and radiation from the station and the people of the area cannot get any clear answers about the health hazards that could result. It is totally unsatisfactory that any arm of Government can impose its will on the people. We are supposed to be living in a democracy; we are supposed to be a democratic institution but, unfortunately, this legislation represents greater bureaucracy and less power to the people.

Mr. D. Kiely

I welcome the Minister to the House. It is a pity that this legislation has to be discussed in a hurried manner in view of the way things happened.

Everybody in this country is complaining about the high level of unemployment, the need for jobs and job creation and the necessity to make our countryside more attractive to visitors. I come from a county which is steeped in heritage and has many national parks. There is much natural beauty that we want to protect. One would not want to think that the people who came here 100 or 200 years ago must be blamed for what they did to the countryside. We must examine what the Office of Public Works did for the development or the nondevelopment of this country over the last 50, 60 or 100 years and ask were they right or wrong? In my opinion the Office of Public Works has done a tremendous job. It was under the guidance of whatever Government was in power at the time and its job was to protect the environment. That is their function today.

The Office of Public Works restored this Chamber, which is of national importance and they spent a considerable amount of money doing so. I would hate to think the Office of Public Works would have been prevented from restoring this Chamber by somebody living in County Cork or Kerry who said they objected to its restoration because of the cost and because it was of no use to them.

The Office of Public Works needs a certain amount of power and local authorities also need a certain amount of power. I would be very concerned if Kerry County Council or any other council had to apply for planning permission to build a scheme of local authority houses. There might be 100 or 200 applicants seeking a small scheme of houses and somebody might object because they did not like its location or because local authority tenants were moving into their locality. We have to be practical.

The centre in Clare has been mentioned often over the last number of months, if not longer. It was debated and work commenced. It was almost completed; the entire job would have been completed within weeks but suddenly work comes to a halt and people are put on the dole. That is very unfortunate. If people had objections they should have made them earlier.

My good friend, Senator Taylor-Quinn, mentioned antiquated laws but these laws have served this country well down the years. They need to be changed here and there and there is no law in this country that could not be challenged and defeated in the High Court at any given time for any given reason under modern methods.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

What about this Programme for Government?

Mr. D. Kiely

Mr. Justice Costello in the High Court dealt specifically with the legal side of the centre in Clare; he did not examine the environmental part and that is what we are here to do.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

That is just what we are not doing.

Mr. D. Kiely

I am proud of the attractive intepretative centre in Kerry. It is up and running and we are glad it is there. We are proud of all the work the Office of Public Works has done in the National Park in Killarney and other places in Kerry. We are proud of it. If one looks at our national parks and monuments one would have to be proud of the works undertaken and carried out under strict supervision. I do not think there is a national building in this country of which I am not proud. Those who say the Office of Public Works should be obliged to go through the planning regulations are trying to hold up development in this country, and they are wrong.

We have representatives in Brussels fighting for more funding for us, whether it is the Cohesion or Structural Funds, to set up new projects that will develop our country. We have a large tourist industry and the future of this country is in that industry. What has been done so far is only the tip of the iceberg as far as tourism is concerned and we must develop that sector to a much greater extent. If we wait for other types of development, whether it is in the agri-business or other sectors, we will have a long wait. Senator Taylor-Quinn is from a county where much of the revenue is from tourism and my county depends quite considerably on tourism. We should try to promote and develop that industry rather than hinder its development. If we lose money from the funds available to this country we will regret it.

On the question of planning regulations and the view that the Office of Public Works should be subject to such regulations, one can imagine the complications that would arise if planning applications were necessary to build a new prison, a Garda or Army barracks or other secure building. Any loopholes in security would be known to people——

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

Outline what you would do in those circumstances.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Kiely likes silence when he is speaking.

Mr. D. Kiely

That is not true, a Chathaoirligh. An occasional bit of heckling is quite good.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

It keeps the adrenalin going.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator should not interrupt the speaker in possession.

Mr. D. Kiely

I am disappointed the other Office of Public Works projects have been halted due to this High Court action. It will only encourage other people who wish to object to development and that is unfair.

While I have some regard for An Taisce, at times I think they lodge an objection or an appeal merely to stop development. I have had several encounters in that regard with the same group of people down in Kerry. At times they are quite right to lodge their appeals against certain projects taking place in the county and to make their viewpoints known just like any citizen. However, they cannot expect to get better treatment.

Some reality will have to be brought into these matters. I listened to Senator McGowan speaking about the national park in his county which I had the pleasure of visiting about five or six months ago and I was highly impressed by it. It is difficult to find the building as it blends in with the countryside and the roof appears to be part of the terrain. The Office of Public Works should be congratulated for their work on that centre. That is what is planned for the Burren. I visited the site one day recently and I had difficulty locating it though I often visit the Burren. I love the Burren; it is part of our heritage and it must be protected. If you want to find this place you would need a map of the area. By the time the centre is completed it will blend with the countryside as well as the centres in Kerry and Donegal.

This legislation is not rushed. It is necessary for a number of reasons. We need it in order to continue current work when we are trying to create a few jobs and get on with the development of our country. We should be allowed to do this and if somebody wants to restrict it they should have to answer to the public.

Mr. Maloney

I, too, welcome the Minister here today. I come from a county which has a strong tourist industry but probably does not get its fair share of the tourism market. For that reason I would criticise groups such as Bord Fáilte.

Glenveagh has been mentioned on a number of occasions this morning. It is a centre which when seen is hard to forget. It has blended into the environment of the area outside Letterkenny, one of the fastest growing towns in Europe. The advantage Glenveagh has, which the Burren does not share, is that the roads system suits it perfectly well. It goes through towns such as Letterkenny and Church Hill where the tourists can stop to the benefit of the commercial life of the local community. I visited the Burren last year and I felt there was an isolation about the area; it did not have the roads system and local community structure we have in Donegal.

Senator Kiely mentioned the layout of Glenveagh National Park and the visitors centre. The centre blends into the environment and a person would not know it was there. The entrance walls are built with turf. The last time I visited it the present Minister for the Arts, Deputy Higgins, was reading a book of his poetry. He had much praise for the centre. This morning Senator Sherlock made a remark to the effect that the Minister was humiliated in relation to the Burren. I do not think so. He has stuck to his guns and has done very well.

The emergency legislation is necessary to protect the existing 2,000 jobs. The Government is committed in the Programme for Government to make all the State agencies accountable to the planning process and this should also apply to the Office of Public Works. It should have to lodge its applications and the public should have an opportunity to view such applications and make their observations. The Office of Public Works should have to apply for planning permission like any other agency. That is why the emergency legislation is necessary and, as someone who comes from a high amenity tourist-dependent county, I will support the legislation.

Mr. Calnan

The Minister, who is from my party is very welcome to the Seanad.

The reason for this Bill arises from Mr. Justice Costello ruling in the High Court that the Commissioner of Public Works did not have legislative authority to build, maintain or manage public buildings or provide public amenities or supply services to the public. What are we going to do? Stop the 50 or so ongoing major projects and lay people off work? I do not think that is on. While we may say that this is emergency legislation, I think it is simply necessary. If the courts find any defects in legislation it is the duty of the Government to rectify such defects. If this Bill is not passed does it mean that all works completed over many years should be dismantled? I do not see any logic in that.

Second, many of the projects being carried out by the Office of Public Works at present are financed by EC funding. The last tranche of EC funding will end in 1993 so we should make sure that those projects are finished and the money claimed from the EC. We often hear about money passing from one Department to another or from one section of a Department to another, but if money returns to the EC we will never again see it.

This Bill covers Ministers as well as the commissioners. For example, if work is being carried out by the Department of Education a High Court ruling could have it stopped. This Bill is necessary so that work may continue. The Office of Public Works and other State authorities involved in building are obliged by law to consult the local planning authority which may be the county council or corporation. While they do not have to accept and implement their decisions, at least they have to consult and take recommendations where necessary.

Nothing can be done until the Supreme Court makes a decision regarding the planning aspect of this matter. As a member of one of the parties in Government I will be looking for proposals in the Programme for Government relating to planning, whereby all bodies will be held responsible for planning in the same way as an individual.

Work can be carried out on primary schools by the Department of Education, but the vocational education committee must apply for planning permission in the normal way. I hope this anomaly and others will be addressed and that planning controls for State authorities will be introduced in the not too distant future. I support this legislation because it will allow work to continue.

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

I thank the Senators for their contributions to the debate. It has been a good debate and has illustrated the various merits of the siting of individual centres. This Bill addresses the legal powers of the Office of Public Works and Government bodies to become involved in building and ancillary work.

Senator Henry raised the question of whether there was a power to protect buildings. The power to protect buildings is already defined in other legislation, such as the Wildlife Act and the National Monument Act. Many Senators and the Government recognise the need to review legislation, particularly emergency legislation. This legislation was introduced to deal with an emergency which threatens the legality of building work currently under way and contracts currently out. I give an undertaking that the Government will review the legislation when the Supreme Court decision on the planning aspect has been announced and the promised legislation has been introduced. Normally, legislation is reviewed to see that it is in line with what the Legislature intended and to ensure that nothing has been overlooked and that there are no technical flaws.

Many Senators, including Senator Quinn, said that the scope of the legislation is too wide-ranging. This Bill retains what everybody thought was the status quo up to the date of the Supreme Court judgment. It gives the Office of Public Works the power to become involved in building work and to maintain, manage, improve, repair, alter and enlarge property. The Government will proceed with planning legislation when the Supreme Court decision on this matter is announced. It is important to clarify the current position before introducing new legislation. This legislation will be introduced under the auspices of the Minister for the Environment and not the Office of Public Works or the Minister for Finance. The Minister for the Environment is looking at the options and will introduce proposals when the Supreme Court decision has been announced. Many people are concerned that public authorities will be subject to the same planning delays experienced in the private sector. It is important that we speed up the process. The Programme for Government has endorsed this.

It would be unwise to put a time limit on this legislation because the Office of Public Works need the power to become involved in the building and management of property. If a time limit is put on this legislation, the legislation would lapse and we would be in the same position we are in today where contracts would be under threat and people's jobs would be at risk. Putting a time limit on this legislation is not a sensible way of dealing with the concerns of Members. A review of the legislation is the correct way to deal with this.

The Office of Public Works has been praised by Members and the Chamber we are in today is a testament to their work in conserving our national heritage. It would be a pity if controversy about the location of a few sites in what is a large building programme took from our respect for the work the Office of Public Works have undertaken to protect our national heritage and the maintenance of Government offices, the building of schools, Garda stations, prisons, etc. As somebody whose father spent 40 years in the Office of Public Works, I appreciate the fine work they do.

An Cathaoirleach

Somewhat biased, Minister?

Ms E. Fitzgerald

I think it is important to declare an interest.

Other detailed points have been made during this debate. Senator Henry was worried about hygiene regulations in cake shops. I assure Senator Henry that they are subject to hygiene regulations.

This Bill deals with the technical point — the power of the Office of Public Works to engage in work. It does not encroach on any other powers, rules or regulations to which people are subject. The powers are not draconian.

The intention of the Bill is to restore what we thought was the status quo so that normal planning procedures are carried out — for example, the notification to local authorities of an intention by the Office of Public Works to engage in a building project. Hopefully, these will be strengthened when new legislation on the planning aspect is introduced.

This legislation is necessary if people are not to lose their jobs or be prevented from hammering nails, today, tomorrow or next week.

Senator Norris made the point that the Office of Public Works knew they had no power. This has been the situation for 160 years and the Office of Public Works and the public did not expect problems to arise with this project. The legal advice available to the Office of Public Works up to the time of Mr. Justice Costello's judgment was that they were acting in accordance with their legal powers and that is important.

The right of people to object has been raised. The Government accept that people have a legitimate right to make their objections and to use the courts. That is their democratic right. At the end of the day the courts make their decisions and we have to deal with the results of those judgments. Somebody queried the exclusive allocation of Structural Funds to the public sector. In many areas Structural Funds have gone to private sector operations. The private sector has engaged in many important tourism developments, for example, Celtworld, with the aid of Structural Funds.

The debate was helpful. I found it useful to listen to Members and very interesting to hear their views. I was not aware that we had so many Senators from Clare — Senator O'Sullivan as well as Senator Howard, Senator Taylor-Quinn and Senator Daly. It is always interesting to hear the views of the Members in relation to projects that are causing controversy.

However, this Bill, is not about the rights and wrongs of Mullaghmore. This Bill is about giving the Office of Public Works legal powers everybody thought they already had to build, manage, repair, improve, alter, enlarge, reduce in size, remove or otherwise deal with buildings, structures, other works or properties. Thus it will restore to the Office of Public Works a general power to go about its ordinary business of managing the State's property and conserving the nation's heritage.

Question put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 33; Níl, 20.

Tá

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

Níl

• Belton, Louis J.
• Burke, Paddy.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Dardis, John.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Henry, Mary.
• Honan, Cathy.
• Howard, Michael.
• McDonagh, Jarlath.
• Manning, Maurice.
• Naughten, Liam.
• Neville, Daniel.
• Norris, David.
• 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.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Sitting suspended at 3.10 p.m. and resumed at 3.25 p.m.