Seymour Crawford (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)

I thank the Minister and his officials for the quick briefing on this Bill. However, I query the secrecy and urgency surrounding this issue. Why did it have to be rushed through so quickly? I and my party are committed to the British-Irish Agreement and we will do everything possible to ensure it is implemented for the good of our people. However, there is always a danger with rushed legislation. Recently, we saw what happened with the 2001 health Bill which will now cost taxpayers an estimated €2 billion. What is the benefit of rushed legislation?

This Bill seeks to close possible loopholes in section 53(b) of the British-Irish Agreement Act 1999. The difficulties mainly arise for Waterways Ireland in view of its extensive property portfolio but the Bill covers the other North-South bodies. The Bill removes any doubt that a North-South Implementation Body is not bound by the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) (No. 2) Act 1978 and directly incorporates the exemption in respect of that protection for dwelling houses covered by the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1980 in the same terms as set out in the Act.

What Minister introduced the British-Irish Agreement Act 1999 in the Dáil? Who was the Attorney General who advised on this legislation? The Minister said there are 12 cases on hand. What costs might this loophole cause for the State? What is the likely overall loss for the State? When was the problem discovered? Why were there such delays in rectifying it? I do not blame the Minister because he did not introduce the initial legislation, but when one considers health and other issues, there appears to be a litany of defective legislation slipping through. This legislation cannot be retrospective so it does not apply to the cases already under way.

As a Deputy representing the Border counties of Cavan and Monaghan, I have a keen interest in this issue and an anxiety about problems that might arise. One of the great projects that could have major cross-Border implications is the Ulster canal project. Everybody is aware of the benefit which the Ballinamore-Ballyconnell canal brought to the area. We must close any loophole that might damage the prospects of other such projects, such as the Ulster canal with which I am most familiar, coming to fruition.

This project is on hold with Waterways Ireland as a result of the failure of the political parties in Northern Ireland to implement the Good Friday Agreement through the Northern Ireland Assembly. Sinn Féin is well aware of what is required to rectify that situation. I trust that after today's election in Northern Ireland, the IRA will do as the Sinn Féin leader requested, give up its arms and make it clear the war is over so democracy can be used as the way forward. It is frustrating for people who are interested in positive constructive action that a body such as Waterways Ireland, with the capabilities that were demonstrated by the Ballinamore-Ballyconnell canal, is in a care and maintenance mode. That is the decision of the two Governments as they await the full working of the Assembly.

With regard to the Ulster canal, will the Minister clarify the situation regarding land that has already been taken over by neighbouring farmers or other property owners? If the canal is opened, what is the legal situation for Waterways Ireland? Will this legislation affect it? When the canal is being restored, and I believe it must be restored, will farmers and property owners have to be compensated and will this legislation affect that? Where people are using houses, warehouses, stores and so forth that belong to the State on long-term leases, will they have the right to buy such properties? The Ballinamore-Ballyconnell canal has shown the benefit the Ulster canal could bring to the community.

Another cross-Border project that predates the Good Friday Agreement relates to the River Blackwater in north Monaghan, which again showed the benefits of co-operation north and south of the Border. I do not wish to delay proceedings, I just want clarification on what damage has been done by the potential loophole that exists. Is the Minister absolutely satisfied with the Bill, which is rushed and does not allow time for us to get legal advice? Is he satisfied that the changes he is making will close all the loopholes and make sure that people with ulterior motives cannot benefit from them or stop progress in the future? I believe in people's rights but people are literally sitting up at night trying to find loopholes in legislation. It is our job in this House to make sure that the rights of the public and the State are protected. We will support the Government in that endeavour.

See this speech in context