Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghlacadh leis na Teachtaí a labhair ar an ábhar seo. I will address a number of issues. Anything owned by the State, an agency of the State or a North-South body is the people's property and we have an obligation to protect that. It would be wrong to do anything else. Mention was made of the health Bill introduced prior to Christmas but Members have turned that issue around. The Opposition's criticism at the time was the issue was not addressed quickly enough and that it should have been addressed years ago.

However, the minute we found there may be a problem with the legislation in this area, we set about addressing it. Great play has been made of the non-disclosure of the contents of the Bill to Opposition spokespersons until last night. That was done to protect State assets and anything done to protect the people's property from those who might take successful court cases is wise and prudent. There is often a total disconnection between the fact that when a Minister is protecting something on behalf of the State, he or she is doing so on behalf of the people and not himself or herself. This property is held in trust by the Minister for the people. I expected that the socialist view on this would be that it is absolutely imperative to act swiftly so that nobody can exploit issues that might arise in the future.

I was asked when we found out about this issue. Suggestions were made in late 2004 that there might be a legal dispute as to the correct meaning and effect of section 53(b). We sought legal advice and, as soon as we had a definitive view from the State's legal advisers that there might be a problem, the Government approved the drafting of the legislation. This work was then given priority by the Attorney General's office. A number of planning applications, most of which are in respect of dwelling houses, are not at issue in this matter, as they go back a number of years.

It became prudent to address this by way of legislation only in recent times when it became an issue of sustained legal examination by Waterways Ireland and the State's legal advisers. There are as many legal opinions as there are legal people. If there were not, there would be no need for courts because everybody would know before the case what the judgment would be. If there was a definitive view of what was right or wrong or the legal position, there would be no business in the Four Courts and millions of euro would not be made because everything would be so black and white. People would not need to go to court because they would know beforehand whether they would win. However, the law is not that precise a science and, for example, judges take different views of the same issue. How often has the High Court taken one view while the Supreme Court has taken another? Courts take different views of the same cases and the same evidence.

There is a potential legal problem, which will be eliminated and prevented from becoming a major problem by the legislation. We have all debated the need for the State to act on potential legal problems since Christmas. At the end of the day, only the courts, rightly or wrong, give the view that counts. Their view is no more infallible than anybody elses but if they give a view, we must make sure we are on the right side of it.

It was asked who was the Attorney General at the time, but that is not relevant as different people give different opinions and this is not an absolute science. I am not a lawyer. I do not know who is right or wrong in these issues. There are different views. It is a highly technical complex issue of law and I do not believe any of the Opposition Deputies would stake their lives on this. As we found out to our cost recently, when the experts advise that there may be a problem, it is better to act.

Other Bills were said to be more urgent. Some big complex issues require a large Bill and subject to all the pressures will be drafted as soon as possible. This is a clear-cut issue of a technical defect that can be quickly rectified. Another issue raised was the principle of the guillotine. My colleagues on the Opposition benches who have experience of me as a Minister know I do not like the guillotine and it should be avoided. We waste too much time on Second Stage and have too little time on Committee Stage of a Bill. I hope we will achieve Dáil reform as Committee and Report Stages are more important than Second Stage during which we make many and long speeches so that at the end of term we are required to run legislation through.

Every day during the Order of Business Opposition Deputies stand up as we did when we were over there, and ask why we do not have more legislation. We have a fixed amount of sitting time and in reality nobody here feels we are under-worked. We all agree that Deputies have a wider role in society than merely a legislative one, and the idea of sitting five days a week for 12 or 13 hours is nonsense, particularly for those of us who represent constituencies outside of Dublin. We must examine more efficient and effective ways of legislating and when we do so I hope we get full co-operation from the Opposition.

I have not checked the record but perhaps I will, to see if any Member of the Opposition had amendments down for the 1999 Bill, which needed to be brought in quickly due to the circumstances at the time. If not, how can they be sure that if we had spent days discussing it, this potential problem that might exist in an esoteric issue of law would have been found? We examine all amendments put down by Opposition Members, even if they are not taken on board. If we find a valuable issue we incorporate it into one of our own amendments and it will be carried even under a guillotine. Although I have not examined the record, I suspect that if one checks it, one will find an amendment was not put down.

Life is becoming more complicated with much more litigation nowadays, and because of the complexity of law we will increasingly find more flaws in it. We all know that more people now have money to examine legislation in an effort to establish rights that were never intended. The Oireachtas needs to intervene more quickly to identify and deal with potential loopholes, and Members should not be afraid to come into the House if a potential problem is identified. I do not care how much time is spent on Bills. I have had Bills on which hours were spent but when they went through another issue arose, and my attitude is that in that case we should change the Act. That should not be a major issue.

A number of broader issues were also raised that I should address in this context. The maintenance of the waterways is important and Waterways Ireland is a significantly important body. Anyone who has visited the Shannon or any other waterway has seen the large economic benefit that has accrued to such places from Waterways Ireland. The Deputies present have an interest in Waterways Ireland and it is fair to say that the economy of the region around the north end of the Shannon has been stimulated by Waterways Ireland. It is incorrect to say we do not spend money on maintenance. I am advised that Waterways Ireland spends €13 million on maintenance each year.

The State contribution to Waterways Ireland to date is approximately €35 million. The annual business plan, as opposed to the annual report, details maintenance and capital expenditure. Northern Ireland is a much smaller territory with fewer miles of waterway and its expenditure is approximately €10 million. We spend three and a half times as much, which is proportionate to current wealth. I intend to go further in the future but the current North South situation is a problem. Deputy Crawford and Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin and other members of Sinn Féin were present when I met a delegation on the Ulster Canal at the request of a Fianna Fáil local councillor in County Monaghan. The meeting lasted approximately an hour and a half and I explained ad nauseam that——

See this speech in context