Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Is Bille gearr teicniúil é seo, an Bille Um Chomhaontú na Breataine-na hÉireann (Leasú) 2005, a dhéanfaidh soiléiriú ar an gcosaint atá ann go bhfaighidh na Stáit dílse sna Comhlachtaí Foirfheidhmithe Thuaidh-Theas.

The British-Irish Agreement (Amendment) Bill 2005 is a short, technical Bill which proposes to clarify the protection of State property vested in the North-South implementation bodies. I thank the Opposition parties for agreeing to take this Bill today and I will outline why we feel it is prudent to introduce the Bill in the House.

The Good Friday Agreement provided that at least 12 subject areas would be identified for co-operation and implementation for mutual benefit under the aegis of the North-South Ministerial Council. Co-operation in these areas would be implemented in two ways — in the case of at least six of them by means of existing bodies in each jurisdiction separately, also commonly referred to as the areas for co-operation, and in the case of at least six others by means of new North-South implementation bodies, also commonly referred to as the North-South bodies, operating at a cross-Border or all-island level.

As the House is aware, the British-Irish Agreement Act 1999 established the six North-South Implementation Bodies: the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission, InterTrade Ireland, An Foras Teanga — the North-South language body, SafeFood — the food safety promotion board, the Special European Union Programmes body, and Waterways Ireland. An Foras Teanga and Waterways Ireland are the two bodies the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs co-sponsors with the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure in the North.

The purpose of the Bill before us today is to remedy a possible technical defect in section 53(b) of the British-Irish Agreement Act 1999. I stress that it is a possible defect. I will say a word or two by way of background to this area of law first. A tenant of a private landlord who pays ground rent has, under the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) (No. 2) Act 1978, the right in certain circumstances to buy out the fee simple, i.e. to buy out the ground rent and hence acquire unfettered ownership of the property at nominal cost. In State land cases, that right does not apply to tenants in possession of commercial leases. In the case of tenants of dwelling houses on State land, the right to buy out was granted in 1980, but with a fallback provision that the State authority can decide that it would be contrary to the public interest to let the dwelling house go.

Section 53(b) of the British-Irish Agreement Act 1999 gives the North-South implementation bodies protection as State authorities under landlord and tenant ground rents legislation. The effect of such protection is that a lessee does not acquire the right to buy out the fee simple of a property on State land in respect of which a ground rent is paid. However, the reference in section 53(b) is to section 70 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1980. This is in effect a subsequent amending provision: the original provision which shields State authorities is section 4 of the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) (No. 2) Act 1978.

The issue mainly arises for Waterways Ireland in view of its extensive property portfolio, but the Bill covers the other North-South bodies also. The issue only arises in the South as there are no implications for the operations of the bodies in the North.

The overall effect of the 1978 Act is to give a lessee of certain categories of property the right to acquire the fee simple, subject to conditions and exemptions detailed in that Act. Section 4 provides that this right does not apply in the case of properties leased from a Minister of the Government, the Commissioners of Public Works or the Land Commission. Section 70 of the 1980 Act is a subsequent provision which modifies that general exemption by creating a right to buy out the fee simple in the case of dwelling houses erected on land owned by a State authority, subject to the right of a State authority to prevent alienation of an individual property where it considers that the public interest so requires.

This 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 contained in the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1980 in the same terms as set out in that Act.

The legislation does not apply to any notice of intention or any application made relating to the acquisition of the fee simple before the passing of the Bill or any arbitration or appeal to the Circuit Court in respect of such a notice or application. Any such notice or application — I am informed by Waterways Ireland that it currently has 12 cases on hand — and any subsequent developments, whether by way of arbitration or Circuit Court hearing, will continue as if this Bill had not been enacted.

This legislation seeks to deal with a potential technical defect in the 1999 British-Irish Agreement Act. The intention of the Oireachtas at that time is abundantly clear from section 53 of the Act. The intention was to put Waterways Ireland and the other North-South Implementation Bodies in the same position vis-À-vis ground rent legislation as the Office of Public Works or a Minister or State authority. In other words, the relevant sections of the 1978 (No. 2) Act and the 1980 Act would apply. It will be a matter as appropriate for the courts to interpret the current legislation and make decisions on any cases that come before them. Nothing I say today should be construed as a comment on any case that might end up in such a position or a statement that there is solid ground for any such notice served or case that might be taken.

The Bill is being introduced today with a view to its passage through both Houses of the Oireachtas in one day and signature by the President later today. This is considered advisable in the interests of clarity in this area of law.

The Bill is short, containing four sections, two of which — sections 1 and 4 — are technical. Section 2 restates section 53(a) of the British-Irish Agreement Act 1999, which provides that a body is a State authority for the purposes of the Statue of Limitations 1957, and creates a new section 53A in the 1999 Act to expand and clarify the existing provision in section 53(b) of that Act. The new section clarifies that a North-South Implementation Body is not bound by the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) (No. 2) Act 1978 and repeats the exemption in respect of dwelling houses contained in the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1980 in the same terms as set out in that Act. Section 3 provides the appropriate savers in respect of any application made prior to enactment of the Bill under the ground rents legislation or any appeal before the courts.

Deputies will appreciate that the Bill is designed to put into legislative form the clear unequivocal original intention of the Oireachtas to provide the North-South Implementation Bodies with the necessary legislative protection for the State property vested in them for the benefit of all, as was originally intended by the Oireachtas in the British-Irish Agreement Act 1999.

Bunaithe air sin, ba mhaith liom an Bille seo a mholadh don Teach agus a rá go bhfuil sé soiléir ón tús cad a bhí i gceist ag an Oireachtas a dhéanamh. Níl muid á rá go bhfuil aon fhadhb ann, ach ar fhaitíos go bhféadfadh sé tarlú go bhfuil aon fhadhb ann, is fearr bheith cinnte dearfa go bhfuil gach rud ina cheart. Bheadh súil agam go mbeadh sé ar ár gcumas an Bille seo a phlé agus, mar a dúirt mé, tá sé i gceist an Bille a achtú inniu agus síniú an Uachtaráin a lorg.

Seymour Crawford (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Brian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Nuair a toghadh don Seanad mé i 1987, thug Príomh-Aoire Fhianna Fáil, an Seanadóir Liam Ó Riain, an-cabhair agus an-chomhairle dom, go ndéana Dia trócaire ar a anam dílis. Is cuimhin liom go maith é á rá liom go bhfaigheadh mé amach de réir a chéile nach mbíonn reachtaíocht a achtaítear faoi bhrú ama go maith. Fuair mé amach go raibh an ceart aige agus mar chruthú air sin ní ghá dúinn ach féachaint ar an gcrúachás ina bhfuilimid inniu.

As a newly elected Senator in 1987, the then Fianna Fáil Whip in the Seanad, the late Senator, Willie Ryan, was extremely helpful to me in terms of assistance and advice. He told me on one occasion that I would find with experience that rushed legislation does not turn out to be good legislation. Today's business brought back Senator Ryan's advice forcibly to me. I wonder what he would have thought of the fact that, according to research available to me, during the existence of the revising Chamber, Seanad Éireann has taken Committee and Remaining Stages together on 171 occasions out of a total of 173, or in 98% of cases, under the present Government. In the Official Report, the heading Committee and Remaining Stages occurs 69 times, 52 of these, or 75%, were between June 1997 and the end of 2002. What is crystal clear is that the Government has increased the amount of rushed legislation passing through the Oireachtas to a dangerous level. The basic function of the Legislature is being most seriously undermined.

I have opposed ground rents all my political life. I have campaigned for the abolition of ground rents and I published a Private Members' Bill on the subject in the early 1990s. Ground rents are an anachronism and a nuisance and have little useful function, if any, in a modern democracy. The Taoiseach informed the House that the Government would like to do its best to abolish ground rents but that there are constitutional concerns regarding citizens' property rights. It is decidedly odd that the Government is seeking here to preserve the rights of the public sector thereby overriding the property rights of citizens. For this the Wild Geese spread their wings.

The two Houses are being asked to take a great deal in good faith in regard to explanations proffered about a Bill that was shown to us yesterday afternoon. I thank the officials for the briefing we were given. By way of comparison, the Health (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2004, intended to plug ongoing exposure calculated to amount to up to €2 billion, was presented on a Monday and was debated on the following Thursday and Friday. The only equivalent to genuinely overnight legislation like this which I can recall was the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act 1985 which granted the power to seize identified funds held by the IRA in a bank account which was liable to be withdrawn at a moment's notice.

It is worth noting that the original 1999 British-Irish Agreement Bill was presented to the DáiI on 8 March, it passed Second Stage on 9 March and passed all further Stages on 10 March. Only three hours were allocated for the completion of Committee and Remaining Stages. When the guillotine fell, the House was on section 16 of a 56 section Bill. The error sought to be corrected was to be found in section 53(b). The guillotine involved the composite approval of 11 Government Committee Stage amendments and two that had missed the Committee Stage deadline and were submitted on Report Stage. The Bill passed all further Stages in the Seanad the following day. The agreement to which the Bill gave effect, establishing North-South Implementation Bodies, had been signed by the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, the former Deputy, David Andrews, and the then Secretary of State, Ms Mowlam, on the day before the Bill passed all Stages.

According to the then Minister:

An important additional safeguard put in place yesterday was that, in an exchange of letters between the Secretary of State and myself, we agreed that the two Attorneys General will consult and co-operate as necessary to address any problems which may arise concerning the interpretation and application of our respective domestic legislation in regard to the bodies. The two Governments are also committed to taking all the appropriate steps should problems arise. The adoption of an approach under which most of the substantive detail is contained in an agreement between the two Governments, rather than in separate legislation, should minimise the risk of divergent judicial interpretation.

If there has been consultation on this issue, the discussion has taken place more with Westminster than with the parties in Leinster House. If discussion has not taken place, what importance was attached to this "additional safeguard"?

Section 5 of the 1999 Act contained a most extensive power to overcome the sort of problem that might be generated in the haste to legislate. It states:

If in any respect, any difficulty arises in bringing any provision of this Act or the Agreement into operation or in relation to the operation of any such provision, the Taoiseach may by regulations do anything which appears to him or her to be necessary or expedient for removing that difficulty, for bringing that provision into operation or for securing or facilitating its operation, and any such regulations may modify any provision of this Act so far as may be necessary or expedient for carrying such provision into effect for the purposes aforesaid, but no regulations shall be made under this section in relation to any provision of this Act after the expiration of 3 years commencing on the day on which the provision came into operation.

That section has its own constitutional difficulties and, in any event, it became spent three years after the Act came into operation. It is noteworthy that the problem we are addressing here went unnoticed not just in the course of the drafting process but apparently for the first three years during which the legislation was in operation.

The relevant portion of section 53 of the 1999 Act provides that a North-South body shall be deemed to be an "appropriate State authority" for the purposes of section 70 of the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1980. That section in turn provides that a person who, but for section 4 of the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) (No. 2) Act 1978, would be entitled to acquire the fee simple of a dwelling house shall, notwithstanding those provisions, be entitled to acquire that fee simple unless "the appropriate State authority" is satisfied that such acquisition would not be in the public interest and so certifies. Section 4 of the 1978 Act simply states that the Act does not bind a Minister of the Government, the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland or the Irish Land Commission, collectively grouped as State authorities.

In summary, the 1978 Act contains two separate provisions, covering the acquisition of the fee simple in dwelling houses and in other property. Neither set of provisions bound the State as landlord. The 1980 Act allows the tenant of a dwelling house to acquire the fee simple from the State, unless there is certified to be a contrary public interest. The 1999 British-Irish Agreement Act, we presume, was intended to assimilate North-South bodies to the position of State authorities exempt from the non-dwelling house provisions and exempt, on "public interest" certification, from the dwelling house provisions. However, that intention was inadequately put into effect. The combined effect of the three Acts is to state that a tenant who, but for the fact that the ground rents legislation does not bind landlords who are Ministers, the Office of Public Works or the Land Commission, would have been entitled to cancel the ground rent and buy his or her property outright can proceed to enlarge his interest and acquire the fee simple from them unless the appropriate North-South implementation body certifies that such acquisition would not be in the public interest.

This is an entirely meaningless provision. The ground rents legislation continues to exempt only Ministers, the OPW and the Land Commission. North-South bodies are classed as State authorities for the purposes of a section that does not change that situation. The tenants of North-South bodies are entitled to buy out the fee simple because they are not and have never been persons who, but for section 4 of the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) (No. 2) Act 1978, would be entitled to acquire the fee simple of their dwellings. Section 4 of the 1978 Act never applied to them because their landlord is not a Minister, the OPW or the Land Commission.

The error is a drafting one and the courts will not correct it. It arises from the fact that the bodies have been deemed to be State authorities for the purposes of the rule that allows such authorities to permit their tenants to acquire the fee simple but have not been deemed to be State authorities for the purposes of the earlier rule that the legislation permitting tenants to enlarge their interest does not apply to State authorities in the first place. The error is described in the note circulated by the Government Chief Whip as a "possible technical defect". This seems to be less than entirely forthcoming. The section does not achieve its intention.

Why should the North-South bodies enjoy the exemption the State does in its capacity as landlord from the application of legislation allowing tenants to purchase a fee simple interest in their property? Why should the State enjoy that exemption? Why should the bodies enjoy the status of State authority for the purpose of the extended limitation period provided by section 13 of the Statute of Limitations 1957? There seems to be nothing in the agreement which this legislation is intended to implement that requires such a status to be bestowed, nor does the equivalent Northern Irish legislation, the North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, appear to make such provision. This is all the more reason for the Attorney General, even belatedly, to consult his British counterpart. Polling day is of no direct concern to Lord Goldsmith. Policy issues are involved here that deserve greater consideration.

In the history of the State, there have been 189 Seanad resolutions requesting the President to sign a Bill into law earlier than five days after it is presented for signature. The last request was made for the ill-fated Health (Amendment) Bill 2004. Of those 189 requests, a whopping 61 — almost one third — have been moved during the eight years of this Administration's period in office.

The sole purpose served in introducing this Bill without notice and seeking to have it enacted in one day is to prevent any person paying ground rent to a North-South body from escaping the application of this corrective measure by serving a notice of intention to acquire the fee simple of his or her property. Has the Attorney General advised whether the statutory entitlement created by the 1978 Act, the right of a property owner to enlarge his or her interest in that property, is not to be characterised for constitutional purposes as itself being a property right and so protected from arbitrary interference? Has the Supreme Court judgment on the Health (Amendment) Bill been taken into account?

Our normal policy is not to oppose or table amendments to Northern Ireland related Bills. However, this Bill would seem to have a purely domestic application. It has no real implications for the peace process. We dislike ground rents and would support any mechanism for their complete abolition. They are an unnecessary and anachronistic relic of bygone times and serve only to act as an irritating clog on the otherwise complete capacity to sell, bequeath and dispose of domestic property

The 1978 Act specifically exempted the State, in its capacity as landlord, from the provisions enabling tenants from acquiring the fee simple of their property. Prior to that, as the background briefing note makes clear, it was presumed that legislation did not bind or restrict the State unless it specifically said so. This was based on the view that the modern Irish State had inherited the royal prerogatives of the former British crown. The legislation in 1994 over Mullaghmore, Howard v. Commissioners of Public Works, put an end to that belief. However, the Supreme Court allowed for the possibility of an exemption in favour of the State being set out in the legislation itself rather than applying as a matter of course by virtue of former royal status.

I remain to be convinced of the merits of exempting State authorities in the first place and also extending that exemption to include the North-South bodies. I accept, however, that this was the intention of the drafters of the 1999 British-Irish Agreement Act, even though the section in which it was expressly received no Oireachtas scrutiny. I accept also that both the bodies and their tenants must have conducted their affairs over the intervening years on the assumption in good faith that the legislation did not apply to them. We are being asked to take a great deal in good faith and, on that basis, I will not oppose the Bill. However, I stress that if any aspect of the explanations and factual outline given to us today turns out to be defective to any material extent, that would amount to a serious situation. We should not be put in the position of having to rush to judgment on significant issues with such a paucity of information and time for considered assessment.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to share time with Deputy Boyle and, perhaps, Deputy Cowley.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed. The Chair will monitor progress.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Questions must be raised about why this Bill is necessary. How did it come about that the British-Irish Agreement Act 1999 refers to the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1980 and not to the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) (No. 2) Act 1978? This Bill has come, quite clearly, out of the blue and it is difficult for us to address its detail in so short a time, little though that detail may be. Something is wrong in the legislative process when this can happen.

We are being asked to make a technical change in the 1999 Act concerning the exemption of State lands in the 1978 legislation. I understand that this means owners of commercial property on State land who pay ground rent to the State will not have the right to buy out the leases. Owners of dwelling houses on these lands will continue to have the right to buy out the ground rent. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that in his closing remarks as it was not clear to me from the explanatory memorandum that was circulated.

We will not oppose this legislation, primarily because we do not want to cause any difficulty for the North-South implementation bodies, particularly Waterways Ireland, at this time. However, we are concerned that we have not heard the other side of the story. There must be one. Are there people who have a genuine case to make in terms of their leases of State lands? I do not know and that is a difficulty.

Sinn Féin is also concerned that the massive anomaly and injustice of ground rent is being ignored and continues to exist. Successive Governments, including the current Administration since 1997, have deliberately ignored this issue. Why must people pay ground rents on properties they own, whether a home or whatever and regardless of whether the rent is paid to private landlords, the State or local authorities? It is an injustice that should be done away with. The Government has a ground rent Bill on its list of promised legislation for all the years I have spent as a Member of this House. The only reason it is there, perhaps, is to give the Government the semblance of a reply whenever the issue is raised by other Deputies. There is clearly no intent on the Government's part of addressing this vexed issue.

This Bill concerns the all-Ireland implementation bodies established under the Good Friday Agreement. It must be said on polling day in the Six Counties that those bodies are not operating fully and the all-Ireland Ministerial Council is not working at all. Every effort must be made to ensure we reach a situation where all that functions once again. My commitment to that is absolute.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy knows who can sort it out. Sinn Féin can sort it out.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government has a responsibility for this. The Minister sent me a reply to a written parliamentary question about a request from Monaghan County Council to meet him regarding the Ulster Canal, which is a critical issue.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not like the prospect of the debate straying somewhat.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not straying from the debate. This issue is about inland waterways and is about canals and so on. Despite his missive to Monaghan County Council, the Minister is clearly accepting the situation of a care and maintenance mode under the direct Ministers. He should not accept that. As a democratically accountable Minister, he has a binding responsibility to the Irish people to pursue proactively——

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It always amazes me——

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——this issue at every turn. The Minister will have his opportunity to reply. He should be good enough to allow me to use my time.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should be allowed to continue and I ask him to speak to the Bill.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I never thought I would hear a Sinn Féin member wish to deal with a British minister rather than an Irish one.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We do not want them here at all. We want them to pack up their bags and go. Until that is achieved, the Minister has a responsibility in the interim. I am speaking about the Bill and this is an issue that is integral to it. I want the Minister to accede to the request of Monaghan County Council to meet the council and discuss this issue. I want him to assure us that he is continuing to do everything and that he has not parked the issue, waiting for change to occur. He must work now and must put the maximum pressure on direct Ministers to ensure that there is progress on the very important issue of the Ulster Canal.

I look forward to the renewed negotiations after the elections today and to the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, including the resumption of the All-Ireland Ministerial Council and the implementation bodies covered in this Bill. In the interim, the Government should do everything in its power to work the structures that exist. We all have to contend with them unfortunately, but that is the reality. I am deeply disturbed that the Government appears to have parked major projects like the Ulster Canal when it should take the lead on an issue of such importance.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Sinn Féin parked the project.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I hope the Minister is not competing with Deputy O'Dea to be the heckler of the year. I will await the Minister's reply when he has the opportunity. In the meantime, I will not oppose the Bill as I wish the matter to be addressed and progress to be made. The Minister should also take into account my remarks on a ground rent Bill, which the Government has trundled out in legislative programme after legislative programme since 1997, yet about which nothing has been done.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The subterfuge that accompanied this Bill, with phone calls to spokespersons of the different parties on Monday and a briefing yesterday, seems to indicate that there is a degree of discomfort in the Government about this Bill. As spokesperson for my party, I received a phone call on the briefing on Tuesday. As my party divides the brief for the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs between Deputy Sargent and me, I asked under which arm of the Department the briefing was being delivered. I was told it was the Gaeltacht section and on that basis Deputy Sargent went to attend yesterday's briefing. Despite that, it was never mentioned what the Bill was and to what it referred. Neither the briefing itself, the memorandum or the Minister's speech gave a sense of the urgency with which this Bill is being addressed today.

I fear the Minister might be putting us into a situation where we are compromising the House under the doctrine of the separation of powers. If there is a legal argument regarding legislation that has been passed in this House when there are cases pending, the passage of this Bill will certainly not acquire any degree of retrospection. It may, at best, stop future legal actions coming forward. It disturbs me that we are putting out a signal that we in this House are correcting our mistakes on the hoof. In fact, this is the mistake of the Government. Deputy Rabbitte was quite clear on this today on the Order of Business. He spoke about the Government amending a Bill that had already been guillotined in the House. The same Government decided at the time that it only required a certain amount of debate. It is this attitude that brings us back to the House time and time again to deal with emergency legislation. If this Government is to have any legacy, it will be the amount of amended legislation that it has put before the House because it has refused to do its job properly. It refuses to engage with the Opposition to allow sufficient debate and proper scrutiny of legislation.

In the wider context, the Green Party supports closing the loophole and facilitating of the North-South bodies. It is unfortunate that it has to come forward in a Bill of this nature. It is also unfortunate that we are dealing with half formed organisations which many of us would like to see operating to the fullest possible extent.

This Bill is getting the Government out of a quagmire in which many residents of domestic dwellings find themselves. The speed with which the Government has put forward this Bill, while at the same time not tackling the wider issue of acquiring a fee simple and ground rent, shows a double standard against which we must protest. The sense of priority given to this Bill and other legislation that involve North-South Ministerial bodies and all-Ireland bodies is astounding. I asked a question this morning on the status of the Bill on the register of people considered safe to work with children. The treatment of that Bill here and in Northern Ireland shows a notorious double standard in the priorities of the Government. The regulations that would follow from the passage of that Bill here are already in existence in Northern Ireland, yet we continue to drag our feet. We refuse to give appropriate legislative weight to the very important issue of child safety and child abuse.

We will not oppose this Bill, but we indicate strongly our unhappiness with its presentation before us, and the way in which the House has been treated.

Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am delighted to speak on this Bill. I cannot stand over this legislation, as it is legislation on the hoof. There is a sense of expediency about the Bill, which upsets me. There is a need to provide legislation to control what is going on with alternative practitioners as some of them are preventing people from having legitimate treatment, which is costing those people their lives. Yet we are still waiting for legislation on this and we do not have a hope in getting it through the House. The Government pays lip service to supporting older people in their own community, but there is always a lack of legislation that would oblige the Government to provide the resources necessary to allow that lip service to become a reality. This Bill is no exception either. I support it, but it is only mending the cracks.

North-South bodies are an important element in this small island and it is important that we foster and encourage North-South relationships. There is a dubious distinction in one area, neither the North nor the South has a helicopter emergency medical service. Ireland is the only country in Europe without that service. I met successive Ministers for Health and Bairbre de Brún on the matter. I met the North-South emergency care body, set up under the Good Friday Agreement, in Newry which agreed to examine the issue of a helicopter emergency medical service for North and South. Both areas have been without the service for so long that we could learn from the systems around Europe and create a system of which we could be truly proud.

A feasibility study was proposed which was commissioned in 2002, but not published until 2004. The haste involved in this Bill was certainly not put into producing that report. The report proves the case for a helicopter emergency medical service as essential for inter-hospital transport and beyond both North and South and in a North-South context. Unfortunately, that has not happened. The Department thought so little of the report that it did not have the decency to publish it in book form. It only published it on the website, despite the fact that the study was set up in a North-South context.

I hope the Government will give the same urgency to the report and to doing something about it as it is giving to solving this situation to get itself out of a spot. I urge the Minister to examine the position with regard to a helicopter emergency medical service. It is important that we deal urgently with the situation where people with, for example, fractured spines are put into the back of ambulances to be taken at 30 mph on the rocky road to Dublin with their future well-being and their lives at stakes. I support this Bill with the provisos I have mentioned.

Denis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this legislation. The reason we are debating this legislation today is that it was guillotined in the House on a previous occasion. When the Minister replies, will he elaborate on how this flaw was picked up? Did somebody try to buy out his or her fee simple and as a consequence was the anomaly in the legislation found and the legislation found inadequate? Is that the reason for the urgency of the legislation? We have been given no reason for that.

Will the Minister give us some examples of the types of leases concerned here? Are they mainly farmland or residential, or what other type of property is involved? When I heard last night that this Bill was coming through the House today, I got a copy of the Waterways Ireland annual report to try to discover the type of property involved. A significant amount of the assets of Waterways Ireland pass through my old constituency of Longford-Roscommon and, particularly, my new constituency of Roscommon-south Leitrim through which the Ballinamore-Ballyconnell canal runs.

The only detail I could find in the 2002 report in the Library is a very brief comment relating to the significant amount of property which Waterways Ireland has and is trying to manage. I understand there are ongoing issues relating to the transfer of property in the North to the jurisdiction and control of Waterways Ireland. Will the Minister update us on that situation? The only information I could get from the annual report was that in 2002 there was an income of €48,838 from property, the only detail we have on the assets of Waterways Ireland. This is a substantial income considering that many of the properties in question would not have involved much maintenance over recent years.

The reason I wanted to speak on this legislation concerns the maintenance of properties under the control of Waterways Ireland. Many people are directly impacted by the lack of maintenance of properties under the jurisdiction of Waterways Ireland. Under the heading of the management and maintenance of waterways in the annual report, there is nothing about the maintenance of the waterways, which are the single largest asset and property under the control of Waterways Ireland.

The largest element of that property is the River Shannon, but no maintenance of that asset takes place. While some development has taken place over the years, some of which is mentioned in the annual report, this mainly relates to mooring spaces and marinas. In fairness, I compliment Waterways Ireland on that work because we need additional facilities.

Will the legislation have an impact on the rental of moorings or berths by Waterways Ireland, perhaps on a long-term basis, to particular individuals or companies? I know a substantial number of the private berths on the River Shannon are rented on a long-term basis to many of the cruiser companies. Is the same the case with Waterways Ireland? Naturally, there would not be a demand for those facilities during the winter months. Could a claim be brought in that regard under the current legislation prior to its amendment today?

I want to discuss the maintenance of the Shannon as an asset of Waterways Ireland because over recent years there has been considerable clogging up of the waterway, whether as a result of silt from Bord na Móna or otherwise. The problem is so serious that during the summer months we have to call on Deputy Cowley's emergency services on occasion to fish people out of Lough Ree or other parts of the Shannon because their boats have hit rocks. On one occasion the Air Corps had to come to the rescue because of a lack of day to day maintenance of the waterway.

It is critical that more focus is put on the maintenance of the assets of Waterways Ireland. Many people would be very critical of the fact that Meelick weir is not regularly maintained and this causes a huge back-up of water north of the weir and south of Athlone. They are also critical that the river channel is not maintained, which will have a significant impact in coming years on navigation of the river unless action is taken by Waterways Ireland to protect these State assets which are under its control but which appear to be ignored. They are ignored in the organisation's annual report, which is disappointing.

I hope we will see development of some of the assets under the control of Waterways Ireland. These properties and assets must be substantial if they generate an income of over €48,000. Some properties are rented out on long-term leases. I presume the legislation deals with properties held on long-term leases. Having read its annual report, Waterways Ireland is not up to speed regarding its assets in terms of numbers and control in this jurisdiction and Northern Ireland. Its assets need to be clarified and the body should outline a development plan to maintain and develop them to their potential. The development of the waterways network could make a major contribution to tourism.

Waterways Ireland, in promoting and developing its assets, could enter into joint development projects with private operators. The body will not have resources in the long term to develop many of these assets but it can, through public private partnerships and co-operation with private organisations, develop them. Given that the legislation addresses a number of anomalies, difficulties should not arise in this regard.

However, I have a major difficulty with the way Waterways Ireland maintains and develops our waterways as an asset. For example, the River Shannon is viewed as a boundary and not as an asset by all State bodies, including tourism boards and local authorities. The only organisation which can view the river as an asset other than the ESB is Waterways Ireland but it is not fulfilling its role to utilise and develop the river. One only has to compare the facilities on Lough Erne, in which substantial investment has been made over the past number of years, with those on Lough Ree and Lough Derg. Similar investment in waterways in this jurisdiction has not taken place. This must be examined. Waterways Ireland has major assets such as the canal at Lecarrow in Country Roscommon and other facilities at Portrun, County Roscommon. None of these has been developed by the body, which tends to wash its hands of the assets. Waterways Ireland is not prepared to lease these facilities on a long-term basis to a developer who would utilise them.

I hope the legislation can address current anomalies and be used by Waterways Ireland as a mechanism to enter into long-term agreements with private operators to develop amenities along the River Shannon. The organisation is not aware of the potential of these assets and how they can be fully utilised in the future.

I refer to another issue, which is outside the scope of the legislation.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy has spent some time outside the scope of the Bill.

Denis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I referred to assets, which are under the aegis of Waterways Ireland, and the legislation deals with such assets.

I refer to the report of the Oireachtas sub-committee on the River Shannon, chaired by former Deputy, Seán Doherty. The report recommended that the Western Development Commission should co-ordinate development with Waterways Ireland and local authorities. However, while substantial development, thankfully, is taking place in towns such as Athlone and Carrick-on-Shannon on the banks of the river, it is impacting on the river's flood basin, which could have major repercussions for land owners and for navigation. I ask the Minister to examine this and to issue guidelines regarding development on the river so that this asset is not destroyed. It will a few years before we witness the implications of the current development. Will the Minister take this issue up with Waterways Ireland and re-examine the feasibility of implementing the Doherty report?

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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——

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The instructions under the Order of Business were that the Minister would have five minutes to respond.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will wrap up but I will make this point briefly.

Seymour Crawford (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Let the Minister finish this point.

Denis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will take a broad definition of five minutes.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will work on Connemara time, which is a bit slower and more leisurely paced. I would like to clear this matter up. Within a month of that meeting I was asked for another meeting. I am a patient man and will readily meet delegations but I did not see the point of discussing the same issues with the same delegation for another hour and a half when I was still not sure what it was about. I wrote to Monaghan County Council a number of weeks ago asking members to clearly spell out what they wished to discuss with me.

The nub of the matter is that everyone knows we are getting nowhere without the North South bodies working with a devolved executive in Northern Ireland as we understood they would and that lies in our hands as Irish people. I appeal to Sinn Féin and the DUP to cut the deal and get on with it, and I say to Sinn Féin particularly that in my early days as a politician I worked with everyone to try to resolve issues and did not condemn. I worked with republican prisoners to try to further the process and suggested to them that they would make much more progress politically than they would through violence. They accepted my argument that republicanism is a non-violent tradition and I am delighted that they called a ceasefire. I am a republican and somebody who believes in a united Ireland and reconciling the green and the orange, but what baffles me is that 11 years after the ceasefire it is within our grasp to get everybody around the table working in agreed structures, but they cannot make the final jump.

As somebody who is steeped in the republican tradition, I believe that anybody not willing to make that final jump is not acting as a republican. They must not have read the works of Wolfe Tone or the Proclamation of 1916. If Sinn Féin members want the Ulster Canal built and progress made on North-South issues and if they want me to move forward, it is in their own hands. They should act as proper republicans and cut the deal, as we always said we would, with our fellow Irish people. We can then sort out the problem of developing the Ulster Canal.

As Minister I would like nothing more than to see the current unnecessary impediment removed. We could then progress projects such as the Ulster Canal which would have a major effect on the counties through which it passes.

Tá an-áthas orm go raibh deis againn an Bille fíorthábhachtach seo a phlé ar an Dara Céim. Is é caomhnú atá i gceist anseo, cosaint an phobail seachas aon rud eile. Is é leasú beag teicniúil atá i gceist anseo atá simplí go maith. Ar fhaitíos na bhfaitíos, ba cheart go mbeadh tagairt do dhá Acht seachas Acht amháin, agus cuirfear é sin ina cheart inniu. Níor cheart go mbeadh náire nó faitíos orainn deireadh a chur le héiginnteacht agus rud a dhéanamh an-soiléir. Mar sin, molaim an Bille don Teach agus glacaim buíochas aríst leis na Teachtaí a labhair ar an mBille.