Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his constructive engagement. He is right, there are parts of this that it is not appropriate for us to be involved in but there are also parts where our involvement, as legislators, is appropriate. Given that our job in this House is to provide the Minister with legislation, including legislation that gives him the power to make regulations, it is important that we make sure it is as clear as possible with regard to what we include. It is useful that, even after Committee Stage, we still have Report Stage to go through. I am not asking the Minister to come back to us to lay out his proposals and tell us how the negotiations are going but I encourage him to come back to us with amendments that reflect the regulations and the elements we have discussed.

I am concerned. I appreciate the Minister having taken on board the sensible point, which is complementary to Senator Casey's point, with regard to the difference between planning and starting a whole new thing and repurposing something. I recognise the need for a cost limit and the issue of that being equivalent to the cost of demolition. That is a sensible provision. However, I am worried about the existing wording. I am a stickler for wording. It currently only refers to "demolition and clean-up costs in respect of the removal of any buildings [...] that cannot reasonably be used for any other purpose". The regulations do not directly empower the Minister to give compensatory payment in respect of repurposing. A change in the language is required to do that rather than saying we interpret the provisions in a certain way. In fact, that is explicitly precluded because demolition compensation may only be paid in respect of buildings that cannot reasonably be used for any other purpose. We want to allow for compensation in respect of buildings that can reasonably be used for another purpose. Again, this is aimed at strengthening the Minister's hand as he makes the regulations and at giving him the mandate he needs to deliver the very sensible solution he outlined. I am concerned that the legislation, as currently drafted, does not include that among the matters he may make regulation in respect of. In fact, it explicitly precludes that. I do not want the Minister, or some other Minister, to come up against that as a concern when he has goodwill. We want to give him the right mandate.

Similarly, the matters for which the Minister is being mandated by this legislation to make compensatory payments includes statutory redundancy in light of section 19 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967. With regard to my own amendments, although I am sure others were tabled, I did not try to specify what the outcome should be. I referred to "such further redundancy payments as may be negotiated" and "such further redundancy payments beyond the statutory minimum as the Minister may deem appropriate". I was not trying to say what the outcome would be but to ensure that, if this legislation passes this House, the Minister will have a mandate and the full list of topics included in the legislation he will need to deliver the kind of positive outcomes he has discussed.

The Minister has mentioned engagement with the farmers multiple times. That is really good and important. However, it is important that he hear from this House that it is not just about engagement with the farmers but also engagement with the workers. Even though there has been very good solidarity between the farmers and the workers on this issue, at the end of the day, the farmers are not the representatives of the workers. It is a limited number, 38, and it would be very useful if the Minister were to engage directly with them so that he has a sense of their needs. I know there is common purpose in that regard but engagement with farmers is only one piece. The other big stakeholder is the workers and a little bit of direct engagement may be required. I thank the Minister for his constructive engagement with us. He can hear that, as a House, we are very interested in constructive engagement but we might need to strengthen the legislation as well as bringing those matters into the more discretionary space of regulations.