asked the Minister for the Environment the steps that have been taken to implement the recommendation contained in paragraph 9.169 of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Stardust Disaster that the District Court should have the power to order the immediate closure of a place of assembly on the application of a fire authority in the case of any breach of building or management regulations.

10.

asked the Minister for the Environment the steps that have been taken to implement the recommendations contained in paragraph 9.88 of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Stardust Disaster, that the Minister should, in consultation with the higher education authority, promote the establishment of appropriate courses in fire safety in universities and other third level institutions.

11.

asked the Minister for the Environment the steps that have been taken to implement the recommendations contained in paragraph 9.116 of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Stardust Disaster, that public resort by-laws be repealed and replaced by new regulations made on a national basis.

12.

asked the Minister for the Environment the steps that have been taken to implement the recommendations contained in paragraph 9.118 of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Stardust Disaster that management regulations should be made by the Minister under section 37 of the Fire Services Act, 1981.

13.

asked the Minister for the Environment when the inspectorate of fire safety will be established as recommended by paragraph 9.193 of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Stardust Disaster.

14.

asked the Minister for the Environment the steps that have been taken to implement the recommendation contained in paragraph 9.128 of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Stardust Disaster, that it be a requirement that a fire certificate issued under the Fire Services Act, 1981, in respect of a place of assembly, should be at all times displayed in a prominent position in the premises to which it relates.

15.

asked the Minister for the Environment the steps that have been taken to implement the recommendation contained in paragraph 9.170 of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Stardust Disaster that the Fire Services Act be amended to create a new statutory offence, that is, failure of the management of a place of assembly to take all reasonable steps to ensure that exit doors required by law to be unlocked and unobstructed, remain unlocked and unobstructed.

16.

asked the Minister for the Environment when it is intended to comply with the recommendation contained in paragraph 9.170 of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Stardust Disaster, that the Fire Services Act of 1981 should be amended to confer overall responsibility for fire-fighting and fire prevention services on the Minister for the Environment.

17.

asked the Minister for the Environment when it is intended to establish the national training centre for fire personnel as recommended by paragraph 9.207 of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Stardust Disaster.

18.

asked the Minister for the Environment the steps that have been taken to implement the recommendation contained in paragraphs 9.216 and 9.217 of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Stardust Disaster that a new central control room equipped with a data base for a computer system be provided for Tara Street fire station in Dublin.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 to 18, inclusive, together.

The questions put by the Deputy relate to some only of the recommendations made by the Tribunal of Inquiry on the fire at the Stardust. All of the tribunal's recommendations are being taken into account in the ongoing development of the fire service which is being pressed ahead as rapidly and as comprehensively as possible. As an example of this development I should point out that there has been almost a fourfold increase in the capital provision for the fire service in recent years and the Government have decided that further substantial increases will be made during the coming years. I should mention also that there has been a significant increase in the approved staffing levels for fire prevention work by the local authorities.

It is not proposed to make a fundamental change in the nature of the existing and traditional relationship between the Minister and the fire authorities and it would not be appropriate therefore to establish an inspectorate of fire services as envisaged by the tribunal. The Fire Services Council, which was established last year, will be of great help to me in discharging the traditional advisory and supervisory role of the Minister.

The council have been given a wide range of functions including the question of recommendations on the arrangements for specialised educational courses for fire service personnel and for courses in fire safety engineering, the need for which is accepted. Considerable discussions had taken place between my Department and the local authorities, the Department of Education, the National Council for Educational Awards, third level institutions, and appropriate staff interests in the period prior to setting up the Fire Services Council. Taking account of this work the council have been actively considering the matter and I hope to have their report in the early part of next year. In the meantime some fire safety engineering courses have already been provided by third level institutions and others are planned.

The question of education cannot be divorced from training of fire service personnel and the provision of training facilities at local, regional and national level. Substantial progress has been made in recent years in providing local and regional training facilities and in the provision of training courses. In addition to local training arrangements the Fire Services Council are organising 15 central training courses this year, making use of training facilities and expertise in this country, in Scotland, England and Denmark. A further 20 central training courses are planned for next year. The experience gained will be of great assistance to the council in their consideration of the need and possible arrangements for a national training centre. The council have commissioned and received a report from a consultant which should be of value in their consideration of the need for central training facilities.

Management regulations under section 37 of the Fire Services Act, 1981, which it is envisaged will eventually replace public resort by-laws, are at present being drafted by my Department, initially in respect of places of public assembly. A discussion document outlining the proposed approach and indicating the standards it was proposed to adopt was widely circulated by my Department for comments in August 1983. The response to the document was generally favourable and, together with the comments received, it will form the basis for a code of practice for fire safety in places of public assembly which I have asked the Fire Services Council to prepare. The draft regulations and code, which are well advanced, will be circulated to interested parties for views before being brought into operation. The Building Control Bill, which is at present before the Dáil, provides for the issue by the fire authority of a fire safety certificate approving the design of a building in so far as the fire aspects of the building regulations are concerned.

On the question of local authority powers with regard to fire safety and offences, the Fire Services Act, 1981, contains a wide range of powers for fire authorities to deal with fire safety in buildings, including the issue of a fire safety notice prohibiting the use of a building or part of it for any specified purpose, or prohibiting the use of a building until specified precautions have been taken. In particularly serious cases the fire authority can apply to the High Court under section 23 of the Fire Services Act for an order restricting or prohibiting the use of a building. The proposed management regulations, to which I have already referred, will include a requirement that exits be maintained unlocked and unobstructed during use. A breach of this, or any other of the regulations, will be punishable by a maximum fine of £10,000 and/or two years' imprisonment. The effectiveness of the legislation is being kept under continuous review and I will not hesitate to introduce amending legislation if such is necessary.

I am advised that the preparation of plans for a new central control room at Tara Street and the drafting of the specification for the new communications equipment, including computers, to be installed there should be completed shortly by Dublin Corporation. Significant progress has been made by the local authority on the preparation of the data-base information for the computer system and on improving existing control and call-out facilities and arrangements.

I must express my disappointment at the Minister's decision to lump all these questions into one reply. The nine questions refer to specific recommendations made by the Stardust Tribunal. In relation to Question No. 9, what specific powers have local authorities to require the immediate closure of a building which they consider to be a fire hazard? Would he not agree that section 37 of the Fire Services Act does not give them the power to require immediate closure because a person who receives such an order can within 14 days appeal and there is no knowing how long an appeal may take?

The Fire Services Act contains a very wide range of powers to deal with the fire safety of buildings. A notice prohibiting the use of a building or part of a building can be issued. I admit that the person who receives such a notice has 14 days in which to appeal. That is reasonable. If a person's business is being affected he should have some rights as well as some obligations. Where the local authority are satisfied that there is a danger they can go to the High Court and have the building closed. Independently of the normal action they can take through the District Court, if they are satisfied that there is imminent danger they can go to the High Court for a decision on what to do. There is immediate machinery for closing a building.

Is the Minister not aware that Dublin Corporation claim they have no power to require a building to be closed down? The Stardust Tribunal report urged that the power be given to order immediate closure of a place of assembly. Would the Minister not agree that it is important that such a power be given to a local authority in view of the horrendous results of the Stardust disaster?

Under section 23 the local authority have the power to go to the High Court and have a building closed. That power exists and if the local authorities are not exercising it there is something wrong.

It is my understanding that Dublin City Council recently found they did not have the power to close down a premises.

That point was made by Deputy De Rossa.

Is it not a fact that they have the power to oppose the licence given to a premises but that they have not the power to shut it down from the next day?

Under section 23 they can go to the High Court and seek an order to have it closed down. That provision is contained in the Act. The local authority have the power.

Is there any case in which the local authority have done that in Dublin?

I am not so aware, but I am satisfied that the power is there.

In relation to Question No. 11, the Minister said he was in the process of preparing regulations to replace the public resort by-laws and that a code of practice would be introduced. It is now almost four years since the Stardust disaster. Does the Minister not think it has taken far too long to produce these regulations? Could he give some indication when the regulations will be made and operative?

Given that we got through Committee Stage by the end of this month, the building regulations should be law by the end of the session.

The Minister indicated that new regulations were being prepared to replace the public resort by-laws. I presume these new regulations will apply to existing buildings as well as new buildings. The building regulations which it is proposed to introduce under the building control legislation refer only to new buildings. They do not cover existing buildings.

The Deputy is talking about the fire safety regulations under section 37 of the Fire Services Act. We are proceeding with the preparation of the regulations for places of public assembly. The Fire Services Council have been requested as a matter of urgency to prepare the accompanying code of practice with the regulations. The management regulations should be available early in 1985.

On Question No. 12, the tribunal also requested the establishment of regulations under section 37 for the management of buildings. Can the Minister give us an assurance that these regulations will have effect on all existing buildings and that there will not be any exemptions for existing buildings which provide for public access?

No. The code of practice being drafted will cover only new buildings. Existing buildings present much greater problems in the preparation of a code of practice. There will be a method of trade off between the different aspects of fire safety and there will be a decision regarding the lead-in times for complying with the proposed standards. In relation to older buildings one must give people time to have the necessary works carried out. This will be done, ensuring that an overall fire safety consideration will be maintained. It cannot be operated overnight in regard to old buildings and will have to be brought in on a slower basis. The fire authorities will do that.

Will the Minister ensure that there is a sufficient number of inspectors available to monitor the implementation of the code of practices for older buildings?

Presumably those regulations will come before the House and there will be an opportunity to discuss them in one way or another.

We could be waiting for another four years.

We cannot discuss them in their absence, so to speak.

Over the past while, we have appointed 43 fire prevention officers throughout the country and 19 in Dublin. The personnel of the inspectorate has been improved dramatically. Hopefully that meets the point about which the Deputy is concerned.

Did the Minister refer to the issue of fire certificates under the proposed building regulations as applying to all buildings? Surely the Minister is not correct in stating that, as approximately 24,000 buildings which are erected every year are to be exempted from the terms of the proposed Building Control Bill and the building regulations. I understand new dwellinghouses will not be covered under the proposed building regulations.

Sorry, Deputy?

The fire certificates under the proposed building regulations.

They will operate within the ambit of the building regulations. What applies to the building regulations will apply to the fire certificates as well.

Is it proposed to exempt all new dwellinghouses from the terms of the building regulations?

Yes, as a temporary measure. We do not see that as being long term. To get the building regulations implemented we felt that we could not include every dwelling. The major developments have to be taken into consideration.

In his Second Stage speech the Minister stated that dwellinghouses were being exempted from the conditions.

That is right.

He did not say it was temporary. He just said they would not be included.

It is hoped that over a period of time they will be included.

How can the Minister be so optimistic as to expect the Building Control Bill to come before the Dáil and be completed by the end of this month?

I did not say that. I said by the end of the year.

The end of this year. That is just over a month away. The Minister received a letter dated 16 October from four institutes, the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland, the Institute of Engineers, the Association of Consulting Engineers and the Society of Chartered Surveyors, in which it was stated that they could only assume that the Minister had abandoned the principle of consensus and agreement expressed on Second Stage Reading in the Dáil and at a meeting which he had with them. They go on to say that in these circumstances these four organisations have no alternative but to withdraw their support for the Bill in its present form and to reiterate their view that what is proposed in the Bill is unfair, unworkable and not in the national interest.

I do not intend to discuss in this House personal correspondence I receive from bodies. I have written to them seeking a meeting. If they choose to make public their correspondence I do not intend to do the same.

Will the Minister agree that, in the course of the discussion on the Building Control Bill, he agreed to withdraw the Bill from the House because he could see the difficulties it would present to those who were being asked in the Bill to implement it, those in the building professions? Having recognised the difficulty, as explained from this side of the House, he agreed to withdraw the Bill and go and have talks with the building professions.

I did not agree to withdraw it.

Now we understand these talks have collapsed, which the Minister denied some time ago and which his Minister denied last week. Does the Minister deny that is the truth I have now put on the record of the House?

I do deny it. I did not say I would withdraw the Bill. I said we would have the Second Stage of the Bill and before we took Committee Stage we would have consultations. That did not make any reference to withdrawing the Bill.

The matter raised by Deputy Molloy has an important bearing on this whole question of the regulations as they affect fire safety in buildings. Does the Minister intend to implement the recommendations to which I referred in Question No. 15. The tribunal recommended that a new offence be created and that the Fire Services Act be amended to ensure that management who failed to properly ensure that exit doors were kept free, unlocked and unobstructed, and remained free, unlocked and unobstructed, would be liable to prosecution.

Yes, they would be liable to prosecution and subject to a fine of £10,000 and/or two years in jail.

As I understand it, at present they are not liable to prosecution for this offence.

They are.

As I understand it, under the 1981 Act it is not an offence. There are no regulations in existence under section 37 which would make it an offence.

The penalties on conviction for a breach of section 82 of the Act, including the locking or obstruction of exit doors, are quite severe. The penalty for a conviction under section 18 is two years in jail and/or a £10,000 fine. As I indicated in my reply, if the existing legislation is found to be inadequate we will have a look at it again. One would consider two years in jail and/or a £10,000 fine a reasonably severe penalty. If it is not working we can look at it again.

I think the Minister said in his reply that it is not proposed to implement the recommendations in paragraph 9.170 of the tribunal of inquiry. If not, would the Minister state what responsibility he has in regard to the fire fighting and fire prevention services?

What question is the Deputy dealing with?

Question No. 16.

I have already indicated that it is unwise for central Government to interfere with the operations of local authorities and particularly the fire authorities. I have the greatest confidence in our fire services. We have excellent fire chiefs and excellent personnel. If, because something happens or does not happen, we in central Government are to rush in, interfere and point the finger at them, that would be bad for morale and it would disrupt a service which is giving a first-class account of itself.

I accept that we have excellent fire officers. Who is advising the Minister on fire matters? Has he excellent advice available to him?

Yes, I have.

In what form? Who advises him?

The Fire Services Council are excellent. As the Deputy is aware, they are a wide-ranging body and they advise me on any matter I want to be advised on.

Has the Minister any fire expertise within his own Department?

Yes.

Who advises him there?

There are three fire advisers in the Department.

Can the Minister say whether or not it is true that he fired a fire adviser yesterday, and suspended him without pay? If that is so, could he please explain to the House why he did this?

That is a separate question.

I do not intend to discuss any officer of my Department. It would be unfair to discuss that matter in this House. I am surprised that Deputy Molloy raised it.

Is there any connection between the Minister's firing of his principal fire adviser in his Department yesterday and the taking of these questions in the House today?

I resent and reject Deputy Molloy's question.

A final supplementary from Deputy De Rossa.

The Minister has not denied it.

We are dealing with nine questions which are very serious.

We have had about 15 supplementary questions.

We could have had them on one question if we had taken them separately.

You should not.

The Minister indicated in his reply that he was satisfied that the Fire Services Act at the moment allows for the prosecution of persons responsible for not ensuring the maintenance of unobstructed exits and so forth. The Stardust Tribunal in paragraph 9.170 indicated quite clearly that they were not satisfied that the Fire Services Act provided for that. They specifically requested an amendment to that Act requiring that management be made liable for situations where exits were obstructed or not maintained in an unlocked condition. Could the Minister indicate why he is claiming that the Act does allow for this, while the Stardust Tribunal specifically state that it does not?

I cannot give reasons for the tribunal's statements. All I can say is that under section 18 (2) of the Act there are——

Who is liable under section 18?

Those in charge of the place of public assembly.

The bouncers? Not the management?

The owners.

Again, that is a matter for the courts. Within the Fire Services Act there are provisions under section 18 (2), where doors are blocked or locked, to impose imprisonment of two years and fines——

Obviously, that does not cover management.

This is a deplorable situation. The Stardust Tribunal which sat at great cost——

We are not discussing the application of sections of an Act of Parliament.

We want the management of places like the Stardust to be made liable if their places are not kept in a safe condition. The Minister is waffling on about section 18 of the Fire Services Act.

We are now debating, not answering questions.

The Chair should not be coming to the rescue of the Minister.

The Chair is responsible.

They should be compelled to keep their exits free and unlocked. Would the Minister indicate whether he does or does not intend to amend the Fire Services Act, as recommended by the Stardust Tribunal?

I was not waffling. I indicated that under section 18 (2) facilities are provided. I am always prepared to look at the matter.

The Minister should have looked at it by now.

I am satisfied that there are provisions under that section.

The Government have been six months looking into the Building Control Bill.

I am not going to allow a three way or even a two way argument.

Is the Minister aware that in answer to Question No. 18 he is talking about the computerised centre and all these things are going to be in the future, four years after the Stardust disaster? Everything will happen next year or the year after. Is he aware that Cahal Garvey, chairman of the Fire Officers' Association, has predicted a major disaster in relation to the transport of chemicals and so forth through the city of Dublin and the country? Is he satisfied with his failure to centralise the information available to ensure that there are strong regulations and legal requirements to control the transport of goods and the operation of places of public access? Is he satisfied that what Cahal Garvey is saying is untrue or is there any grain of truth in it? What is the position? Do we face a major disaster or do we not?

That is the opinion of the fireman.

That is a very decent man whom you have just dismissed.

I am talking about the fire chief. Fire chiefs have a right to comment on what they believe in.

The Minister is looking into a looking glass.

We also have to look into the situation and we are doing so. As I indicated, there are provisions for a new central control room. The arrangements are on their way.

On their way?

I am moving on to the next question.

From outer space. The Minister should have come here to answer these questions on the fire services. It is he who has the responsibility there.

I have answered them.