I understand that Deputy B. Allen has been given permission to raise on the Adjournment presumably inadequate financial aid for that great city of Cork. Deputy Allen has until 5.20 p.m.
Adjournment Debate. - Cork Urban Development.
I am grateful for the opportunity of raising this matter again. I shall not reiterate the details of the history of this problem except to say that I raised this matter on the Adjournment of the House on 4 May. In reply that evening the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Connolly, said:
In the course of the discussion the Minister indicated that he was open to consider fully the needs and problems of Cork City and to that end he asked the Minister of State, Deputy Brady, who has special responsibility for urban affairs, to visit Cork and to assess the problems on the spot. The Minister also undertook to give favourable consideration to the needs of Cork in relation to the allocations which he hoped to make very shortly out of additional funds which have been made available for certain services in the recent budget, and also appropriate consideration to various projects which have been referred to in the course of the discussion.
The needs of Cork were set out clearly by the deputation who came to Dublin on 30 March last, of which I was a member, and have been placed on the record of this House in the course of the previous debate. Therefore I shall not waste time going into that matter again except to say that Cork Corporation looked for £2.9 million to fund existing deficits and maintain service levels in 1982, and that we consider that £2.9 million as pro rata with the allocation for Dublin. At that meeting with the Minister we were promised — and all shades of political opinion in Cork are adamant on this — a reply within six to seven days, a reply we did not receive. That was the reason I raised this matter originally in the House. Then the Minister of State, Deputy Connolly, indicated that the Minister of State, Deputy Brady, would be going to Cork and, from different statements made, the indications were that an announcement would have been made in Cork yesterday. I was quite surprised when I heard from Cork last evening that no announcement had been made except of an allocation for the Merchant's Quay development of between £100,000 and £150,000 as well as £132,000 for an itinerant site in the north-west part of the city, which had been forthcoming anyway.
I hope this evening we shall debate this matter in a proper manner because on the last occasion here the Minister of State, Deputy Connolly, referred to items not relevant to the subject under discussion. I might refer again to Minister Brady's visit to Cork and the expectations raised. My information is that at his press conference last evening he said he did not intend making a statement about a major financial allocation and that the indications were that there would be no Gregory-type deal for Cork city. Some of the points made by the Minister of State, Deputy Brady, last evening quite surprised the people present. He painted a very rosy picture of the housing situation in Cork, one quite at variance with the facts. The situation in regard to housing in Cork at present is that there are major difficulties being experienced in the number of starts this year and also it would appear there will be a major decrease in the number of completions.
Of course we know who was involved in that in the seven months that those people were in office.
Rome was not built in a day, neither are problems, and the problems now confronting us in Cork city——
The Party in office for 33 years out of 40 did very little.
The Party who were supposed to have had Cork at heart over the last 30 years——
They put them on the emigrant ship in the fifties and sixties.
If we are to talk about track records, one of the major problems that arose in Cork concerns the NBA Scheme at Mayfield where major remedial work needs to be carried out and to which we referred in our submission. We have been receiving piecemeal contributions towards that remedial work. We are now seeking an allocation that would make a major impact on this remedial programme.
I might revert to the statement made by the Minister of State, Deputy Brady, last evening to the effect that he would be anxious to have copies of the local plans made available to him. The situation is that Cork local plans, which are part of the land use and transportation scheme, have been lodged with the Department of the Environment for some years, with which any Minister in that Department should be familiar. My contention is that the Minister's journey to Cork was what might be described as a time-saving excercise, in order to win time for the Department and in an effort also to placate Cork Corporation. We have seen very little results from his visit. If the Minister this evening is unable to make any announcement in relation to the submission to his Department, then will he say whether his senior Minister will be in a position to do so shortly?
He will, if there is a by-election.
What I am afraid of is that, even if the intention was there some weeks ago, it has now evaporated because moneys must be ploughed into areas much more politically sensitive.
I do not want to reiterate what I said on the Adjournment Debate last time. But I must refer to figures made available in the last week in relation to unemployment in Cork. It is important that unemployment and the lack of infrastructural services be linked because the figures for Cork show something like 7,900 people now unemployed in the greater Cork region, which constitutes an increase of approximately 8 per cent since January last.
We have heard a lot of lip service about the problem of unemployment in Cork. There are two important factors in the approach to the problem. We have to create services, roads, bridges, the down river crossing, in order to make the infrastructure attractive enough to foreign industrialists. The evidence is that we are not attractive enough to industrialists and as soon as they come to see our setup the vast majority are discouraged and go elsewhere. If moneys are allocated to Cork for the provision of those services it will create employment in the Cork region. When we look at the figures for the construction industry in Cork we see that that sector is very badly hit. It would be a major boost to that industry if funds were made available. How long do I have?
The Deputy has 20 minutes. The Deputy appreciates that there is no obligation on him to speak at greater length than provides him an opportunity to reveal his thoughts without repetition.
It is important to link unemployment with the lack of services in the city. It is very difficult to provide services at low cost because of the geographical layout of the city. It is important that public representatives from all parties in the Cork region make their views known. I am glad to see that some Deputies have done so. I want to refute something that was said in the House on 6 May. It was said that when a deputation from Cork came to Dublin and when an offer was made of a visit to Cork by the Minister of State the deputation dithered. I am sure the Minister agrees that the deputation presented a very detailed statement of their hopes and aims and presented their case in a very workmanlike manner. The Minister stated that he was impressed. The Minister of State took over the proceedings for a while and when the deputation were asked for a date for the visit of the Minister of State to Cork the manager and the Lord Mayor, who are busy people, were not able to come up with a date immediately. They said they would get back within a few days. It is a grave injustice to the people who travelled to Dublin at great cost to infer that the deputation were disorganised, mismanaged and dithering.
I know the Minister of State has a special interest in the reconstruction of the inner cities. I ask him to impress on his Minister the urgency of the Cork situation. He has seen the Shandon Street, Blackpool, Blarney Street areas and he is now aware that those areas require aid immediately. Cork Corporation are implementing the Shandon local plan but the rate of progress in the implementation of the plan has been slowed down by lack of finance. I am not saying that has happened overnight. Although the co-operation of the people in the area has been good up to now, if funds are not injected into the area the plan could grind to a halt. The local people who have put so much effort into the plans for the area would like to see a realistic input from central Government. I hope the Minister of State will refer to the points I have raised. I could have gone into the pros and cons of other issues. The other Minister of State the last time did not stick to the relevant points and went into interest rates and so forth. I appeal to the Minister of State to stick to the subject under discussion this evening.
Dublin South-East): I welcome the opportunity to speak on this subject this evening. I am delighted it came before the House because it affords me an opportunity to set the record straight as far as my visit to Cork as Minister of State at the Department of the Environment with special responsibility for matters relating to urban affairs and inner city renewal are concerned. I absolutely reject the suggestion that there is any conflict between the statements the Deputy referred to. It is regrettable that he used this opportunity as a political football by making snide innuendos on such an important matter to gain some political advantage.
I was at the deputation to which the Deputy referred and I remember in detail what my brief was and why, as Minister of State, I travelled to Cork. I am sure the Deputy also realises that. Within a few days of being appointed as Minister of State I attended that deputation and I referred to an extract from the speech given by the Taoiseach on 26 March in the Metropole Hotel, Cork, in which he stated categorically that the new Minister of State for urban affairs would be charged with drawing up a nationwide programme for urban renewal. That is why I went to Cork. I went on a fact-finding mission, as a start. I intend to travel to as many cities and towns in the country as possible with the specific objective of endeavouring to draw up an order of priorities submitted to me by various corporations and district councils, to identify the problems in particular areas and report back to the Department of the Environment so that we will have a reference and will address ourselves to the problems which are in urgent need of solution.
In the limited time available to me I will go into as much detail as I possibly can relating to the Cork issue. The opening remarks of the city manager at the start of our tour of Cork city were to the effect that he realised that the problems in Cork were not of a similar size or magnitude as the dereliction and problems facing Dublin city. They are not my words but the words of the city manager, Mr. Joe McHugh in Cork. I realise that Cork, and every city and town in the country, is faced with problems of great magnitude, but I did not allow myself to be drawn into a situation of travelling to Cork to give any financial package. I deliberately mentioned that to the press and the factual record of what I said is contained in yesterday's edition of The Irish Times. In fact almost every word I said to the press when I arrived in Cork was reported in that newspaper. I reiterated those comments at a press conference yesterday. I requested the city manager, his officials and officials from my Department to attend that conference so that there would not be any ambiguity concerning the purpose of my visit to the city.
Those who choose to draw a different interpretation from my visit are misleading, deliberately or otherwise. The purpose of my visit to Cork and other towns and cities will be to see for myself what the problems are, to get a greater insight into the brief before me. I cannot do that any other way, Reports are very good but I am anxious to see what the situation is like for myself. The Department will be preparing a report directly related to urban affairs and urban renewal as I found them. I made that clear yesterday. If the Deputy is in any doubt about that, I suggest he speaks to the reporters who covered the press conference, the city manager or the Lord Mayor. I had dinner with the Lord Mayor and the city manager and we spent almost two and a half hours dealing with the problem. There was no doubt about the reason for my visit and to suggest I went there to deliver a financial bonanza is misleading the House. I resent that accusation. It is taking cheap advantage of the importance of urban renewal. Local authorities are responsible for the management and maintenance of rented estates. Under Fianna Fáil local authorities were permitted to use a proportion of the proceeds of the sale of their rented houses for such management and maintenance costs but the National Coalition withdrew that arrangement earlier this year. The Government changed that decision. I am sure the Deputy realises that that move means an extra £350,000 for Cork. The limitation of statutory demands for supplementary welfare brings more than £70,000 and those moves result in close on £500,000 for Cork.
I examined Mayfield, Glen and Togher and inner city schemes that were in progress. It is important that I give the House details of the figures in relation to housing. In the period since 1978 the allocation of capital to Cork Corporation for local authority housing increased at an exceptional rate, from £3.2 million in 1978 to an initial allocation of £12.5 million this year. This represents an increase of 300 per cent at a time when the total capital allocation for local authority housing has increased by 139 per cent. The figures speak for themselves. I have not attempted to present figures to suit myself. While in Cork I complimented the work being done in relation to inner city renewal and I viewed schemes at Shandon and Blackpool. The project at Blackpool is very commendable and the project at Blarney Street is an excellent example of inner city renewal. I went through the Marsh areas and walked around the inner city of Cork to see what was happening, but I did not go down with an open cheque for Cork. To say I did is a desperate effort to mislead the House.
On a point of order——
There cannot be a point of order during an Adjournment Debate. The Minister must be allowed to conclude.
(Dublin South-East): I met the deputation and gave them my reasons for going on a fact-finding mission. My reasons were accepted by the deputation and the city manager. Anybody who visits Cork frequently, as I do, realises the problems at Merchants Quay in relation to traffic congestion. Sums between £100,000 and £150,000 were allocated for that project. A sum of £132,000 was allocated for halting sites for itinerants. I was asked yesterday if that was all I was giving Cork and I replied that it was coincidental that those sums were now being made available to Cork. I pointed out that they could have been given next week or might have been made available last week. As the Deputy is aware money is continuously given to local authorities and it is not factual to state that £100,000 was given to Cork yesterday as a result of my visit.
The Deputy referred to the fact that I had not made any reference to the LUTS plan for Cork, but had he attended yesterday's press conference he would be aware that a considerable amount of time was spent discussing that plan. I would dearly like to see a plan of that type being implemented in all major cities and towns and I complimented the city manager for continuing to push that plan through. If the Deputy visits my office later we cantalk about Cork for as long as he wishes. My only regret is that I do not have sufficient time now to answer the slight he cast on my visit to Cork.
The Dáil adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 18 May 1982.