I would like to pay tribute to the Minister for the manner in which he spoke this morning. His speech clarifies the position to the satisfaction of the House. He has been a member of Dublin Corporation for many years and he knows the importance of the subject he is dealing with. I know, more than most Members of the House, as a member of Dublin Corporation, that the Minister of State made enormous efforts to bring about many of the improvements which are embodied in the Bill. I know that Deputy George Birmingham and others in Dublin Corporation were concerned that some action would be taken to expedite the necessary improvements in Dublin city.
I know that members of Dublin Corporation, like Dublin citizens, have been satisfied with the progress that has been made and that there was a demand from these citizens, Dublin Corporation, the Dáil and the Seanad that something should be done to improve the environment in which Dubliners are living. As the Bill clearly states, urban decay is not confined to Dublin. There is urban decay in Cork, Limerick and the larger towns throughout Ireland. It is clear from this Bill that it is the intention of the Government and of the House that there should be more speedy methods of dealing with derelict sites, litter and the decay which is overtaking our towns and cities. I believe that is the wish not only of the House but of all the people. As I have said before in this House, when we drive from Dublin Airport to the city with visitors we have to devise ways and means of avoiding Dorset Street, Gardiner Street and all the other areas that bring horror to people who love Dublin and who are proud of the traditions of this city.
The Minister said in his opening address that the problems of redevelopment and urban renewal in inner urban areas have not achieved the necessary results in areas of special need. This Bill is a very welcome approach to the problem and is a radical departure from the former approval to urban renewal. It is beyond my comprehension how any Member of this House can talk about the constitutionality of the Bill or even consider opposing it on spurious grounds. Deputy George Birmingham is displaying political expediency and opportunism. Fine Gael and the Labour Party requested amendments to legislation dealing with compulsory purchase orders. There were calls for amendments to the legislation that set up An Bord Pleanála and more speedy resolution of the bureaucratic process.
Deputy Birmingham spoke in cliches about the Bill being outrageous, unacceptable and being a radical departure. He spoke about James Joyce. We celebrate Joyce today in Dublin and in the rest of the country. I think if James Joyce were in this House today he would weep if he had heard Deputy Birmingham's speech. Deputy Birmingham had a completely negative and unhelpful approach to the problem. However, I am certain that the Minister, in relation to any amendments to this Bill, will be flexible in his attitude. He will try to ensure that there will be a speedy redevelopment of the inner city of Dublin, not only in housing, factories and employment but also in the environment.
I have heard many Deputies complain that at every opportunity we take power from ourselves and invest it in other institutions. We set up organisations like An Bord Pleanála and, while I appreciate that the members of that board have a very difficult task and have many hard decisions to make, I am not satisfied with the long delays that continue to impede development and progress. I am not sure the board is fulfilling the function for which it was intended. I regret that we seem to have a tendency in this House to shirk our own responsibilities in this area and on matters such as planning and development. This Bill goes a long way to at least restore some of the powers we have given away, so to speak, as elected public representatives.
The last speaker mentioned powers being returned to the Minister for the Environment. I see nothing wrong with that. I am quite satisfied with the integrity and motives of the Minister involved. It ill becomes a Deputy to cast aspersions on a Minister of State. If he has any indication that a decision has been made which is wrong and unworthy, he should bring it before the House. I am quite satisfied that politicians will, given the opportunity, fulfil their role honestly. They have done so. Successive Ministers have also done so, despite the fact that there may have been some controversy over some decisions they have made. I am pleased to see that this Bill seeks to bring back to the Minister and to the politicians the decision making process in regard to developments of the kind we are talking about.
We have shown deep concern over the years for inner city development and have found great difficulty in coming to grips with it because of the difficulties, delays and the length of time it takes to get compulsory purchase orders finally confirmed and which, when confirmed, may or may not be sent to the High Court or the Supreme Court. That process can take eight or nine years and is very unsatisfactory. We have seen the decay in the inner city, a city of which I am a native and which I love. We have seen the city centre falling apart, despite many noble efforts made by Dublin Corporation in areas like Meath Street where they have developed very beautiful town houses. One notices as one drives through The Liberties that there are no windows open for the simple reason that if they open windows they will be poisoned because of fumes from cars, lead poisoning and the dreadful pollution that exists. If people want to develop the inner city they must pay the price. It is reasonable and right that we should pay, but it is not reasonable that the people of Dublin city who are housed there should be subjected to the poisonous fumes of trucks and cars that pass their front doors. If we build these houses — and I think we should — we should also build by-roads and motorways to take the traffic away from these areas.
Deputy Birmingham referred to the difficulties politicians have in making decisions and so on. I want to refer him to his own colleagues in County Dublin who have rezoned many thousands of acres of land to the benefit of the people in the county, to the financial benefit of many people speculating in that area and at the moment there is no law against that.
Does he deny the rights of councillors in Dublin County Council to make decisions as the law stands? I think it is fair and reasonable that politicians should return to themselves the power to make decisions on development and decisions would be made far more quickly than by An Bord Pleanála. Much the same applies to all the other areas where we have for some reason thrown away the powers the people legitimately expect that we have vested in us. From attending to constituency problems at clinics we know that people have incredible notions about the powers of politicians but those powers are being diminished and taken from us by ourselves.
That is what this Bill is beginning to reverse and I welcome the proposals. We have seen the difficulties created for people living, for instance, in Glencullen or Kilternan on the outskirts of Dublin whose families have been living there for 500 or 600 years and who cannot get planning permission there because An Bord Pleanála think in terms of high amenity zones and, as far as I can see, have different standards for different areas and people. Yet we have the Treacy house which was built in Kilcullen totally out of character with the area, planning permission given by Dun Laoghaire Corporation and confirmed by An Bord Pleanála. The man who got that planning permission is a total stranger to the area. How can one justify that? If that was a political decision the person responsible for it would be open to question, investigation and examination but An Bord Pleanála is not open to investigation. This Bill seeks to remedy that situation and the Minister will be answerable to this House for the decisions he will make in this area and I support that. I am surprised that Deputy Birmingham does not.
The Bill seeks to achieve more community involvement in the area of inner city planning. I welcome this concept. All Members of the House have recently been urging that there should be community involvement and self-help in neighbourhoods. If the Bill provides for that it must be welcomed. We have a very serious problem that we have already dealt with in this session, the question of litter. Environmentally the urban Irish people are as blind as bats when it comes to litter. We have the urban scene with the plastic signs, the honky tonks, bingo halls and amusement arcades on the main street, in O'Connell Street. There are no by-laws, no legislation to deal with the standard of signposting or signs on shops and shop fronts. We have no standards and no regulations in this area particularly for places such as the main thoroughfare, O'Connell Street. It is quite embarrassing to go through O'Connell Street. I wonder if Dublin Corporation have ever made a count of the litter bins placed around O'Connell Street, not that I think it makes the slightest difference because Irish people have not become aware of their responsibility regarding litter and dumping of paper from fish and chip shops and whatever disposable paper they may have from whatever package they are carrying. The easiest thing is to drop it rather than place it in the bin if it happens to be on the other side of the street. In 1960 we got in a Danish design team to advise Irish designers on design in Ireland. It is time we looked at the whole business of serious urban development and renewal.
Deputy Birmingham devoted about half his contribution to the question of Dublin Port and Docks Board. It has a very serious responsibility in this area. It has land there and it is answerable to people as a semi-State organisation, answerable to Dublin people in particular and to the Irish people in general. This is a very serious responsibility. I have no idea why Deputy Birmingham expects the Government to move in to provide funds for Dublin Port and Docks Board for land that was legitimately owned anyway by the people of Dublin. If, over the years Dublin Port and Docks Board have not developed that site, so be it; the Government must do it. I welcome the fact that the Government plan to do this.
Another factor is the ludicrous signposting we have in Dublin. A stranger or even a native would have difficulty in trying to locate one area or another. For a stranger to get out of town whether he be from Cork or Donegal, from Liverpool or London, he would need a guide. What has Dublin Corporation or the Department of the Environment done about signposting? Next to the Spanish we must have the world's worst signposting. It is quite incredible as you discover when you go through Dublin city and find yourself driving down a one-way street because the signpost was pointing in the wrong direction — perhaps due to vandalism; I do not blame the Corporation or anybody else for that. Even if it is turned in the right direction it may be illegible or may not have been cleaned for years. The whole business of road works in Dublin city demands examination. They are now working on the quays, picking a bit here and there. Apparently they work from 8 o'clock to 4 o'clock and then go home and to hell with the commuters. Anybody who has to get through Dublin city in the rush hours — that is their problem.
I do not see why an agreement cannot be brought about involving trade unions, the corporation and the contractors involved in these areas to have shift workers working around the clock to ensure the minimum disruption by road works or development particularly in Dublin city and county. With all the unemployment we have and all the other difficulties it is a mystery that we should add to them by the inefficiency of our signposting, roadworks and so on. It is regrettable that more is not done in that area.
We have the old problem whereby the ESB dig up a road and where some days later perhaps Post Office workers move in to do whatever they have to do. Efforts have been made on many occasions to improve this situation. As far back as the sixties I recall Dublin County Council bringing together a committee composed of people from the Department of Local Government as it then was, people from Dublin Corporation and people from the Post Office, from the ESB and from the Gas Company in an effort to get some co-ordination in this area. But the situation has not changed and so we continue with the pollution of the environment and with the disastrous situation so far as Dublin city is concerned.
Deputy Birmingham has expressed major reservations about the Bill, but I would remind him that his leader, when Taoiseach, negotiated with Deputy Gregory and endeavoured to bring about precisely the same sort of legislation with the exception of a few minor differences. This massive U-turn on the part of Deputy FitzGerald was ignored almost totally by the media. My information is that Deputy FitzGerald, as leader of the socialist wing of Fine Gael, had no difficulties of the type mentioned by Deputy Birmingham in relation to the Bill. My information is that Deputy FitzGerald welcomed the proposals to which he is now objecting. Have Fine Gael seen the light or are they just playing the political expediency game in an effort to try to embarrass the Government? If that is what they are at, it is fine; but let them not pretend now that they are totally opposed to this Bill. Whom are we to believe? Have Fine Gael a new policy for each day?
Whatever may be our thoughts about British influence here down through the years, one of the legacies they left us and of which we can be proud is the parks around this city. It is fitting to take this opportunity of paying tribute to Dublin Corporation for the fine job they do in caring for those parks. The British had the Wide Street Act which gave us O'Connell Street but in our environmental blindness we destroyed O'Connell Street by the erection of neon and plastic signs, by the provision of honky tonk joints — places in which there are slot machines and so on — and of ice cream parlours. We did all this simply to destroy something that we inherited from the British. I am sure that the many thousands of Dubliners who stroll through St. Stephen's Green will join with me in my appreciation of such a beautiful park. There is great credit due to the parks department for the way in which they maintain the parks. But when one leaves the park in Mountjoy Square, for instance, one walks out into an area that might well have been hit by an atomic bomb. It is a disaster area.
I regret very much the decision, apparently irreversible, made by Dublin Corporation regarding the site for the new City Hall. From the point of view of the environment this was a disaster and I do not think that any re-jigging of that site will succeed in so far as saving that part of the city is concerned. Environmentally and aesthetically that area was of much value to this capital city. I appreciate that the corporation needed a new city hall and new offices. They had been spread all over the place, but the damage is done now in regard to where they decided to build.
The basic provision in section 4 is the imposition on the commission of a duty to secure the overall regeneration of its area and we are told that in this context the commission will have power to acquire, hold and manage land for development either by themselves or by others. Surely that provision cannot be objected to by anyone here. The type of spurious excuses we have had from speakers on the other side ill becomes politicians. I find unacceptable the suggestions that were made by the last speaker. I hope that he will realise that such suggestions are unbecoming of a politician. Perhaps Deputy Birmingham's mind is on other matters. In passing, I wish him well for his future married life, but I regret that he has seen fit to be so patronising here today. He made what was a sad speech because he tried to take personal political advantage at the expense of other honourable Members of the House on all sides. That is most regrettable.
The Minister indicated also that it may well happen that part of Cork County Borough and an area in Limerick city will be designated as urban development areas. I welcome that statement and I hope that this legislation will herald the end of urban decay and the beginning of a new era in urban renewal and development.
Perhaps on close examination those who have indicated opposition to the Bill will reconsider their position. The Bill may not be everything we would wish it to be; but it is a dynamic and positive start and the people of this city, together with the people of the country generally, should be very happy with the sincere and genuine effort that has been made to bring some resolution to the appalling decay of Dublin city. Many Deputies from rural areas complain about the condition of our roads, the air in Dublin city and the environment. They tell me that they look forward to returning to the rural areas so that they can breathe fresh air. Such things are part of the quality of life which Deputies from rural areas enjoy but which Deputies from urban areas, and their constituents, will never enjoy unless action of the type dealt with in the Bill is taken.
The Minister has given us an assurance that he will be looking at other cities such as Cork, Limerick and Galway in the light of experience gained in the operation of the terms of this legislation and for that reason there should not be any opposition to the Bill. I accept that the Minister will be practical in his approach. I hope the House will not have any hesitation in voting for this legislation. If faults are found with it in the coming year I expect that the Minister will return to the House seeking amendments to it. It should be given a chance so that we can make a start on the issue of the environment in urban Ireland and give people in our cities the break they need. It should be remembered that more people live in our cities than in rural areas. They have a right to a proper environment and fresh air. The towns and cities throughout Europe are kept spotlessly clean. In Spain, where roads are not developed in some areas, there is an environmental operation in all towns and villages. It is a pleasure to go through that country and see the condition of some villages that can only be approached by dirt-tracks. Those people take great pride in the appearance of their towns and villages.
If Dublin people are given the encouragement, leadership, and the incentive, they will respond. If they are given to understand that Members of this House, and public representatives on Dublin Corporation, care for them and are anxious to ensure that the city is improved, they will respond positively. Ultimately, we will have a city that we can all be proud of. We will then have people walking up and down Dorset Street for recreation purposes and not simply to get from one point to another and hope to get there in safety. People would then be able to walk up and down Sheriff Street, admire the houses and enjoy that part of their city once again. We could have small coffee shops, restaurants and bars. Dublin city could be brought back to life again. We should welcome this move by the Minister and I believe the people of the inner city will respond to it.
The Minister should be congratulated on bringing this Bill forward so quickly. I hope Members from Dublin city and county will not vote against it. I hope Members from other urban areas will not jeopardise its passage through the House or put their own political self interest before the intentions in the Bill. If they do they will never be forgiven by those who must live in this city.
