Urban Development Areas Bill, 1982: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Quinn

When we last discussed this Bill I put on record the reservations of the Labour Party about the implications of this kind of legislation for urban renewal and development here. I am anxious to make one final substantive point before I conclude my contribution. The principled objection that the Labour Party have to the canonisation of this political deal between Deputy Gregory and Deputy Haughey — that is precisely what it is — is that in the process in the canonisation, in the making of a Taoiseach, we have been dragged down the path of introducing a piece of legislation that will reverse the process of local democratic control and independent nonpolitical control of planning permissions. We are all wise and mature enough at this stage to recognise how detrimental and retrograde that step is. I offer to the Minister of State the olive branch of reconsideration, that perhaps in the haste to meet the constraints of the political wheeling and dealing that went on the Bill was drafted too quickly. It was certainly drafted a lot faster than most of the legislation that comes from the Custom House. I am prepared to accept in return for the speed that the legislation was produced that there are deficiencies in it. In the spirit in which I am making that comment the Minister on Committee Stage should consider looking at that fundamental process.

I am specifically referring to the two options. One gives the Minister, by right, the power to designate any part of any urban area a redevelopment area and therefore take it out totally of the planning process. The second element enables the Minister to be the final voice of appeal in determining that planning conditions should be attached to proposed development. They are the two principle points that I should like the Minister, and his adviser, to deal with in their reply. I should like to give them advance notice of the fact that the Labour Party will be tabling amendments along those lines in the event of the Government not sharing my view on the points I have made.

The substantive point of my contribution today is the way in which an efficient publicly owned and well represented section of the public economy, that sector of the economy that comes in for great abuse and is subjected to great attack from those who believe in the private enterprise system, will be asset stripped. It is now proposed to asset strip a profit-making efficient public enterprise by virtue of section 8. Leaving aside the morality involved in that, I want, on behalf of the public sector to defend the efficient sections of the public sector, and we have many of them.

Journalists and financial commentators seem to think that by virtue of the fact that an enterprise is publicly owned it is therefore congenitally inefficient and that there is some automatic link between public ownership and inefficiency on the one hand and some divine link between private ownership and efficiency on the other hand.

Section 8 will enable the Minister for the Environment, and the Minister for Transport, to effectively hijack from the Dublin Port and Docks Board a massive asset which they have had for many years. That in itself is reprehensible, but what is far more reprehensible is the fact that the Dublin Port and Docks Board have embarked upon a capital expansion programme essential to the economic function of Dublin port and with the consent of a Minister for Transport, Deputy Reynolds, to the value of approximately £10.5 million. They are borrowing capital, with the consent of the Minister, as they must do legally, on the collateral of the value of their site which is the subject of section 8.

That is a complete reversal of the consultations that took place between the Department of Transport and representatives of the Dublin Port and Docks Board. I must stress that the Dublin Port and Docks Board is an efficient publicly owned and managed enterprise upon which the entire region of Dublin depends. It is the largest single deep sea port on the east coast and is the major port through which manufacturing industry in the Dublin region, which constitutes the bulk of industry in the country, depends.

The gravity of this political deal is such that if section 8 goes through in the way that it is capable of going through we are putting at risk in order to save the job of one person, the Taoiseach, the jobs of 1,400 people who work directly with the Dublin Port and Docks Board and the many other people who derive a livelihood from the activities of the port. I want clarification from the Minister of State on this. I want to know what consultations prior to or during the drafting of this legislation took place between the Departments of Transport and the Environment in regard to section 8. I should like to know the official opinion of the Minister for Transport in relation to his assessment of the potential value of the site. In the event of the Minister for Transport conceding totally the site to the Department of the Environment, and the commission, I should like to know what replacement moneys will be made available to the Dublin Port and Docks Board, on what terms and how that money will be raised. This is the bottom line of this kind of political dealing. Various estimates and values have been put on the site of the Dublin Port and Docks Board. The critical thing is that the board has a capital programme of £10.5 million set against an annual turnover of £15 million. That kind of ratio of development to their current income is extremely high and leaves the board very exposed. Any shortfall in the type of moneys they have reasonably anticipated, with the consent of a Fianna Fáil Minister for Transport, will seriously jeopardise the economic, effective and efficient functioning of this enterprise which employs many Dublin people generally and many people in the constituency which I represent. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs represents the same constituency.

I should like to read into the record a statement issued by the Dublin Port and Docks Board, dated 11 June last. The following is the statement:

A special meeting of the Dublin Port and Docks Board to-day decided to seek an emergency meeting with the Minister for Transport to state their position with regard to Sec. 8 of the Urban Development Areas Bill 1982, which is scheduled to have its second reading in the Dáil next week. The Bill proposes to take possession of 27 acres of the Board's property at Custom House Docks.

Section 8 of the Bill gives considerable reason to believe that the compensation in respect of the land may fall well short of reasonable market value and, consequently, the Board wishes to state its position.

(1) The Board is a statutory authority providing a vital service to the country and to the Dublin region in particular, without which the economic activity which eventually depends upon imports and exports would be seriously damaged.

(2) In the event of reasonable market value not being obtained by the Board for the area in question the Board will be subsidising the Government in financing the necessary urban re-development proposed in the Bill.

(3) It does not appear that in drafting the Bill, any thought was given to the consequences, not only for the Board and the port but for the community at large, of what is in effect a legalised hi-jacking of the Board's assets, an action which is but one step removed from impounding the Board's cash resources.

(4) The money required to finance the Board's current capital development programme has been borrowed from the Commercial Banks with the consent of the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Finance, obtained some three years ago.

(5) When these funds were being borrowed it was made clear to the Government Departments and the Banks involved that the repayment of the major portion of these loans would be effected in due course when the Custom House Docks site was disposed of. The Government Departments involved clearly understood, approved of and encouraged the development programmes and the financial arrangements proposed at that time. The development programmes are now well advanced and have not required new reclamation. These programmes have been adopted and approved by Government and enshrined in many statements by Government Ministers. Speaking at a public function on February 12th, 1981, the then Minister for Transport described the Port Board's investment of £5.25 million in development works in that year as a necessary part of the £8.4 million being invested by Port Authorities in harbour facilities.

(6) An Taoiseach in Dáil Éireann on 25th March 1982 recognised that Dr. FitzGerald's Government has proposed to acquire the Custom House Docks by agreement, but that Government went out of office before effect could be given to this decision.

(7) Since the cost of providing, maintaining and developing port facilities (including warehouses) is borne by port users, the question arises as to whether port assets thus provided under statutory provisions can to all intents and purposes be confiscated without at least a full reimbursement for the benefit of such port users of the value of such assets.

(8) If the Custom House Docks does not realise its full market value the Board would have to obtain substantial additional revenue to meet its capital programme. Failure to obtain this revenue would jeopardize the viability of the Board's activities and endanger employment in the port. Port charges on the other hand cannot be increased to the level required to provide this revenue, without reducing the competitiveness of the port with resultant loss of trade and employment.

(9) It is essential that the port facilities at Dublin be developed in accordance with programmes of economic expansion and in anticipation of the growth of activity expected as the current recession comes to an end. As a result the Port of Dublin is in the midst of a capital development programme designed to ensure that the facilities offered will be appropriate to service the import and export trade anticipated up to the end of the present decade.

(10) The Board is charged with paying its own way for both day-to-day operations and for its capital development and as a result it trades without subsidy. It charges its customers, and importers and exporters, for services provided in relation to their goods and makes charges also on the ships which enter the port.

(11) Dublin port provides these services in competition with other ports in Ireland, many of which have obtained substantial grants from the Government. The port is also in competition with the ports of Northern Ireland where capital development projects have access to substantial EEC Regional Development Fund grants not available in Dublin. However, Dublin Port and Docks Board has always been mindful of the less welcome consequences of dependence on such sources for financing its capital programmes and has accordingly managed its undertaking, its estate and its assets with the objective of retaining its financial independence; this independence has hitherto been welcomed by successive governments not only as fulfilling the Board's obligations to pay its way but as reducing also the burden on central funds created by other public bodies and semi-state organisations which cannot survive without substantial State assistance.

In the parlance of official statements from semi-State bodies or public agencies, that is a strongly worded statement which can in its content refer to a description of section 8 as legalised hi-jacking of the board's assets. A board representing the various sections such as are represented on that board, including the CII and the other major trading interests, do not use that kind of language loosely and certainly cannot have attached to themselves the description of being either revolutionary or radical. Therefore, their concern is very real and it is the responsibility of the Government to answer it in this House. I would add to the comments that I have made in relation to the Dublin Port and Docks Board that they got very little joy and much intimidation when they met the Minister for Transport to voice their concern regarding this proposal.

I conclude the points I want to make in relation to this by saying that the way in which this can be dealt with is that section 8 could simply be removed and that the process of compensation for Dublin Port and Docks Board should be similar to that which would be effected in relation to Viking Dublin or medieval Dublin — in other words that it come in under the normal process of compulsory acquisition and that the process of arbitration be the avenue down which both sides will travel in order to arrive at an agreed price. The simplest legislative way that we can do that is to delete section 8 and allow the acquisition of the Port and Docks Board site of 27 acres to proceed in the normal fashion. Lest anybody try to argue that that would delay unnecessarily the provision of housing and development in the site, the Minister will be well aware that there is no impediment to the acquisition of the site going ahead and the process of arbitration carrying on separately and parallel with it. Both things can happen simultaneously. Therefore, the proposal to delete secton 8 would not impede or hold up the essential development of the 27 acres.

Let the House be under no illusion, the Port and Docks Board do not themselves require this land for essential port activities. They initiated the process of redevelopment which brought about its emergence as a political carrot or stick, depending on your point of view, in the last election. Therefore, its development is essential to the inner city of Dublin on the north side of the River Liffey and a realisation of a substantial portion of its value is a key component in the financing of the board's capital programme.

As far as the Labour Party are concerned, and we confirmed this after a meeting we had with a deputation from the Port and Docks Board people yesterday, we are fully in favour of the provision of houses and overall development on the north side of the Liffey in a way that the Port and Docks Board themselves were not in favour of it when they produced a document to which I referred on the last occasion we were speaking in this House on this matter. However, we are not in favour of robbing Peter to pay Paul or to provide houses for people who are now about to be made jobless as a result of this kind of crazy intervention or planning. Therefore, we must have a balanced approach between the two.

In legal and legislative terms I suggest to the Minister that the most effective way of doing this is to delete section 8 of this Bill to allow the board to take their chances, which is all they want, in the normal process of arbitration and compensation, and that the rest of the provisions of the Bill in relation to the redevelopment of the 27-acre site would proceed. I ask the Minister — because I know he wants to get this legislation through before this House and the other House rise this summer — to consider this proposal seriously. One way or another having regard to the way in which this Government operate, if you do not give the money in this way to the Port and Docks Board people you must give it the other way because we are in the business of buying off or keeping quiet — or whatever form of massage or stroking is appropriate to the political survival of the Cabinet of the day — people who exercise clout, votes and essential economic muscle. As someone who represents a constituency with a large number of people directly employed in the port or alternatively deriving their secure jobs from the extension of port activities, I can say that the port is an essential component not just in my constituency or Deputy Gregory-Independent's constituency but to the entire region of Dublin city and it has embarked upon a capital programme which is an essential part of modernisation in order to maintain its efficiency.

Finally, I consider it to be an unfair and intellectually dishonest attempt to undermine the economic viability of a publicly-owned enterprise and therefore give yet further false witness to the often-repeated lie that somehow our other public enterprise is inefficient and that the State cannot manage its own resources. This is an excellent example, along with other companies like Irish Shipping, of sound, effective, efficient management of a public enterprise. The Labour Party will not stand by and allow it to be raided or hijacked, to use the phraseology that they themselves use.

I have made all the comments I wish to make and have, perhaps, repeated myself to the boredom or annoyance of some Members. For that I apologise but I feel strongly about this legislation. The Minister should seriously consider the points made, in particular the reversal of the process of decentralised control of areas of our country and the re-emergence of that beast we thought we had killed — the ministerial appeal, the worst monument to which is Tully's tower on the bridge in Donnybrook. There is an ominous ring in the section which allows the Minister to decide by order to declare the centre of Waterford, a portion of Clonmel or back alleys in Limerick as urban development areas, over the heads of the people directly concerned. This is the remnant of colonial centralism bedded in the vault of the Custom House coming to the surface again and the Labour Party will continue to combat it.

I recognise that Dublin inner city must be revitalised and the Labour Party are fully in favour of that revitalisation. This Bill will not give to the Government any more powers essential to that revitalisation than they already have and will not give them the powers that will make that revitalisation effective and instant. If we had on the Statute Book the Labour Party Bill dealing with the control of urban building land prices the Government's dilemma over section 7 and section 8 would not arise with regard to the Dublin Port and Docks Board site because the land would be valued on the existing use and not the potential value for office blocks and residential sites. There is no suggestion that the Government will move down that avenue without the pushing and shoving of the Labour Party and other Members.

The other instrument which the Government have to hand but are refusing to use is our most successful state enterprise in terms of economic performance and efficiency. I refer to the 97 per cent State-owned Irish Life Assurance Company who have the necessary expertise, track record and resources from the pension funds, which are the monument to labour movement victories over the past 50 years, to redevelop Dublin City. The power is there but what is painfully absent is the political will. The only political will which is evident in this Bill is the desire to stay in the Cabinet of this Government at the expensive cost of buying the vote of one Member.

Mr. Corr

In common with other speakers in this debate, I am pleased to see the appointment of a Minister of State with responsibility for urban affairs and I hope we will now set about evolving a national urban policy designed to cater for the problems of existing urban centres and provide guidelines for the development of new growth centres throughout the county.

Since the sixties not only has our population increased but the balance of the population has shifted from rural to urban. The process of urbanisation has a long way to go as the proportion of the rural-based population — in particular, the ratio engaged in agriculture — is relatively high compared with other EEC countries. Our social composition is closer to that of Spain, Portugal and Greece than to that of our more developed EEC partners. This pattern is changing and we should be engaged in considering the suitability of our local government structures to the changing social pattern. A White Paper on local government published over a decade ago stated:

All institutions must change with changing circumstances. Local government cannot be an exception to this if it is to continue to serve the purpose for which it exists and if it is to be able to cope with future demands.

It went on to state:

The basic structure, however, is still influenced by the 19th century legislation and some of the main local government units have survived in more or less their present shape for centuries. Moreover, since the foundation of the State there has never been a review of the local government system as a whole.

This Bill does nothing to promote local government; rather it is a move towards increased control from the centre.

I dislike unnecessary centralism and believe we should be constantly endeavouring to promote more local government and not just local administration. I sometimes conclude that successive Governments have shown less faith in the concept of local democracy than the Tory Government in 1898.

We need a radical restructuring of our local government units to enable them to deal with the problems of physical growth, housing, education, transportation and a host of other activities that affect the daily lives of our people.

This Bill is to be welcomed in so far as it contains laudable proposals for the overall regeneration of severely blighted inner city areas. I have strong reservations about the Bill in so far as it includes the concept of bureaucratic commissions, answerable for their activities not to the local authority but to the Minister only and having wide powers to acquire, hold and dispose of land, to build without obtaining planning permission from the local authority and to provide for the remission, in whole or in part, of the rates leviable in respect of premises within their functional areas.

Buchanan, in his regional studies published in 1968, suggested the establishment of development corporations as being the appropriate method for the development of growing urban areas. That recommendation was rightly rejected by the Government of the day. Development corporations have been used in Britain for the new towns and they have been reasonably effective in getting things done, not least in the short term. However, the main criticism of development corporations or commissions as contained in this Bill is that they are undemocratic and that can mean that in the course of their work they are insufficiently responsive to community needs and consequently mistakes can be perpetuated.

The work of securing the overall regeneration of inner city areas properly belongs to the democratically elected authorities and to impose a bureaucratic commission seems to me to be ill judged unless there is proof that the local authorities have failed to fulfil their obligations. Such commissions will be resented by the elected representatives and above all they will add to the cost of government in so far as it will be necessary to create another administrative structure which will further increase the overall cost of government. This is being proposed at a time when public funds for administration should be strictly controlled and such funds as are available used for the production of goods and services that we can sell at home and abroad.

The corporations of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford have all the professional and administrative expertise necessary to engage in a vigorous programme of inner city renewal and all they need are the funds to proceed with the job. This Bill is a reaction to the failure of Dublin Corporation to date to tackle on an ongoing basis the problem of dereliction and this failure resulted in an accumulation of blight and decay which is now so evident that it is regarded as a crisis situation. Dublin Corporation, on the other hand, would point out that they did not have funds or powers to engage in the kind of worthwhile activities which the Bill before us proposes for the development commission.

I readily admit that dereliction may be encouraged by failure on the part of a local authority to make firm decisions with regard to the location and width of new roads but the Department of the Environment must also take some of the blame for the present accumulation of dereliction in our cities in so far as they did not allocate funds in accordance with the needs of an area but rather in accordance with some administratively convenient national formula. At this stage, it might be simplistic to lay the blame for extensive urban blight at the feet of any one agency. Powerful economic forces have been at work in promoting urban sprawl and the dispersal of inner city activities over the last 20 years.

The problem of the inner city is not an Irish problem as the Minister said. Cities throughout the world are experiencing the same problem and are pursuing similar strategies to combat dereliction. Urban trends since the sixties have been such that the central business districts have a steadily decreasing importance with suburban shopping centres taking an increasingly large share of retail distribution. Similarly an increasing share of manufacturing units have been located in suburban industrial estates and many office functions have been dispersed from the city centre. Perhaps this trend will continue until we take a positive decision to restrict the expansion of our major urban centres and perhaps in this way the inner city will recover some of the attractions it has lost.

Dereliction has become so widespread that action rather than words is required. In this context, the Bill is welcomed. In section 6 the Bill states that an urban development commission may be required to prepare a planning scheme for its functional area. I suggest that such schemes are or should be already in existence since each local authority are required by law to work in accordance with an approved development plan, a plan which must be thoroughly examined, amended and revised if necessary every five years. In Cork city not only have we a development plan for the entire area under the jurisdiction of the corporation but also a series of detailed local plans, including one for the inner city area. I understand that when the Minister of State was in Cork he saw some of these plans and showed special interest in the one for the Shandon area, one of the oldest parts of the inner city.

I ask the Minister to think again about the feasibility of introducing bureaucratic commissions and, if necessary, to direct the corporations of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford to engage in vigorous programmes of inner city renewal and give to these democratically elected bodies all the powers proposed in the Bill for the revitalisation of inner city areas.

Section 12 is worth noting. It exempts developments in inner city areas from planning permission. This is important because appeals, sometimes of a vexatious nature, against planning permissions granted and long delays on the part of An Bord Pleanála in hearing such appeals have caused some developers to abandon projects which would have contributed to inner city renewal. Also the proposal to introduce a system of taxation on derelict sites to discourage the hoarding of property for profit is to be welcomed. We can all point to eyesores in our cities arising from the greed of speculators. The Bill contains many good proposals but I would prefer if it was operated by the local authority rather than by a bureaucratic body which would not be answerable to the local population. I ask the Minister not to impose a commission when the Bill is passed until such time as there is positive proof that the local authorities fail to fulfil their duty in the area of inner city renewal.

Mr. Kemmy

The plan for the redevelopment of Dublin has caught the attention of many people not only in Dublin but throughout the country. It is laudable to develop the inner city of Dublin but one could say equally that it would be laudable to have schemes to redevelop the inner cities of Cork, Limerick, Waterford and Galway and indeed most towns. We all agree that Dublin is crying out for development in the inner city. There is good need for a comprehensive urban renewal plan but the same can be said for other cities. Nobody begrudges Dublin its right to inner city development but we should not put all our eggs in one basket. It should not proceed to the exclusion of Limerick or Cork redevelopment. This seems to be what is happening. At a time when resources and finance are limited and the economy is on the rocks, it is wrong that long-term development should take place in Dublin and that other parts of the country should be denuded of similar type work. There are other schemes which are equally laudable and vital which should be carried out in cities besides Dublin.

If one travels through the country one will see slums, ruins and derelict buildings which disfigure cities and towns. This is not just confined to Dublin. One's first impression of a city or town is often a lasting one and it can often be formed by a visit to the central area. If one goes to the centre city areas of Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway or Waterford one will find the whole area pockmarked with ruins. Sometimes they are turned into car parks but that is not very satisfactory. There is need for a national comprehensive scheme which will embrace all cities and not just one at any one time.

There are great difficulties for local authorities in tackling urban blight and decay and I agree with the previous speaker that they are the best people to engage in this work. I am against setting up commissions. They cannot do anything but increase bureaucracy. Local authorities are geared to this kind of work. I have been alarmed by some recent decisions of An Bord Pleanála in relation to development in certain areas, especially historical ones. The best people to plan the development of a city or town are the local people who know the environment, the historical nature of the area and character of the buildings. Some decisions made by An Bord Pleanála have been insensitive to say the least.

It is important that the essential character of a city or town be preserved. Otherwise one could imagine oneself living in a concrete new town in Great Britain or America unless the buildings forming the main character of a city are preserved and cherished. Certainly some decisions taken have not been in the best interests of proper urban renewal. Some development has been garish, incongrous, has not been in line, in character or in harmony with the essential nature of some of the historic parts of our cities. Anybody with any aesthetic appreciation of buildings would be appalled at some of the honky-tonk developments that have taken place in our towns and cities. I wonder what kind of criteria are adopted by our planners or from what kinds of colleges they graduate. Their work appears at times to be totally out of line with An Bord Pleanála decisions and those of local authorities. One would imagine that there could be a similar criterion or yardstick adopted for good sensible development in our cities and towns.

It is wrong that at times a faceless body like An Bord Pleanála can overrule decisions of a local authority, certainly in relation to historical areas and the essential character of our cities. It is important that such development be sensibly carried out, that the buildings be properly designed and that the materials used harmonise with those of existing buildings in the area. Otherwise we shall be leaving our people a legacy of bad buildings.

It has been said that as a people we lack visual appreciation. That is true in relation to our buildings. Many of our architects merely copy the design of buildings in Britain or on the European mainland, showing very little individual flair or initiative in developing an Irish architectural tradition in building. I have been appalled at some of the hand-me-down designs that have disfigured our cities and towns. In this area there is need for greater co-operation between local authorities and An Bord Pleanála to ensure that future building here is of the highest possible standard. I am in favour of giving maximum power to local authorities to acquire building land in centre city areas. Private property is respected in our Constitution and our laws. But, in the past, it has been almost canonised; we have tended to be in awe of it. Indeed even in our courts private property has been held to be superior to the common good, to the rights of the community, to those of our people to housing. Private property should not be sacrosanct.

Where private property has been lying derelict and neglected, local authorities should have the power to intervene. They should have the power to take such property from landlords, be they absentee landlords or others living here so that they can be developed or sold for proper development. It is wrong to throw our hands in the air and say: we cannot do anything about these derelict buildings or sites, they are owned by people and it is their right to hold these sites for years. Sometimes they appreciate enormously in value and people make millions of pounds by merely holding on to them or when they are rezoned. That is no longer good enough. We have at present urgent need of jobs and housing for our people. Therefore it is totally wrong that somebody can acquire a site, hold on to it, allow it to appreciate in value and then develop it for some purpose not in line with or in harmony with the needs of our society.

Compulsory purchase orders are much too convoluted and unwieldy. There is no need for this long drawn-out process. Local authorities should have power to step in, take over property and use it in the interests of the community rather than leaving it in the hands of private developers. I marvel at the speed and efficiency of some continental countries in tackling such matters whereas we just drift along, hoping that somebody will come along and develop these sites.

I have had meetings in private and in public with the Minister of State, Mr. Brady, in regard to these questions. I was a member of a Limerick Corporation deputation to him. Indeed sometimes I felt it was like going to the goat's house for wool in terms of seeking capital allocations for development in Limerick. While the Minister showed a very keen appreciation of our needs, went down as an individual himself and sent down one of his officials, Mr. Hehir, to see us, and while I was impressed by the courteous way in which he dealt with us, at the same time I had the feeling that perhaps sometimes Ministers of State are given the dirty jobs to perform. Certainly the most glamorous and effective tasks are undertaken by the Minister of State, Mr. Brady, has been given the worst end of the stick in this respect, being sent around the country to places like Limerick to see slums, derelict sites and so on, meeting local corporation and city councillors, talk to them and hear of their needs with regard to planning and development. Yet, at the end of the day, when one asks about money to do something about such plans, all he can do is send his report back to his boss or to the Taoiseach.

That is not good enough. It reminds me of social workers sent out front by health boards to areas where there is dire poverty and difficulty being experienced without having the wherewithal to solve such problems but rather dishing out palliatives like pieces of sticking plaster to people dying of cancer. It is the same thing with regard to our cities; they are dying also. It is not sufficient just to send down a Minister of State without his being given the power and back-up to resolve the problems he encounters or carry out his ideas. It is an abuse of a junior Minister's time, merely using him to take the flak. The Minister proper should at least hand down authority to his junior Minister to have necessary remedial schemes carried out.

The Minister has seen the need for development in Limerick. Some work has been done in an historic part called Thomond Gate, a model-type development not quite finished. The two most important parts of the city are the old walled parts, the Irishtown and Englishtown, which are crying out for urban renewal. Nothing much, apart from one small scheme, has been done at King's Island, the Englishtown part of the city. There has been some development there but, because of some difficulties encountered about an inner ring road, nothing has happened for some time. There is now no money available for that development. Similarly the John's Gate part of the Irishtown area has been neglected for decades and has now become a large encampment for itinerants. That is what happens when areas are left neglected for decades. I hope the Minister will address himself to these problems when he meets Limerick Corporation in the near future.

During European Architectural Heritage Year we made a spurt, at least there was great paper interest shown in the need to plan our cities and town properly, when various deputations went to different capitals of Europe to see what had been done there. But alas it was a typical Irish effort, a short spurt for a while, paying lip service to the whole idea of our architectural heritage, the preservation of the character of our main cities and towns but afterwards lapsing back.

Even in the midst of an economic recession, if we are to survive as a people, it is important that the highest architectural standards be preserved in terms of our usage of quality materials, design and buildings. In this connection I might say that I am very disappointed at the quality of brickwork. It appears that sometimes bricks have been imported here, which is just not good enough at a time of economic difficulty within that industry. The fact that some bricks are being imported here from Great Britain is an indictment of our brick manufacturers, an inference that they cannot now manufacture bricks which will compete with their foreign counterparts. There is no reason also that bricks cannot be more widely used in buildings in our main cities. There is great need for more co-operation between the Minister, his Department and Irish brick manufacturers to ensure the manufacture and usage of good quality bricks. In this connection perhaps the Minister might ensure the liaison activities of the Industrial Development Authority and those of his Department. Some of the factories at present being built by the IDA are very nondescript in design. There is no reason why we cannot have functional buildings of good design or that brickwork cannot be incorporated in them. When I see this lopsided development on the part of State agencies I cannot but wonder how serious we are about good design and the use of Irish products.

One cannot push urban renewal on to one narrowly drawing board activity. There is need to influence a variety of Departments, especially those of the Environment, Health and Social Welfare and also to ensure co-ordination between the various Government Departments and local authorities. I am not in favour of the establishment of commissions. We already have the lines of communication between the Department and local authorities. We need to give more power and influence to local authorities, above all to short-circuit the whole routine of acquiring sites and purchase orders and to streamline that legislation to enable local authorities to acquire land and carry out development as quickly as possible.

Mr. B. Allen

The last two speakers outlined very well the problems which urban areas face. I do not want to go into the details too much at this stage. Deputy Corr said that because of economic pressures there is a continuous drift from rural areas to urban areas. I can only speak from my Cork experience. The problem of urban renewal in Cork city is a major one.

My first reaction to the Bill is that it is really a vehicle to implement part of the infamous deal of last March. That has been said already by other speakers so I will not dwell too much on that. This Bill has been drafted for political expediency. I back up that statement from some of my experiences in Cork. I have been a member of Cork Corporation since 1979. Before that time Cork Corporation drafted the land use and transportation study. Part of that plan was to revitalise some of the older parts of Cork city. During the first one and a half years of the tenure of the present Cork Corporation we drafted a number of local plans. We dealt first of all with the Shandon area. We hope by this plan to revitalise areas which have become derelict; we hope to attract new industries suitable for the area and we hope money will be made available to implement this and other plans.

During the past year Cork Corporation have attempted to obtain money to implement part of this plan but to date we have had very little success. I know the Minister is very familiar with the approaches made to his office by Cork Corporation in the last few months for further finance. Some of this money is required for the implementation of some of the matters in the local plans. We have had very little response from the Minister.

The Minister is on record as saying in the House last week that one project, which is a major influence on the implementation of the Shandon and Blackpool plans, cannot expect finance from his Department. This is the implementation of part of the northern ring road, the Valley Drive Road, which is adjacent to the Shandon and Blackpool areas. Unless this development gets the finance that is required, the attempt to implement the Shandon and Blackpool plans will be seriously affected. The credibility of Cork Corporation will be seriously impaired in the eyes of the public if we cannot proceed with this project.

The Minister came to Cork at the end of April and he spent two days visiting the areas which are badly affected by derelict sites. He said he did not come to bring finance to the city but to survey the problems and that he would then consider what steps were required. I do not see any hope in the Bill for immediate aid to the areas of Cork city I am interested in. I see that any money which may be available for urban renewal will be ploughed into the Dublin areas. I have to protest at that. I would like to take this opportunity to invite the Minister to tell the House his first impressions of his visit to Cork and what he intends to do this year for Cork city in relation to urban renewal. I said in the House some weeks ago that Cork were greatly insulted by the treatement they are getting from the Department of the Environment. I repeat that now. Cork are insulted at the treatment they have got.

Mr Brady

(Dublin South-East): On a point of order, the Deputy said I insulted Cork city. The city manager subsequently disagreed with the Deputy. There is no point in the Deputy trying to change what he has said.

Mr. B. Allen

The city manager is entitled to his opinion the same as I am.

Mr. Brady

(Dublin South-East): He telephoned my office.

Mr. B. Allen

The city manager may have telephoned the Minister' office but I am saying again that the people of Cork are insulted at the treatment they are getting from the present administration. The people of Cork will ultimately have their say. Much lip service has been given in the Bill to the powers of local government and the way those powers have been diminished over the past few years. I look on the Bill as a further diminution of the powers of local government. Some of the functions and activities of the commission, which is to be set up, will overlap the functions of local authorities. This cannot be welcomed at a time when local authorities are crying out for finance. Local authorities who have plans for urban areas do not require another layer of bureaucracy. They require finance to implement those plans. Instead of going through time-wasting, money-wasting exercises, I submit that local authorities should be given the powers they do not have at present to implement the plans and also the finance. The plans cannot be implemented without finance. I disagree with the Bill. I feel it is unnecessary. As I said at the outset it is only a vehicle to implement a deal that was made in March for political reasons.

We came, representing Cork Corporation, to the Minister's Department some time ago and we were given the impression that his Department would make a realistic response to our submissions. To date, some allocations have been made in the area of housing and roads, but, while the allocation for roads is welcome, it gives another indication of how the powers and rights of local government have been eroded. Even though an allocation was made, the money was specified for a purpose and Cork Corporation had no choice in how to spend it. In future, if moneys are made available to local authorities they should be given the power to spend the money as they think fit. I should like the Minister to answer some of the questions I have asked. I shall repeat one — when is he going to make moneys available to Cork city to implement local schemes for urban renewal?

Mr. Brady

(Dublin North-Central): I wish to congratulate the Government and compliment the Minister on introducing legislation, which was very badly needed, in the area of developing the inner city of Dublin. It has been clear to all concerned that the inner city of Dublin has had many problems over a long number of years. The Minister referred to crime and bad housing and this Bill will go some way towards relieving these problems. The problems are common in many cities, not just in Dublin, and many speakers have made this point, especially in relation to Cork city.

As far as urban development is concerned, the Government are showing their concern in a very constructive and concrete way for the inner city problems. In 1978 the Fianna Fáil Government established an inter-departmental committee to report and make recommendations to deal with the very bad problems in the inner city. That report was discussed in many areas, community groups, tenants' associations, the IDA and many other Government bodies in an effort to bring about a solution and an improvement in the general standard of living for citizens in very deprived parts of Dublin city. From 1977 to 1981 I represented that part of Dublin — the old North-Central constituency — and I am au fait with the problems and the difficulties that exist in the inner city. It is recognised and accepted that the unemployment rate in Dublin city is extremely high, probably the highest in the country. There are some areas in the inner city in which unemployment is as high as 60 per cent. Housing is bad and there are consequential results of those difficulties such as vandalism, juvenile crime and so on. There is no doubt that the standard of life is deplorably poor in certain areas and any proposals which will help to bring about an improvement are to be encouraged. I should be very pleased to see them brought in through legislation or otherwise.

I know that certain parts of this Bill may be controversial. I refer specifically to the section dealing with the Dublin Port and Docks area. Deputy Quinn spoke about the point of view of the board and, as a member of the board, I know they are concerned. One would be surprised if they were not because the board have been pursuing a policy which was based on present day value of the property concerned. However, it is generally accepted — even by members of the board — that they must contribute in some way towards the development of life, community and otherwise, in the northern part of the city. The board will be adequately compensated in so far as covering the total cost of transferring their warehouses and other activities to another part of the city is concerned. This Bill also establishes that the board will not lose out financially in any realistic way. On the other hand, the board are looking at potential and we must, therefore, distinguish between investment potential and actual and realistic financial involvement at present. This Bill will ensure that the board will not suffer losses in any way.

I am also aware of the fact that executive members of the board, the chairman and vice-chairman, will be meeting the Minister shortly to discuss this whole area. I hope an amicable solution will be reached and that agreement which is so necessary between such an important body and the Government can be reached in this area. We have in this House on many occasions discussed the whole question of urban renewal. It is a cliché nowadays which is used in many cities of the world and most capital cities in Europe have deteriorated to a very large extent. Perhaps Dublin is more affected than most because it escaped the ravages of the last war and, consequently, did not require the type of re-building that many other cities needed following the period from 1939 to 1945.

Dublin leaves much to be desired in its appearance. There are very few public representatives, and I include representatives outside the Dublin area, who would not agree that major measures are needed to make our capital city a place of which we can be proud. Some 85 per cent of tourists pass through Dublin and through the area that is concerned in this legislation. We should make some effort to make that part of the city as attractive as possible not only for tourists but also for the citizens who live and work there and for the children who go to schools in the area. I do not think any representative here would argue with the point made by the Minister in his contribution that Dublin city badly needs renewal. This Bill is a major step in this direction.

The whole question of the powers of an urban development commission as opposed to the powers of the local authority has been raised. The Minister said that it may be considered that the powers being given to an urban development commission are not very different from those already available to local authorities. Basically that is correct. Nevertheless, we must look on this in a completely different light in that a development commission is being set up specifically to deal with a given area. In the context of the legislation now before us we are dealing with two specific areas, one on the north side and one on the south side. The commission would be more effective in dealing with problems and in ensuring that the development required in the areas is carried out more speedily and more effectively than would be the case with the local authority. We must face the fact that a local authority deal with a much wider area. In the example of Dublin, Dublin Corporation have under their control one of the largest areas. One has only to look at their expenditure for the year to realise that the total cost of running Dublin city is many times greater than that of any other county. It is realistic to assume that a commission would be much more effective in dealing with the problems that are considered in this legislation.

For many years housing on the north side of Dublin has been a contentious and controversial subject. In their original planning application the Dublin Port and Docks Board met with fierce opposition from many areas because they had not made sufficient provision for additional housing in that area. The port area concerned would represent a huge investment commitment and would give the area a completely new commercial image. It is an area that is overburdened with social problems and those problems are greatest in the North Wall-Sheriff Street district which is adjacent to the proposed development by the Dublin Port and Docks Board. The Government's plan to bring less commercial development into that area and to have more housing and space for community amenities is much more feasible and acceptable in what is an overcrowded area.

There are many aspects of this Bill that could be considered controversial. There is the question of a compulsory take-over of any specific area by a future Government. In this case we are dealing with an extraordinary emergency. The problems have been increasing during the years but very little has been done about them and drastic measures are required. I am not for a moment suggesting that this Bill is drastic but the development that is necessary requires drastic and major measures to ensure that we will have better housing and facilities, more employment and the conditions to create employment and better standards of education and educational facilities.

I wish the Minister every success in his new job. This is probably his first major assignment. It is a difficult one but I know he will do everything possible to ensure that all areas of interest will be met in some way. We are dealing with a problem that needs a rapid solution. This Bill will go a long way towards commencing the first stage of that solution and I endorse what the Minister has proposed.

Mr. G. Birmingham

At the outset I wish to spell out clearly the intentions of my party on Second Reading. We understand the motivation behind the Bill and we recognise the problems that necessitated the introduction of legislation somewhat along these lines. However, we have major reservations about many sections of the Bill, and on Committee Stage we will have amendments to almost every section.

However, there are two objections that we see as being absolutely fundamental, and depending on what the Minister says on this we will decide whether to vote against and oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. Specifically, we are fundamentally opposed to the transfer of the planning functions back to the Minister for the Environment and the exclusion from the planning procedures in the Bill of An Bord Pleanála. Unless the Minister is prepared to say when replying to this debate that on Committee Stage he will either himself introduce or accept an amendment from us to reinstate An Bord Pleanála and to exclude the Minister for the Environment from all planning functions, then Fine Gael will oppose this Bill's Second Reading.

Second — and I will say more about both of these in a moment, but I want to make them clear at the outset — we are deeply unhappy with the manner in which it is proposed to acquire the Port and Docks Board site and in the longer term the same provision applies to the acquisition of other publicly owned sites. I will spell out why in greater detail. But at this stage we would request from the Minister a recognition that there is a problem here and a willingness to meet with the Port and Docks Board as the people most immediately affected and discuss with them their difficulties with a view to being able to tell the House at later stages that the problems that they fear will arise in relation to their capital expansion programme will not arise and we will want a guarantee that those discussions will begin soon and that the Minister will approach them in an open-minded and positive way. If those two demands are met, if it is agreed that An Bord Pleanála will be reintroduced into the Bill and that the Minister will divest himself of his planning functions and if he will agree to look again at the manner of acquisition proposed then we will not oppose the Bill's Second Reading but we will have a very large number of amendments on Committee Stage. It is right at the outset that I set out our position.

When we opened the debate on this Bill the Minister of State reviewed the problems that he saw around him in his native city. Those of us who have served alongside him in Dublin Corporation will have recognised the insight and personal knowledge that he brought to that and in particular will respect his judgment because of his courageous stand against the rape of Wood Quay. So there is a willingness to look well on anything that might emerge from the Minister. Certainly we set out by saying that this is a problem that needs to be solved. It is not without some significance that this debate should take place on the very occasion in the House this morning when we talked of how we might commermorate James Joyce. It is certainly a sad thought that in a time when we are moved to think about what he was to write about this city that if we were to follow some of the routes suggested in his writings a very sorry sight indeed would meet our eyes. I do not know if the Minister of State took advantage of the photographic exhibition which was organised by the Living City Group yesterday in Buswell's Hotel which did just that in part. Certainly it was a deeply distressing and hurtful experience to see what has become of our capital city. Indeed the Minister and other speakers in these benches have made the point that the problem of urban blight and the need for regeneration is not confined to this capital city, that major problems exist in Limerick, Cork and other major urban centres. Not only that, but only on Monday I was speaking at a meeting in Kildare and the point was made that many very much smaller towns are experiencing precisely this problem. They referred there specifically with great eloquence to the problems of Athy the centre of which has been ravaged and left derelict. So undoubtedly there is a problem to be solved and on that the House is united. Undoubtedly the Minister's commitment and his sincerity is not in question.

So we look towards the Bill anxious to be impressed, and I am afraid we are disappointed. In the first instance we see the Bill as being fundamentally anti-local authority. It is not unremarkable that at a time when much talk is taking place about the need for reform of local democracy, when much talk centres on the question of transferring power away from the centre and back to communities, that a Fianna Fáil Government should bring before the House legislation which will strip power from local authorities, take it from the elected representatives of the people and give it back to the Minister for the Environment and give it to the appointees of the Minister for the Environment. We take absolute and fundamental objection to that and would stand on that objection. Local government is at this stage little more than a joke, and the locally elected representatives of the people are little more than poppinjays. For all sorts of reasons local government is ceasing to function. The functions of the local authorities bear little or no relation to the needs of the community. They have no say in the provision of primary or secondary schools. They have no say in things as central to a local community as where there is going to be a Garda station and, bringing it a stage further, they are not involved in deciding what communities need telephone kiosks or where they are going to be sited. So the powers that the local authorities have fail to meet the needs of the community.

The structure of the local authorities themselves is completely outdated. The basic structure is, with the exception of the Shannon Town Commissioners, unchanged for many decades. One could count on the fingers of one hand the changes that have taken place in the structure of local government since the foundation of the State, the establishment of the borough councils of Dún Laoghaire and Galway back in the twenties and the thirties, the town commissioners in Tramore some time in the mid-forties and the very recent Shannon Town Commissioners. But there has been no serious attempt to get to grips with the fact that there is no local government in this city.

Many Members of this House enjoy the dual mandate in that they serve on Dublin Corporation or Dublin County Council and are Members of this House. Indeed until very recently the Minister had that experience. But they have the absurd situation that the areas that, as councillors, they seek to represent are in many cases all but as big as their Dáil constituencies. In at least one area in Dublin County Council the area is actually larger than the Dáil constituency that the Deputy is expected to represent. How can anybody seriously talk about Government being local and a community being represented at local level? Therefore one looks forward with hope rather than with confidence to the emergence of new structures that will provide the opportunity for people to be involved in the government of their own community.

On the outskirts of the city new towns have grown up, such as Leixlip and Kildare. Instead of bringing in proposals to extend the power of local authorities and giving decision-making back to the people, this legislation proposes to strip from the local authorities some of the few powers they now enjoy. We find that fundamentally objectionable.

The structure of the Bill is, to say the least, a little curious. It mentions two areas, the Customs House site and the walled city, and gives the Minister power to wander gaily through the land designating other areas at will. It is a negation of democracy and of everything local government should stand for when such fundamental decisions are to be taken in the Custom House by the Minister for the Environment of the day without reference to the views of the locally elected representatives who can and do claim a mandate from the people. That might make some sense if the structures established by this Bill presented something new and radically different, but the Minister of State made the point that it can be fairly said very few additional powers are being provided for these commissions that are not already enjoyed by local authorities.

At this stage it has to be said that the case for the commission has not been proved. To date we have not been told what they will be able to do that is different from what some local authorities have already been doing successfully. The Minister made the point that local authorities are multi-purposed and he hoped these commissions would zero in on the problems of urban regeneration. That attitude appears to be borne out of optimism rather than reality.

We come now to the establishment of these commissions which will exercise very considerable powers within their designated areas. The first thing we notice is that the Bill is curiously silent on who might qualify to be a commissioner and what criteria will be applied in making appointments, but there are some negative stipulations. We are told members of the commission cannot be Members of either House of the Oireachtas, but there is no indication what talents they might be expected to have or what background they might have enjoyed which would fit them for appointment to these positions. The Minister suggested they might have experience of local government and administration, but I do not know what he meant by that. If he meant he will produce some retired war horses from the Custom House or elsewhere and appoint them to this commission, that will be completely unacceptable. If the commission are to be of value they should draw on expertise from a number of disciplines. In the case of the walled city designated area, the advice of an architect and archeologist would be invaluable to the commission in their deliberations.

In his reply I would like the Minister to expand on how he sees the commission being appointed and what factors he will take into account when deciding those appointments. Unless these commissioners, through their personal experiences skills and talents, can bring a decisiveness to this problem which is lacking at present, then all we are doing is inserting another layer of bureaucracy and further cluttering up the system. That has little to recommend it. When these commissioners are appointed, regrettably they will have very little independence. In almost every sphere of their activity they are subject to ministerial direction. It seems they may not even appoint staff without the Minister saying who the staff should be and stipulating their terms of remuneration.

One gets the impression that this Bill, if it becomes law, will establish a commission which may consist of ministerial stooges, and the public and those who will have dealings with the commission may be faced with a situation where, if they do not like what the stooges are doing they will have to get in touch with the person who appointed the stooges and seek redress from him. That is more than a little unsatisfactory. What guarantee of independence will be given to the commissioners? I do not think that question is entirely academic because we have seen the track record of Ministers for the Environment and how they respond to groups exercising power in a local community when it is not to the Minister's liking. Previous Ministers for the Environment have, at a stroke, dismissed the local authorities in this city, Bray and other areas. If they can do that to bodies who can claim some authority, because they were directly elected, how seriously can the deliberations of this commission be taken if at some stage their decisions are not to the liking of the people of the Custom House?

We see little point in allowing a situation to develop where the Minister for the Environment will make all the decisions in relation to the centre of this and other cities, even if he does it by remote control through his tame appointees. But perhaps the curious structures in this Bill can be explained by its history and from whence it came. One has to suspect that if it had not been necessary for the then Deputy Haughey to purchase a vote from Deputy Gregory-Independent — by agreeing to the acquisition by the State of the 27-acre site from the Dublin Port and Docks Board — this Bill would never have seen the light of day. In truth this Bill was introduced simply to give an air of decency to the Custom House site deal. If that is the case I invite the Minister to come clean, to withdraw the Bill, to go away, think about it in more detail and come back with modified proposals.

The Bill appears to have been put together in more than a little hurry, that is if one gives the benefit of the doubt to the Minister and if, in fact, a retransfer of planning function to the Minister for the Environment and the future greatly enhanced role of that Minister is not a good deal more sinister. It is worth saying that there is broad agreement from all sides of the House that the 27-acre site adjoining the Custom House is of unique significance and presents unique challenges. There is widespread agreement across the House that the State could and should acquire this property so that it can be developed for the benefit and enrichment of the entire city.

The Minister for the Environment will recall the history surrounding the proposal by the Port and Docks Board to develop and that the Port and Docks Board accepted that any development of so uniquely significant a site must be balanced and involve industrial, commercial and residential use. He will be aware that very detailed discussions took place between officials of the planning authority, Dublin Corporation, and representatives of the Port and Docks Board, where the mix was considered in great detail. The final offer, as it were, which emerged from the Dublin Port and Docks Board was deemed unacceptable to the corporation, in that provision for residential and industrial use was regarded as inadequate and, as a logical corollary, that there was excessive provision for office development. The Minister will recall that a direct decision of the councillors of Dublin Corporation — rather than, as more normally, an executive function by the officials of the corporation — asserted that that was how they saw that site being developed. We all know it went on from there to a public hearing.

As was graciously conceded by the now Taoiseach on 25 March in this House, the Coalition Government, when in office, embarked on a proposal to acquire this site, so there is agreement on that. There is certainly no agreement on the manner in which it is now proposed that the site be acquired. I would like some information on just what has been happening in the Custom House to give effect to this deal. Specifically, will the Minister confirm that absolutely no negotiations, consultations or discussions took place with the people most immediately affected, the Port and Docks Board, before this Bill was published? Will the Minister confirm that the first that the general manager of the Port and Docks Board knew of 27 acres of the board's property being acquired in such a manner was when the Minister's senior colleague, Deputy Ray Burke, told the people on television what was happening. That is wholly unacceptable. It is most extraordinary that a Government proposing to acquire land from anybody — and certainly in the unusual circumstances which now prevail — would not even have the commonsense, never mind the courtesy — as I can understand that they might decide to ignore the courtesy — to find out first what the Port and Docks Board thought of the situation and whether they could do a deal. Perhaps if the Minister had spoken to Mr. Hayes they might have agreed on a price and the present Bill might never have seen the light of day. However, it has seen the light of day and contains within it a very peculiar provision on how the property of the Port and Docks Board is to be acquired.

Section 8 of the Bill is worth considering, because it is absolutely central to our objections. Subsection (1) provides that:

The Minister may, after consultation with the Minister for Transport, by order transfer from the Board to the Custom House Docks Development Commission (in this section subsequently referred to as "the Commission") land situated in the Custom House Docks Development Area and which is vested in, belongs to or is held in trust or subject to conditions for the Board together with all rights, powers and privileges relating to or connected with such land.

"The Minister may, after consultation with the Minister for Transport, by order transfer...", that is curious, one might have thought. Even more curious are the provisions of subsection (2):

Where an order is made under this section, there shall be payable to the Board by the Commission consideration in respect of the transfer of the land to which the order relates and such consideration shall be such as may be agreed between the Board and the Commission or, in default of such agreement, such amount as shall be determined by the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Transport.

People owning property are now to be approached by these newly ennobled commissioners. They will consult and negotiate with them and, in the event of agreement not being reached, in comes the commissioners' boss and tells them what price is to be paid. In the history of this State, no Government have introduced legislation so palpably repugnant to the Constitution as that now before the House. Can any Member of the House in his or her wildest dreams conceive of a more radical departure from all normally accepted principles of fair play and natural justice? How are the Port and Docks Board expected to believe that they will get justice, when their only opportunities are to consult with the Minister's appointees and, if they do not get satisfaction, the Minister for the Environment will step in and tell them what they are going to get anyway?

Having regard to the somewhat limited independence of the commissioners in other areas, one cannot help but think that it is not dissimilar to a situation where people having problems with the Mafia are told that they have a right of appeal to the Mafia Godfather. This is truly the most extraordinary proposal to come before this House in a very long time.

Whatever justification the Minister might make on the basis that this was a question of extreme urgency and whatever political justification might be made on the basis that the Government rely on the vote of Deputy Gregory and must be seen to be doing something fast, whatever imperative there might be to get ahead with this peculiar provision, one might have thought that, at worst, it would be confined to the Port and Docks Board, but not a bit of it. Later in the Bill we are informed that, in effect, this very strange procedure is to apply to every public body, which includes every local authority, health board, vocational education committee and any board, company, or other body which, for the time being, stands designated under this section. Who might they be, one might wonder? The Minister may, with the consent of the appropriate Minister, by order designate for the purpose of this section a board or other body established by or under statute — which I suspect probably includes both the universities of the State. I imagine both these bodies would get a shock if informed that they had suddenly lost their normal entitlement to fair procedure and that henceforth their property will be protected only by the fact that some nice commissioners will come along, chat with them and if they do not get on with the commissioners, they can always chat with the Minister himself.

I have to suggest that that position is palpable nonsense and if Fine Gael are not to oppose this Bill we must have recognition of that fact. We do not mind what excuse is given; if the Minister says for instance that he is trying urgently to get ahead, we will not inquire too deeply into the excuses but we are not going to permit legislation so obviously hostile to the spirit and letter of the Constitution to pass through the House. The only conceivable argument in favour of this very curious provision would be that the normal arbitration provisions which apply to everybody else under section 76 of the Housing Act are slow and cumbersome and that the Minister wants to get ahead with his plan for the redevelopment of this very important site. I can think of no other argument that could be advanced and I assume that it is on that basis that the Minister will hang his coat.

Any such argument is totally lacking in substance for the reason that the delays that exist in the compulsory purchase procedure at present arise from the fact that a person whose property is being acquired has two bites at the cherry. First, he has the right to object to the principle of the acquisition and the right to a hearing on that and when the acquisition is confirmed he can arbitrate on the question of price. The delays arise at the first stage while the principle of acquisition is being considered and ruled on. The question of fixing a price can be decided almost overnight. In this instance the Port and Docks Board have no objection to being acquired: they do not want this land. As a port facility it is redundant. They have already indicated willingness to be dispossessed of it by entering into negotiations with the previous Government who were going to acquire it. They were going to acquire it honestly and in accordance with normal procedure. So, there is no hassle, no objection to the principle of acquisition and their reservations centre solely on the question of their right to have some influence on the price to be paid.

The Minister need have no fear that acquisition of the site would be delayed if he were to delete section 8 and allow the normal section 76 of the Housing Act procedure to be followed, because all that we would be concerned with would be the quesiton of fixing a price which could be decided very promptly. If the Minister does not believe that, if he goes to the Port and Docks Board and says: "Will you agree to arbitration?" and if they put forward anybody who is halfway sensible no matter who he is, the Port and Docks Board have indicated that they are prepared to accept arbitration on the single issue of price. But there is no indication that the Minister has any such intention at this stage.

The section is outrageous and unacceptable in principle because of the procedures it provides for but it is particularly outrageous and unacceptable because of the knowledge about the Port and Docks Board circumstances that was available to the Government. Members of the House will have been provided with a statement on this point by the Port and Docks Board and I propose with the permission of the Chair to quote from it. It went out under the hand of Bill Taylor, public relations officer, and it states:

A special meeting of the Dublin Port and Docks Board today decided to seek an emergency meeting with the Minister for Transport to state their position with regard to section 8 of the Urban Development Areas Bill 1982, which is scheduled to have its Second Reading in the Dáil next week. The Bill proposes to take possession of 27 acres of the Board's property at Custom House Docks.

It goes on to set out the history of the site. Paragraph 3 contains language which is certainly unusual coming from a body of the status of the Port and Docks Board. It asserts:

It does not appear that in drafting the Bill, any thought was given to the consequences, not only for the Board and the port but for the community at large, of what is in effect a legalised hi-jacking of the Board's assets, an action which is but one step removed from impounding the Board's cash resources.

I am not aware of any previous occasion on which a semi-State body were obliged to call halt to a Government intent on hijacking its resources.

But the specific problems for the Port and Docks Board are set out in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the statement. Paragraph 4 says:

The money required to finance the Board's current capital development programme has been borrowed from the Commercial Banks with the consent of the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Finance, obtained some three years ago.

My understanding is that not only was the borrowing entered into with the consent of the Minister for Transport but with his active personal encouragement, that he took the view that this was a go-ahead, progressive body capable of expanding employment and that they had his blessing and encouragement.

Paragraph 5 makes clear the basis on which those funds were borrowed:

When these funds were being borrowed it was made clear to the Government Departments and the Banks involved that the repayment of the major portion of these loans would be effected in due course when the Custom House Docks site was disposed of. The Government Departments involved clearly understood, approved of and encouraged the development programme and the financial programmes proposed at that time. The development programmes are now well advanced and have not required new reclamation. These programmes have been adopted and approved by Government and enshrined in many statements by Government Ministers. Speaking at a public function on February 12th, 1981 the then Minister for Transport described the Port Board's investment of £5.25 million in development works in that year as a necessary part of the £8.4 million being invested by Port Authorities in harbour facilities.

Quite simply, the Minister and his Cabinet colleagues encouraged the Port and Docks Board to go ahead and borrow to create further employment when the only collateral available for that borrowing was the site at the Custom House. They did that with full knowledge and it is outrageous to contemplate that a Government of which Deputy Reynolds is a member, the same Deputy who encouraged the board to go ahead with this borrowing, should now asset-strip the board and deny them the assets they require to meet their borrowing commitment.

We have a public sector which is stuffed with white elephants but we also have sectors of that public sector that are making a go of it, paying their way very well. If this legislation goes through in its present form it is a sure guarantee that the Port and Docks Board who to date have carried the flag proudly will be maimed and wounded and will join the ranks of the lame ducks because they will be faced with the situation of massive borrowing completely out of proportion to their annual revenue which they could have entered into only on the basis that assets were available to back the borrowing.

The Minister may not worry very much and some of his colleagues may not worry very much about adding to the number of white elephants but this is going to have real impact and real implications for real people in the Minister's constituency and in every other constituency in Dublin. If this legislation goes through, the viability of the Port and Docks Board is called into question and the employment prospects of everyone working there are by that act imperilled. It is wholly irresponsible that this flight of financial fancy with whatever justification can be allowed to put at risk one of the very few sections of the public sector that is actually paying its way at present. All this is so unnecessary. If everybody else in the State whose property is to be acquired is to be entitled to have recourse to the procedures provided under section 76 of the Housing Act, why can the same rights not be made available to the Port and Docks Board? Unless we get a clear commitment that this crazy notion will be abandoned, the Bill will receive no support on these benches.

The other aspect of the Bill to which we object fundamentally is the re-emergence of the Minister for the Environment as a planning authority. It is difficult to believe that this is happening. One would have thought that if there was any issue on which there was a consensus in this House it was that this was a ghost which was long buried but apparently it is a ghost that stalks the Custom House since it re-emerges in full glory in this legislation. We are absolutely and implacably opposed to any suggestion that the power and influence of An Bord Pheanála in planning matters be inhibited or limited or in any way superseded by the actions of the Minister for the Environment.

The Minister and also the Minister of State will have had occasion earlier in this Dáil when we were dealing with the Pat O'Connor case and the legislation that followed that, of reading the views of the late Chief Justice, Mr. Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh, in the decision in the McMahon case on the question of secrecy of the ballot when the then Chief Justice pointed out what the responsibilities of the Legislature should be in this area. He said that they were not to assume good faith, that they were not to operate on the basis that the powers would not be abused but rather that they were to ensure that powers should not be made available which were capable of being abused. In that instance he said that while it was unlikely that anybody would be capable of checking up on who had voted and in what way anyone had voted, the fact that this was possible was sufficient to render the legislation unconstitutional. If we adopt the criteria in this instance that was recommended by the then Chief Justice, one sees the Minister for the Environment in a very substantial and pivotal role. There are major sites in a derelict condition in this city. There are several reasons for this situation, one is that the taxation system encouraged people in the past to leave sites vacant but the excuse that will be offered by the developers is that the planning conditions are unduly onerous.

If this legislation goes through in its present format there is nothing to prevent the Minister for the Environment from designating as a development area any area in which one of those sites is to be found. In that situation there exists the possibility that a nice chummy conversation would result in the developers getting approval to speed ahead notwithstanding that the development might be wholly contrary to the wishes of the local authority and to the views that An Bord Pleanála would take.

We on this side of the House are proud of the fact that the 1976 Planning and Development Act had the effect of taking politics out of planning applications and we are not willing to have that achievement whittled away by a backdoor method. The suggestion that this legislation, brought in apparently to make urgent provision in regard to the Custom House site, can by a side effect unchain the Minister for the Environment as it were and leave him loose again, is repugnant to us.

There is another aspect in regard to planning that we find objectionable. The right of members of the public to be involved in the planning process is one that until now has been regarded always as being a fundamental right, a right central to the planning process but the public will have no such right in respect of any planning decision to be taken by this commission. We see no reason for the public being excluded from involvement in these matters or for their not being given the opportunity to be heard and to object if they so wish. I suppose the Minister will argue that the public have an indirect right to be heard in so far as the local authority will be consulted at all stages. But that is inadequate and even if it were adequate we have the situation that in the event of the Minister's appointees not seeing eye to eye with the local authority, the Minister will make the decision anyway. Consequently, we are back to the catch-22 type situation.

We should like the Minister to tell us from where these planning proposals came. So far as I am aware there was no public debate urging that the involvement of the public in the planning process be curtailed and neither am I aware of any public agitation to give back to the Minister the power to decide in respect of planning. Despite this, these provisions are included in the Bill.

We want to know why these provisions are proposed but in addition we are seeking changes, changes that should be made now. Specifically, we want the Minister for the Environment to assure us that if we permit the Bill to go beyond Second Reading, he will introduce amendments divesting himself of the power he would have if the Bill went through and restoring the planning board to their central place in the planning process. It is worth making the point that these peculiar planning situations, while in the first instance to apply only to the walled-city site and to the Custom House site, are capable of being extended by ministerial order to any urban area. We could have the situation where the normal planning procedures would cease to have effect in the centre of the city and instead we would be back to the pre-1976 situation with the Minister for the Environment effectively being the planning authority. Some of the wounds of what happened then are still all too visible. Surely we have learned enough not to fall into that trap again. I would have thought that the Minister might be secretly relieved not to have powers under the planning Acts any more. I would have thought that the Minister of State might feel that the existence of such powers, and the political pressures that would be applied, might be embarrassing to him. There are some very colourful examples in his own constituency that indicate what happens when a Minister has power of this nature. In the clearest and strongest possible terms I appeal to the Minister to scrap wholly and entirely the planning provisions in so far as they purport to re-introduce as a planning authority the Minister for the Environment.

There are a number of other aspects in the Bill which I find strange such as the financial provisions, and in particular, the obligation to break even taking one year with another. Given the probable strategy to be adopted by any commission it is hard to see how that could happen. One would have thought that the first phase of any commission's life would involve considerable acquisition. I wonder how that will work. We come back in the financial provisions to this conflict that can and may exist between the commissions and local authorities.

Section 11 states:

(1) An urban development commission may make a scheme providing for the remission, in whole or in part, of rates leviable in respect of premises which are both situate within its functional area and certified by the commission to have been erected, enlarged or improved after the establishment of the commission.

(2) A scheme under this section shall specify—

(a) the classes of descriptions of premises to which the scheme applies,

(b) the local financial years in relation to which the remission of rates is to have effect,

(c) the terms or conditions (if any) subject to which the remission of rates is to have effect in any local financial year, and

(d) the period during which the scheme is to operate.

It goes on to state that a scheme under this section may be amended in certain circumstances. I should like to know just what function will be left to local authorities if this legislation is passed. We also know that the decision-making processes are such that local authorities are curtailed in many instances, but we now have the situation where the Minister for the Environment by drawing lines on a map can declare certain areas within the jurisdiction of local authorities to be areas for certain types of development and that the commission can without even consulting a local authority give effect to any remission of rates. I find it curious that a body which was not entitled to the money in the first place is to be entitled to grant a remission which will obviously affect the ability of a local authority to do its day to day work. That section is indicative of the lack of respect and regard there is for local authorities. That emerges clearly in the provisions of the Bill.

The Minister of State may be aware that there is widespread concern among councillors in the areas most immediately effected — in the first instance, Dublin, and later, perhaps, Cork and Limerick — about what they see as a diminution of their powers. I am a memeber of a Dublin local authority and it would not keep me awake at night if that local authority lost all their powers in this area altogether if I was satisfied that the job would be done in a better way and that the city would be rejuvenated and renewed, but I have grave doubts that that will happen. I have grave doubts whether in fact those appointed by the Minister are likely to emerge better equipped and more knowledgeable about the needs of this city than those elected by the people of the city.

This morning I received a letter from the Dublin city manager which refers to the fact that arising from the alarm expressed by members from all parties — I stand corrected on that, maybe — about the provisions of the Bill and pointing out that a special meeting of the city council will be held to discuss the Bill on Thursday next at 8 o'clock. Being aware of this fact, the Minister of State has written a letter to the city manager, Mr. Frank Feely, in which he seeks to put his mind at rest.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Brady,

Dublin South-East): On a point of information, I should like to state that I met the city manager long before that letter was written and the Deputy knows that. I gave him the assurance that I gave to the House and I have now given that assurance in writing.

Mr. G. Birmingham

I do not doubt that the Minister of State did meet the city manager and I did not suggest otherwise, but I assume that the letter to the city manager from the Minister of State represents the Minister's present thinking on the matter. I assume that this is as far as he can go on re-assuring local councillors who may be worried about this matter. It is worth putting the contents of that letter on the record of the House to see how inadequate those reassurances are. The letter is dated 14 June 1982 and is addressed to Mr. F. Feely, City Manager, City Hall, Dublin. The letter states:

Dear Manager,

I have seen a press report about Councillors being worried that their position may be undermined by the development commissions which are to be set up under the Urban Development Areas Bill, 1982, which is at present before the Dáil. I understand that you will be reporting to the City Council in the matter.

I would like to explain the context in which the Government have decided to set up these bodies, and in which they will operate. Above all, I would like to stress that the development commissions are not intended to displace the Corporation from having a primary responsibility in regard to urban renewal.

The Corporation, and other planning authorities, are required to include in their development plans objectives for development and renewal of obsolete areas, and to take steps for the achievement of these objectives. That system will remain basically unchanged. The Corporation have some considerable achievements to their credit in this area and are dealing with a number of important projects at present, including the proposals for redevelopment in the Designated Area. But the Government, and I am sure the Corporation and planning authorities generally, would like to see more rapid progress being made to generate renewal in central urban areas which have lost their economic and social vitality and have become run down.

——And so say all of us. The letter continues:

The Development Commissions which are set up under the Bill to undertake and promote regeneration on the Port and Docks Board Site and in the Walled City Area, and commissions of the kind which may be set up in other areas, are a central element in the Government's design to deal with this need, but they are not the only element. I am undertaking a close examination of the working of the existing physical planning and development provisions as they relate to urban renewal throughout the country — the achievements and the problems. In the light of this examination I will consider what statutory or other changes might be made in order to help planning authorities to deal with the problem more effectively and on a scale which the conditions require.

In the meantime, the Government is anxious that an immediate momentum should be developed in the selected pilot areas and that this task should be assigned to the proposed Development Commissions. In this way early experience will be gained of the effectiveness of this approach and how it might be fitted into the overall planning and development system in which the planning authority will retain the primary functions and responsibilities.

Under the Bill a Development Commission would be empowered to prepare a planning scheme for their area but this would be done on consultation with the Planning Authority. Likewise, a Commission could not carry out or approve development without consultation with the planning authority, as prescribed, and if there is disagreement the Minister must be consulted. In effect, a Commission will be in much the same position as regards development control as a State authority except that there is more stringent provision in that the Minister may prohibit the carrying out of development if he considers that to be justified. These provisions are designed to strike a reasonable balance between the need for the Commissions to proceed urgently and the need to maintain the planning system in all essentials. Subject to the provisions referred to, the development plan will continue to hold sway in the area of a development commission and there is specific provision in the Bill for the possibility of a special development plan being made by the Planning Authority for such an area.

I would certainly hope therefore that the Corporation, far from resenting the Commissions, would look on them as their allies. The Commissions will supplement the Corporation's efforts and share the burden by launching the pilot regeneration schemes in the two areas, while the general review of urban renewal operations to which I have referred proceeds. The Bill provides that development commissions will be dissolved when their task is completed.

It is obvious that renewal in the two areas cannot be planned or carried out in isolation from the surrounding areas and that the success of the Commissions will depend to a considerable extent on the co-operation of the Planning Authority as well as of other interests involved.

I would like then to reassure the Corporation that their central role and responsibility in urban renewal will remain and to solicit their co-operation in advance with the new Commissions in the interest — which they will know that I share with them — of making the best of possible progress in dealing with the pressing need to promote restoration and revival in large parts of the inner city.

I would like you to bring the contents of this letter to the attention of the City Council when you are reporting to them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy, for the record, somewhere during the middle of your reading you used the phrase "and so say all of us". You did not make it clear whether that was your own.

Mr. G. Birmingham

It was my own. The letter read:

But the Government, and I am sure the Corporation and planning authorities generally, would like to see more rapid progress being made to generate renewal in central urban areas which have lost their economic and social viability and have become run down.

To that I said, and say again, "and so say all of us".

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Thank you for the clarification.

Mr. G. Birmingham

That is all very well and I have no doubt whatever — because I know and accept fully the Minister of State's interest in this area and his record is there for all of us to see so that anyone who would have doubts would be more than a little fanciful — that he envisages the commission and the corporation acting in harmony. However, the structures being created do not necessarily achieve that. Surely the Minister of State must be aware that local authority members will resent a situation where parts of their city or town would be defined and designated in a particular way by the Minister for the Environment, particularly when the effect and consequence of that designation is that they will cease to exercise some of their powers, and some of their powers within that designated area will be operated by a non-elected commission. I cannot but believe that the Bill is redolent of a dismissive approach to local authorities and to their right to plan, govern and control their city.

If much of my speech has been concentrated on what we see as objectionable in this Bill, that should not tend to obscure the essential agreement that there is between us. Quite clearly every Member of this House is aware of the extent of the problem. Every Member of this House cannot but be ashamed of the condition in which this capital city is today.

Mr. Brady

(Dublin South-East): Let us try to do something about it.

Mr. G. Birmingham

On that we are in agreement and I would not wish criticisms of mine on the details of the Bill to obscure the central agreement that exists on that. Georgian Dublin has been destroyed building by building and developers are now turning their attention to Victorian Dublin. At times one feels that the listing of buildings as of significance is simply to highlight them as targets for would-be developers. The principal street of this city, once one of the great streets of Europe, now alternates between slot machines and fast food restaurants. We are all aware that this city has lost much of its vitality and charm. Examples abound elsewhere to show us what can be done with proper care, thought and planning. I am not suggesting that we ever will match the imperial splendour of London or Paris or some of the great cities of Europe, but this was once a city of charm and grace which have been systematically suffocated. That is a cause of concern and we all want something done about it.

I share the Minister's view that the first major opportunity available to us is centred on the Port and Docks Board site because that site is of unique significance. If we muff this one certainly we will not have a comparable chance again. The northern inner city is an area which, even before the election of Deputy Gregory-Independent who sought to put it on the map, was recognised as one of extreme deprivation. We had a debate on the Adjournment in this House not so long ago about the educational problems in that area. We are aware of the housing needs there, and the case is that, if progress is to be made, then the first and most encouraging option available is to get hold of the Port and Docks Board site and to do the right thing with it whether prompted by Deputy Gregory-Independent or not. In recognising that fact the Minister is doing a very good job and we are absolutely ad idem on that.

Whether because it was felt that it would be a bit raw to let the area defined by Deputy Gregory stand alone or otherwise, the inclusion of the second area, the walled city, is a fine choice on which the Minister of State deserves to be congratulated. Many of us admired the fact that even when it was not popular within his own party to stand against the sacrilege occurring in Wood Quay, the Minister stood alone and won our respect. We are absolutely in agreement in selecting this as an area in urgent need of redevelopment. What concerns me is that the goodwill and the basic consensus that exists about the urgency of tackling this problem is being needlessly sacrificed by, at best, clumsiness and, at worst, a degree of deviousness which is represented elsewhere in the Bill. This could have been a simple Bill which would have been heralded as a major step towards making Dublin great again but it has become the subject of political controversy because of the inclusion of provisions which are fundamentally objectionable. I appeal to the Minister to look again at those provisions so that the Bill can be welcomed by all.

This Bill alone, even without the objectionable provisions, will not achieve the redevelopment of our city and the Minister would probably accept that. There will still be derelict sites and the legislation governing such sites is antiquated and represents an impossible challenge to a local authority who want to acquire these sites. Perhaps the Minister would clarify the extent to which the commissions will be better able to deal with these sites than the local authorities. Surely they will meet the same stumbling blocks as the local authorities regarding the ownership of the sites, the proper serving of notices and all the other complexities.

No thought has been given to producing any sort of mixed living inner city. Year after year the heart has been eaten out of this city and only during the period of the 1973-77 Coalition Government was there a programme initiated for local authority housing in the inner city. This is beginning to make a major change in the lifestyle of the inner city but it stands alone. The provision of both local authority and private housing in the inner city is essential. This bring me once again to the peculiarities of the Bill. The Dublin Port and Docks Board site is to be acquired and we presume that the development will contain a large element of housing but we must ask who the people are who will be housed there. They are the very people whose jobs are being imperilled by the manner of acquisition of the site. There is a short-sightedness here which is hard to understand.

I appeal to the Minister to look again at the objectionable features of this Bill and to amend the Bill on Committee Stage in a number of respects. Let him tell us that he will change the procedure for designating an area as a development area so that the local authority will be fully involved in the initial decision-making process. I would suggest that the appropriate formula would be that he should make a designating order only on the recommendation of a local authority or alternatively that he would make such an order only if a local authority failed to deal with a problem brought to their attention by him. Such a gesture of goodwill would be widely welcomed by local authority members. Let him say that he has had second thoughts about the planning aspects and that he accepts that, while it may have been unintentional and certainly not malicious, the Bill as drafted is capable of achieving a transfer of power and influence from the local authority and An Bord Pleanála to the commission and the Minister. He should state that such is not his desire and that he will be pleased to amend the legislation to restore the status quo and the primacy of the local authority as the planning authority and also restore An Bord Pleanála as central to the planning process. Let him have another look at the provision for acquiring the Dublin Port and Docks Board land and also the land of the various public bodies specified.

Mr. Brady

(Dublin South-East): I also give the assurance that there will be no job losses.

Mr. G. Birmingham

I wonder whether the Attorney General saw this Bill in advance because I find it difficult to believe that he would have allowed it to see the light of day. Absolutely central to our whole legal system is the concept that the person who is to be deprived of his rights — in this instance, property rights — must be entitled to a proper hearing. This is allowed to slide away here and I invite the Minister to reconsider and to accept that a mistake has been made and that henceforth we will all be on the same footing, that those listed in the definition section and everybody else will have precisely the same rights if their property is being acquired.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 16 Jun 1982

Urban Development Areas Bill, 1982: Second Stage (Resumed).

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Jun 1982