I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Urban Renewal Bill, 1986: Second Stage.
These are all our ideas. Does the Minister not consider himself a plagiarist? He is a legislative pirate?
Deputy Haughey will have his opportunity later of contributing to the Bill.
This Bill represents a significant step towards full implementation of the package of measures relating to unemployment and taxation announced by the Taoiseach in October last. Taken together with the revised scheme of house improvement grants and the provisions of the Finance Bill, 1986, which is also before the House, it will provide a major stimulus to the renewal of inner city areas.
The immediate origins of the Bill are to be found in the recommendations of a working party established by the Government to report on the best approach to be adopted in relation to the Custom House Docks site in Dublin. The working party, of which I was chairman, reported to Government in October 1985. They recommended the establishment of a special statutory authority with responsibility for securing the redevelopment of the site and to promote the redevelopment effort. The Government accepted these recommendations and decided that taxation incentives should be used more widely to promote the renewal of other inner city areas where dereliction and decay are most extensive and pervasive.
Arising from these decisions, a broadly-based programme is now being initiated to secure the revitalisation and rebuilding of the older core parts of our larger urban centres. Details of the specific areas to which special attention is to be given have been announced already and the areas are formally described in the Third Schedule to the Finance Bill, 1986. I have arranged to have maps of the areas in question placed in the Oireachtas Library for the information and assistance of Members.
The present Bill and the initiatives now being taken by the Government represent a more comprehensive, positive and effective approach to urban renewal than was envisaged in any previous proposals. The basic premise on which this approach is based is that the inner areas of our major urban centres represent a very valuable resource in terms of people and community life, public buildings, business, commercial and cultural centres, infrastructure and other urban amenities. Resources of this kind cannot be allowed to suffer from neglect, under-utilisation or dereliction without heavy and unsustainable costs in terms of social problems, physical decay and massive demands for heavy investment in other locations.
For many years the inner cores of our larger urban centres have been decaying and large areas have become derelict. The factors which inhibit the redevelopment of such areas are well known. Site acquisition and development costs tend to be high. There are environmental and social problems and there has been a movement of established industries and other commercial activity to suburban locations. These and other factors have contributed to a process which is difficult to reverse.
The situation in our inner cities would, in fact, be far worse but for the efforts of local authorities and the various other agencies who have worked strenuously over the years to reverse the trend. For example, local authority housing of a high standard is being provided in inner urban areas, especially in Dublin. But efforts to encourage private housing development in inner city areas have had little or no success and activity by the private sector in general has been painfully slow in securing the redevelopment of such areas. All the evidence suggests that matters will become considerably worse unless a major effort is made to redress the situation. Such an effort requires Government intervention of the kind which is being provided for now.
As is well known, the Custom House Docks site, which is in the ownership of Dublin Port and Docks Board, comprises a total of 27 acres, including some seven acres of docks, on the northern side of the River Liffey and lying immediately east of the Custom House and Amiens Street. The site is relatively close to the commercial centre of Dublin city but it continues in an under-utilised and rundown condition. Outline planning permission was granted to Dublin Port and Docks Board in 1982 for intensive development of the site for office, industrial, residential and shopping uses but this development was not proceeded with. It is widely accepted that the north inner city area of Dublin has suffered most in terms of dereliction and physical decay over the years and has failed to attract new development of the kind undertaken elsewhere in the city. Only 15 per cent of the office space provided in Dublin, for example, between 1960 and 1984 was located on the north side of the city.
The Custom House Docks site is of significant social and civic importance and could not be left undeveloped without considerable repercussions for the surrounding area but the working party concluded that the site would remain undeveloped for the foreseeable future, for ten to 15 years at least, if matters were left to the normal operation of the property market. It was also the view of the working party that a less intensive and more socially oriented development than that provided for in the existing outline permission would provide the best basis for the development of the site itself and provide a catalyst for the improvement of the surrounding area and the north inner city generally. It was obvious, in view of the history and location of the site, and the sheer scale of development involved, that special efforts would be required to secure its early redevelopment. The working party recommended, therefore, the establishment of a statutory authority with planning functions to secure and control redevelopment of the site, and the provision of a package of incentives by way of taxation and rating reliefs to encourage development and to attract occupiers. These recommendations were accepted in full by the Government and the present Bill, together with the Finance Bill, will give effect to them.
I must emphasise that it was the view of the working party, and of the Government, that the establishment of a new authority, or the introduction of a simplified planning control regime, would not of themselves be sufficient to bring about development of the scale envisaged on the Custom House Docks site. It was accepted that, in addition, there would be a need for a real commitment from the Government in the form of taxation incentives both to encourage development and the occupation of new or refurbished buildings on the site. In this regard the approach now being pursued by the Government differs significantly from earlier proposals relating to the site.
The Government are satisfied that the establishment of a separate single-purpose new authority is necessary in relation to the Custom House Docks site. The scale of development involved requires a unified and comprehensive approach to promote and control development. Besides, the site is unique in that it is in the hands of one owner which itself is a public body. These conditions do not apply in any of the other areas proposed for designation. In these areas, the Government are satisfied that the proper approach is to provide the financial incentives to generate a demand for development and to leave the general co-ordination and control of development proposals to the local planning authorities.
The present Bill provides for the designation of the inner urban areas which are in need of renewal and for the application of rates relief to promote redevelopment in these areas. The other financial incentives decided on by the Government are, of course, provided for in the Finance Bill. These include capital allowances for the construction or refurbishment of commercial buildings, the granting of relief to lessors under section 23 of the Finance Act, 1981, for the provision of dwellings for letting, the granting of relief to owner-occupiers for expenditure on the construction or refurbishment of dwellings and double rent relief for traders occupying newly constructed or refurbished buildings.
The capital allowances will be available, for income tax and corporation tax purposes, in respect of commercial buildings and structures, including offices, shops, leisure and car-parking facilities, on the same lines as the allowances available for industrial buildings and structures. The allowances will generally be given in respect of the cost of construction work carried out in the period from 23 October 1985 to 31 May 1989 but, as respects the Custom House Docks area, will apply for the five-year period commencing on the date of approval of the planning scheme for the site under section 12 of the present Bill.
The allowances in question are, in general, a 50 per cent initial allowance and a 4 per cent annual allowance, with free depreciation for owner-occupiers. However, as regards the designated areas in Dublin other than the Custom House Docks area, only one-half of those allowances will be available.
The relief being made available to lessors under section 23 of the Finance Act, 1981, will apply to the construction or conversion cost of dwellings provided for rental in the Custom House Docks area in so far as the work is carried out in the five-year period commencing when the planning scheme for the area is approved. This relief will be available against all such rental income of the lessor and not merely the rental income from the premises in respect of which relief was given. The normal rules relating to section 23 relief in regard to such matters as the size of flats or houses, the letting of premises for ten years and compliance with standards of construction, will operate.
A special new tax allowance will be available to owner-occupiers in respect of a dwelling newly-constructed or refurbished during the period from 23 October 1985 to 31 May 1989 in certain designated areas in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Waterford and Galway other than the Custom House Docks area. The allowance may be claimed in each of the first ten years of the life of the dwelling following construction or refurbishment, provided that the dwelling is the sole or main residence of the individual concerned. The annual allowance will be equal to 5 per cent of the expenditure incurred by the individual, excluding site costs and net of all grants payable to him.
A double rent allowance as an expense in computing trading profits for tax purposes will be available to traders in the Custom House Docks area and in the designated areas in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Waterford and Galway. The relief may be claimed for each of the first ten years of each new lease entered into by traders during the period from 23 October 1985 to 31 May 1989 or, as respects the Custom House Docks area, during the five-year period commencing when the planning scheme for the area is approved.
The new allowances being provided will apply in addition to all other existing incentives such as income tax relief on mortgage interest, allowances under section 23 of the Finance Act, 1981, for the provision of rented residential accommodation and capital allowances for the construction and refurbishment of industrial buildings. All these incentives taken together represent a comprehensive package aimed at stimulating an early and positive response from the private sector.
The inner city areas in each of the five county boroughs to which the tax incentives will apply are those where dereliction and decay are extensive and which are likely to remain undeveloped unless special measures are taken. The areas are so located that their redevelopment will have a major impact and bring about a change in the unfavourable perception of inner city area as locations for investment and development and as places for people to live and work. The range of incentives now available should create a suitable financial climate for large scale investment by the private sector in these areas and generate the confidence that would lead to a self-sustaining urban renewal process in the years ahead.
I have already requested local authorities to put their full weight behind the new measures. I have asked them to see themselves as development brokers, bringing landowners, developers and potential investors together where necessary, doing everything they can to facilitate development proposals, and using their full powers under the Planning Acts to promote and facilitate development. Specifically, I have put it to the local authorities that they should appoint a suitable senior officer to act as development co-ordinator, to liaise with potential developers and to facilitate their dealings with the corporation departments; review their development plan, where necessary, to remove inflexible or out-of-date provisions; use their compulsory land acquisition powers, where necessary, to ensure that sites of suitable size and shape are available for development and to overcome title problems which private developers may experience; make land owned by them—especially derelict or vacant sites—available, on reasonable terms, for development or carry out early development themselves on the land; give special attention to the improvement of the appearance and general environment of the designated areas by way of better street cleansing and refuse collection, dealing with fly-posting, graffiti and obtrusive and unsightly advertising and other hoardings; the initiation of programmes of environmental improvement, the maintenance of footpaths, roads and public lighting, the implementation of pedestrianisation schemes, the improvement of street furniture to enhance its appearance and to remove clutter and the preparation of design guidelines to encourage attractive designs of buildings, shop fronts and facades generally.
The response of local authorities has been positive and encouraging and I am certain that all concerned can count on their wholehearted co-operation. It is now a matter for private sector interests immediately to set about formulating their plans so that the maximum amount of construction work will qualify for relief. I wish to make it clear at this stage that there are no proposals for the extension or modification of the designated areas or for the application of the incentives to other areas. Great care has already been taken, in consultation with officials of the local authorities concerned, in the selection of the areas to which the scheme should apply. Similarly there is no intention to extend the period of application of the incentives beyond the termination dates already announced. The incentives will have a limited life span and there should be no false expectations about their extension.
The construction industry, property interests, business and commercial interests should quickly get together to devise suitable schemes of development and redevelopment which can be got underway in the designated areas. We are dealing with a once-off special offer for a limited period only which can work to the advantage of all concerned. I hope that it will be treated as an opportunity not to be missed.
The general approach of the Government to urban renewal avoids many of the unacceptable features of the proposals contained in the Urban Development Areas Bill, 1982, and provides a simpler but far more effective strategy for actually achieving the objective. In particular, there are no proposals in the Bill for the establishment of a large number of urban development commissions or other bodies to take over the planning and other functions of local authorities in relation to areas designed for urban renewal.
A detailed explanatory memorandum has already been circulated with the Bill and so I propose to deal now only with its main features. Section 6 of the Bill will enable the Minister for the Environment, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to designate areas in which there is a special need to promote urban renewal. As I indicated earlier, the areas proposed for designation have already been decided upon and are described in the Third Schedule to the Finance Bill. These same areas will be designated under section 6 as soon as the present Bill is enacted.
Section 7 provides for the making of schemes for the remission of rates in respect of premises in designated areas and these schemes will be made as soon as possible after the enactment of the Bill. The intention is that there will be full remission of rates for ten years on new buildings constructed in a designated area between 23 October 1985 and 31 May 1989 and full remission of the rates on any increase in the valuation of enlarged or improved buildings.
Sections 8, 9 and 10 provide for the establishment of the Custom House Docks Development Authority and for the functions of the Authority. The Authority will consist of a chairman and four ordinary members appointed by the Minister. It will basically be a single-purpose, ad hoc Authority charged with the task of securing the redevelopment of the Custom House Docks area. The size of the Authority, both in terms of their membership and staffing arrangements, is being kept to the minimum consistent with the effective performance of their task. They will be an executive rather than a representative body. They will acquire, hold and manage land for development by themselves or others; prepare a scheme or schemes for development, redevelopment or renewal of land in the area, develop or secure the development of such land; provide infrastructure and carry out works of amenity development or environmental improvement.
The type of persons to be appointed as members of the new Authority will be selected on the basis of their expertise and experience in relation to such matters as land acquisition and disposal, estate management and development, commercial and financial management and experience in local government and public administration. The staffing arrangements and other services required by the Authority will obviously vary over the various stages of the project and the Bill, therefore, provides for flexible arrangements whether by way of direct employment of staff under section 20, the engagement of consultants under section 21 or the use of services or staff provided by the Minister or any other statutory authority under section 8 (5). The Authority will have all the powers necessary to undertake and complete the task assigned to them, following which they will be dissolved under section 22.
Section 12 is an important provision which deals with the position of the Authority in relation to the physical planning system. The provisions of this section are carefully framed with a view to minimising disruption of, or interference with, the normal operation of the physical planning system but at the same time, ensuring that the objective of initiating and securing the redevelopment of the area can be achieved with the minimum of delay on a properly planned basis.
The Authority will prepare a planning scheme for the site and the carrying out of any development which is consistent with that scheme will be exempted development for the purposes of the Planning Acts and will not, therefore, require planning permission in the ordinary way. Safeguards are, however, being incorporated to ensure that a reasonable balance is maintained between the need to promote early development on the site and the need to provide for public participation and compatibility with the objectives of the planning authority as set out in the development plan for Dublin city. In the first instance, the Authority will be required, in the preparation of the planning scheme, to consult with Dublin Corporation, to have regard to the development plan for Dublin city, to receive and consider submissions from interested parties and to comply with any general directives issued by the Minister under section 9 of the Bill. Secondly, the Authority will be required to submit the planning scheme for approval by the Minister and, at the same time, send a copy of the scheme to Dublin Corporation. Thirdly, the Minister will be required to consider any objections to the scheme made within one month by Dublin Corporation and, following consideration of any such objections, it will be open to him to approve or amend the scheme in such manner as he thinks proper. The carrying out of development on the site will be exempted development only if consistent with the planning scheme so approved. Any amendments which the Authority wish to make to the planning scheme will be subject to the same procedures as the original scheme. These arrangements should constitute an acceptable framework for the discharge of their functions by the Authority without unduly disturbing or conflicting with the established principles of the physical planning system.
Section 13 of the Bill provides for the transfer to the Authority of land in the Custom House Docks area now in the ownership of the Dublin Port and Docks Board and for the payment to the board of proper compensation for the land so transferred. The actual amount of compensation to be paid will be determined by the Minister, with the consent of the Ministers for Finance and Communications. The value of the land is to be taken, for the purposes of that determination, as the open market value of the land immediately prior to the announcement by the Taoiseach on 23 October 1985 of the proposals to confer a range of taxation advantages on development on the site. This is consistent with the established principles for the determination of land values in cases of compulsory purchase.
Sections 14 to 19 generally deal with the financial arrangements for the new Authority. There is provision for the making of grants to the Authority by the Minister in the first two years of their existence, power for the Authority to borrow funds not exceeding £10 million, and power to make advances not exceeding £5 million to the Authority from the Central Fund. Provision is also made in section 17 whereby the Minister will have power to issue general directives to the Authority in relation to the conduct of their financial affairs and the application of profits or other income or funds of the Authority. It is envisaged in this regard that the Authority will generally be self-financing and that their operations will not become a burden on the Exchequer. It is quite possible, in fact, that surpluses will be incurred by the Authority and that their operations will enable them to make contributions to the Exchequer to the advantage of taxpayers generally. Sections 18 and 19 require the keeping and auditing of accounts and the making of annual reports by the Authority.
Section 22, as I have mentioned already, provides for the dissolution of the Authority when their services are no longer required and for the necessary consequential matters such as transfer of staff and property.
The Schedule to the Bill describes the area for which the Authority will be responsible. The boundary has been drawn by reference to public thoroughfares rather than by reference to property boundaries, but it is only land owned by the Dublin Port and Docks Board in the area which can be transferred to the new Authority.
The Custom House Docks site has been the subject of a good deal of controversy for a number of years. It has also been a subject of concern for many people that whatever action may be taken in relation to it should properly reflect the unique importance of the site and its potential to make a significant contribution to the ongoing development of Dublin city. The existing dock system on the site was completed more than 150 years ago. We now have an exceptional opportunity to revive this special site and to develop new uses and activities there in a manner which will influence and enhance the future of the inner city of Dublin for future decades. By doing so, we will revitalise also the whole surrounding area of the north inner city.
I am confident that the proposals contained in the Bill will bring about the revitalisation not only of the Custom House Docks site but of the other designated areas as well. I am also confident that the project will be welcomed by the community as a whole and I have no hesitation in commending the Bill to the House.
Last October, when the Government announced plans for the refurbishment of homes, I sat here and marvelled at the way they were taking up Fianna Fáil's policies and ideas. Today I stand here with that same feeling because, as everyone knows, it was Fianna Fáil who pioneered public commitment to urban renewal and development. As far back as 1978 it was the then Fianna Fáil Government who established a special inter-departmental committee on the development of a new approach to urban renewal. It was also Fianna Fáil who advanced the first comprehensive plan for urban development when we published our Urban Development Areas Bill, 1982, and the Dublin Inner City Development Authority Bill, 1982.
The Bill introduced by the Minister of State today is clearly inspired by these Fianna Fáil efforts but, as with the Government's plans for house renovation, there are glaring, unacceptable and indefensible omissions. These omissions must be rectified in the interests of a positive plan for urban renewal and for plans for the Dublin inner city area.
The Minister stands condemned today because it has taken him four years to put this Bill together. At the beginning of his speech he had the nerve to claim that this Bill arose as a result of a working party that reported to the Government in 1985. Anyone reading this Bill and the Urban Development Areas Bill, 1982, will see that all that has happened is that we have had a four year delay, while this Government were unable to take decisions. They showed they had no commitment to urban development. Because of that delay the problems of the inner city and the inner suburbs, which are often forgotten in this context, have got much worse. I blame the Government totally for not proceeding with our Bills in 1982 and 1983. I blame them for the four year delay and for dragging their heels on urban renewal and development. I do not think the people will be conned by the adjectives — they want action.
Fianna Fáil recognise that a clear understanding of the extent and nature of urban decay and a deep commitment to its solution exists among a number of dedicated people in positions of community leadership not only in the north inner city area but in the city generally and in other cities throughout the country. Their experience and knowledge must provide the basis for the development of a special programme to eliminate the problems of the inner city area, problems we have already identified. Fianna Fáil believe that a comprehensive and integrated approach must be developed in co-ordination with the people of the areas and also with their public elected representatives. We believe in an approach that would integrate developments in housing, employment, education, welfare, public amenities and community development, but this Bill does not take any of these elements into consideration. It downplays consultation with the people and instead sets great store on the ability of this Coalition Government to deliver on urban renewal. After a four year delay in recognising the problem, I wonder if all we have here is a jumble of words and not deeds. Again, I assert our commitment to urban renewal. It must be carried out in consultation with the locality. This is the only way a living city can be maintained.
There must also be a proper mix between commercial and residential elements.
In the past year Dublin Corporation have renewed their commitment to local housing in the inner city. It is shortsighted and bad planning if the only houses to be built in the area are for those on the corporation housing list. Private housing must be encouraged by way of a range of incentives. I hope the drift from the inner city will be stopped and that we will have more private housing built in the area, not only in Dublin but in other cities. We have seen the error of just having local authority housing in the centre of our cities. It is time to change that emphasis.
Fianna Fáil have already indicated a wide range of incentives to encourage construction in the country at large. Again we feel that the section 23 incentives introduced by Fianna Fáil and abolished by the Coalition would be of particular use in this area of urban development. I am glad I heard the Minister speak of it this morning. How is it that the Minister can be so shortsighted when the use of section 23 would provide a number of positive incentives for both the construction of new units and the refurbishment of older units? I am glad he is recognising the benefits of section 23.
We also have to bear in mind that many younger families are being forced out of the inner city areas to the so called new towns. This is particularly relevant in Dublin. Again this is shortsighted in terms of the population mix of the city in general. These considerations are missing in this Bill. The inner city is being regarded as an area which exists in total isolation from the city at large. In several respects the Custom House Docks site is unique. It cannot be cut off from the general urban context of Dublin and neither can the site be regarded as peculiar. The site has unique advantages. It also places on us as administrators and politicians in the eighties a very special responsibility. Because this site is available within walking distance — a couple of hundred yards — of our main throughfare, O'Connell Street, it is vitally important that in the redevelopment of that site we get a proper mix of housing, amenity, commercial, industrial and so on rather than following the planning permission which was granted to the Port and Docks Board in 1982. I would like to see us taking advantage of all the possibilities of this site for the benefit of future generations. I am fearful about this Bill.
Fianna Fáil also believe that there is a need for a positive policy of urban development in the country at large. This is especially so in view of the recent ERDO report which suggests that the population of the inner city has fallen by 51,000 since 1966. This report also suggests that this trend will continue if the present policies of the Government are continued — and there is no reason to think they will not. We, on the other hand, are worried about where to put the projected increase of over 500,000 in the population of the Dublin region by the year 2001. We believe that the best way to handle the population increase is to examine the potential of all the areas of Dublin in an integrated approach to the whole city and to develop the inner city in co-ordination with the other areas in Dublin and other parts of the country.
We welcome the appointment of the development authority for the Custom House Docks site. But we believe a strong case can be made for the appointment of similar authorities in areas such as the medieval walled city of Dublin. This is a very special part of Dublin which has suffered serious decay over the years. In our Bill, the Urban Development Areas Bill, it was our intention to appoint a commission — in this new Bill it is merely called an authority — to examine the potential and prepare the same type of development programme for the walled city as for the Custom House Docks site. It is a mistake that a development authority are not being appointed for the old walled city because that area is crying out for properly programmed redevelopment and this can best be achieved by a commission. In his speech the Minister said:
The general approach of the Government to urban renewal avoids many of the unacceptable features of the proposals contained in the Urban Development Areas Bill, 1982, and provides a simpler but far more effective strategy for actually achieving the objective. In particular, there are no proposals in the Bill for the establishment of a large number of urban development commissions or other bodies to take over the planning and other functions of local authorities in relation to areas designated for urban renewal.
I would not regard that as a positive feature of the Bill. The Minister is making a major error in not appointing development authorities for these designated areas in the other cities and in particular in relation to the walled city of Dublin. The old walled city needs an urban authority. It needs an urban commission, as we called it. If we are to follow what the Minister says, this area will decay further. The problem with the deterioration that has taken place within the walled city has been as a result of planning procedures not working. The present laws do not work. We must look at an alternative and the only alternative is the one we proposed in 1982, an urban commission. I will be putting down an amendment on Committee Stage to extend the authorities to the old walled city of Dublin and appoint authorities for the other designated areas in the other cities because by doing that, we will have the sort of spotlighted approach that is required.
It is necessary to bring these areas back to their full potential. Nobody can be blind to the potential of the old walled city. We could have streets of galleries, of small restaurants, commercial areas, residential areas. The potential is quite incredible with all of the network of small streets and alleyways involved in that area. The potential is there and it is essential that we have an authority to spotlight the area, to concentrate on renewing and restoring these areas. It is one of the major failings of the Bill that we are not going to appoint authorities in these other areas and I will be putting down an amendment on Committee Stage. To do otherwise than appoint the authorities is shortsighted and denies the Government access to our greatest resource, the creativity of our own people. I think they could be particularly creative in these authorities. There is a special need there.
In relation to the specific proposals in the Bill we recognise that the 27 acres of land adjacent to the Custom House must be developed properly. It is a unique site within walking distance of the main thoroughfare of our capital. It is not just a Dublin site. It is a site for the whole of the country. But this cannot be done in isolation. We cannot just develop the Custom House Docks site as if there was a railing around it. It has to fit in to a more general plan for the city, the north city, the south city, the county of Dublin and the country as a whole. Within the Custom House Docks site we recognise that there is a potential for commercial development and I hope the Government will not present to us the pie in the sky they trotted out in their general election document of 1981, when the rejuvenation of the inner city consisted of such far flung ideas as river buses on the River Liffey. Does the Minister remember that?
That would take imagination, and I do not expect the Deputy to have any.
The Minister had river buses on the River Liffey. We were going into the gondola business. We were to have a Tivoli Gardens complex in the city, the development of street furniture and so on. I am prepared to bow to the Minister in this because he is more than welcome to claim recognition for the unique idea of gondolas on the River Liffey. I will not try to claim it.
It would need a little imagination.
It needs a lot of imagination.
Like the £9.60.
The £9.60 was in the same document. Do you remember that a Leas-Cheann Comhairle?
Obviously the Deputy has not been to cities abroad, and he has not taken this idea on board.
I have done a fair bit of travelling and I will leave it to outside observers to judge the merits of the gongolas on the Liffey.
We have a river and we do not use it.
I hope we are not going to have more of that tripe.
The Deputy would be an exponent of tripe.
Those plans were totally unreal against a background of the obvious decline in the economic and social infrastructure of the inner city. In the past there was little reality about the Coalition's approach to inner city development.
Dublin port has a vital part to play in the economic regeneration of the city. I want to take the opportunity this morning to nail a lie with regard to the Custom House Docks site.
Not in the House.
No, not in the House. Some time back Dublin Port and Docks Board got into considerable financial difficulties. There was a representative of the board on the "Today Tonight" programme who used that opportunity to lay the blame for the problems of the Port and Docks Board on the Fianna Fáil Bill of 1982 which, he said, delayed them being paid for the Custom House Docks site. The Port and Docks Board got themselves into that trouble by appalling management and the fact that they were involved in Dublin Cargo Handling and other organisations. Their difficulties arose from their mismanagement and had nothing to do with the very necessary urban renewal programme we put forward in 1982. To try to lay the blame on the Government of the day was a total and utter untruth. It is gratifying to see that the Port and Docks Board are managing their affairs better now, with the newer members on the board, including my colleague Deputy Ahern. To try to put the blame on the Fianna Fáil administration at the time was a total untruth.
With regard to the Custom House Dock site and the payment for the land, I would like the Minister to clarify the system of payment for the site. The Minister said:
The actual amount of compensation to be paid will be determined by the Minister, with the consent of the Ministers for Finance and Communications. The value of the land is to be taken, for the purposes of that determination, as the open market value of the land immediately prior to the announcement by the Taoiseach on 23 October 1985 of the proposals to confer a range of taxation advantages on development on the site.
Will the site be paid for on the basis of the value of the land with the 1982 permission on it, or the value of the land without the 1982 permission? There is no point paying the value of the land with the 1982 permission when the 1982 permission is not going to be allowed operate. Or will we have the Government paying the Port and Dock Board money regularly for the site? I would like the Minister to clarify this question.
Fianna Fáil believe that redevelopment can be carried out only through the adoption of positive attitudes which will promote investment, inspire confidence and draw on the strength and creativity of the people and all our investors. I want a real commitment. I do not want to have to suffer the humiliation, as happened to me earlier, of being told by EC officials that this Government are not interested in urban renewal. I sat through a meeting with Mr. Mathijsen, regional director of the EC, in the company of the Lord Mayor of Dublin and Bill Harvey the Cathaoirleach of Dún Laoghaire Borough Council.
We were asking about any aid which was available for the greater Dublin area, and we were told Mr. Mathijsen was preparing a letter to send to the Irish Government asking them to apply for available EC aid. He said they could not get applications from this Government for integrated development programmes. I ask the Minister of State in his reply to refer to integrated development programmes because there is nothing integrated about this Bill. It is working in isolation whereas our legislation in this area was tied in with the urban development legislation and the inner city development authority.
Urban areas must be living and vibrant and, in order for this to happen, there must be a mix between residential and commercial development; there must be consultation with local councillors and organisers and there must be an integrated and co-ordinated approach to urban areas. This Bill does not reflect these considerations. The only way urban decay can be halted is for the local authorities to be given a more positive role. The need to establish development authorities in other areas must be recognised.
I welcome the sections of this Bill which are clearly inspired by the Fianna Fáil Bill of 1982 but I am disappointed that the Bill before us today is so narrow in scope. These limits betray a lack of understanding of urban problems in general and, coupled with the delay of four years in arriving at what we have before us today, are not very encouraging for urban renewal.
I will be putting down a number of amendments which I intend to discuss at great length on Committee Stage when we can tease out such things as the planning scheme as laid out in section 12, how that scheme will operate and so on, because the planning scheme as drafted in this Bill is not as specific as the Fianna Fáil scheme. We saw the need to write into the Bill the need for the authority to come up with a specific plan which would show this mix of residential, amenity, commercial and industrial. That is not in this Bill. It is too open as it stands and I want to be more specific. It is a pity the Government are losing this opportunity to take a global look at urban renewal and are merely coming in with a single piece of legislation.
I intend to make a very brief contribution on this Bill because I know there is a long list of speakers. This Bill will please every Dublin Deputy. I would like to congratulate the Minister on his initiative in introducing this Bill. He has brought to bear in the Department his long experience in local government and his unique sense of feeling for the city which he with other Deputies, has the honour to represent in this House.
Like Deputy Burke, I expect that this will be the first of a series of Bills, part of the integrated policy which the Government have towards tackling this problem of urban decay, one of the great ills of our time. Sometimes I wonder if this city might not have been better off if we had been involved in wartime bombing. It is not that I like to see people hurt, but consider some of the cities of Europe which were devastated and reduced to rubble. There we can see places where imagination and local initiative were brought to bear and where the planners had full scope to create beautiful and habitable new surroundings to the benefit of their people. See the freedom they had. In a sense they were starting anew.
In contrast our approaches which have to be piecemeal and haphazard, and our archaic laws and greedy developers have contributed to the problem we have today. There is no doubt in anybody's mind about the scale and scope of the problem facing the Government and the community in making Dublin the jewel we would all like it to be, one of the most beautiful and habitable cities in Europe. Dublin has the location, the natural resources. It has the hills and mountains for a background, the rivers and the sea. It has the size. It has everthing to make it one of the most pleasant and habitable cities in Europe. Perhaps it is too big and a policy of decentralisation would help.
We have made mistakes from which at this stage we should be capable of learning, as we have learned from our mistakes in the house building programme in the city. Dublin Corporation's house building programme in the inner city areas is a model for any other country in Europe and the corporation, the Government and the community can be justly proud of it. However, regarding the scale and the scope of this problem facing the Minister and the Government, we see Dublin as a blighted city. We see the accummulation of piecemeal decay, the ravages of greedy developers.
I recommend to everybody involved in this to read Frank McDonald's book on the destruction of Dublin, which may be at times a little overstated, a little angry, but nonetheless it chronicles what has happened to our city over the years. Because local government was not strong enough, we were not prepared to put the resources into rebuilding Dublin, our planning laws had not an overall perspective, and the archaic nature of some of our planning laws prevented the acquisition of property for the common good when that should have been done. Now our city centre is a source of pride and joy to nobody.
There is no real incentive for commerce to invest further in the city centre at present. We have the crime problems, the grubbiness, the knock on effects of lack of development of areas which have become run down and seedy. When I have foreign visitors I am usually in a hurry to get them out of the centre city area, to bring them out to see the sort of things of which this country can be proud. That is a great shame because in some — not all — other great cities the centre city is where one begins, where one starts out on one's pilgrimage, and there is so much that could be worth seeing and is worth preserving in that area here.
It is interesting to contrast the decay of Dublin in recent decades with the vibrance of the young people in Dublin. I am not talking in clichés about our young people being our greatest asset, but we can see even in derelict areas that young people have come up with ideas and initiatives, sometimes benefiting from Government aid programmes, sometimes on their own. They have flair. They have set up businesses which have brought life back to many of these semi-derelict areas. With a proper plan for the redevelopment of inner city Dublin people with ideas and flair are there to establish small markets, small craft centres, small restaurants, bistros and so on which will make the city centre an attractive focal point for people to work in and to take their pleasure. For that reason I am very pleased with this Bill. It is starting off in that direction.
Unfortunately there is another bigger area which I hope will be tackled in the foreseeable future. Probably the worst part of Dublin is the area along the quays. I know from talking to people in the Minister's Department, officials and members of Dublin Corporation and people who live in the area, that there is a huge desire that the problems of our quays should be tackled and that a proper redevelopment programme should begin on our quays. The building of the corporation offices at Wood Quay is now a fact and whether, it was right or wrong, is irrelevant at this stage. The delay in moving in has been unfortunate but so be it. Acres of space along the quays are waiting to be developed.
The quays as we see them now are a source of neither pleasure nor beauty. Yet what other city has such a river running right through it with beautiful wide streets on each side which could be turned into a major point of attraction for tourists and the people of the city? When this Bill goes through I hope the Minister, the corporation and others will be able to turn in a realistic way to the development of the areas along the quays. If it means that private vested interests have to be dealt with in a somewhat rough way to bring this about, so be it, but the sooner there is an integrated overall plan for the development of the quays the sooner we can talk seriously about urban renewal and development.
It is important that the overall question of urban renewal should not be confined simply to the inner city areas. Over the past number of years many parts of our city have been developed very rapidly without proper thought of the consequences of the type of development entered upon where proper amenities were not provided and where questions of transport, access and so forth were not thought out fully. However, in a number of areas the fundamental design plan was wrong. For reasons which seemed good at the time a model was adopted which was the basis for the development. The people who went to live in the areas have been the victims of either the wrongness of the model or bad planning and have suffered. We have seen millions of pounds of taxpayers' money poured into developments which were not, as they should have been, places where people could live in peace, calm and comfort, bring up their families safely and securely and have all the decent amenities of modern life.
One such development which has received much publicity in recent times is Darndale in my constituency. That development was based on a project which had won architectural awards right across Europe. Similar models were adopted in Britain and in other countries in Europe and used as the basis for design. However, the transfer from the architect's board into reality ended up almost as a fiasco. The reality never matched the expectations. Important things were left out. I am very pleased that the Taoiseach and the Minister have accepted that in the case of Darndale, and possibly other developments, because the fundamental design was wrong, there is a need to redesign the area in consultation with the people who have lived there over the past ten years and who have suffered the consequence of bad design. Taxpayers' money is better spent in helping to redesign fundamentally an existing estate rather than trying to rectify things which simply cannot be rectified.
I am very pleased that the Department of the Environment have entered into a commitment with other interested groups to ascertain whether Darndale can be redesigned as far as possible in line with the wishes of those who live there, based upon their experiences. This will provide a real sense of community involvement and show the people concerned that the Government and the local authorities are not faceless organisations but genuinely concerned with providing housing and environment up to the best standards. It is only by doing so that we have any chance of getting at the fundamental problems existing in many of these areas. For that reason, I am glad that the whole concept of urban renewal embraces far more than just the inner urban areas and that it takes into account other areas which, through man-made planning disasters, have not worked as it was intended they should.
I welcome the approach of the Minister and the spirit in which the Bill is presented to the House. I am sure that all Dublin Deputies will see it as an important first step towards an integrated overall approach to giving us the type of city which Dublin should be, a capital city which will be pleasant to live in, which will produce an atmosphere in which commerce and enterprise will flourish, which will attract foreign tourists and which will be worthy of the name of Dublin.
It is not often that a Deputy rises to speak on a Bill which is almost exclusively concerned with the constituency which he or she represents. This Bill, like the Urban Development Bill of 1982, is primarily about the area which I represent, the inner city of Dublin. While the Bill is designed to revitatalise other parts of the country, the major section deals with the Custom House Docks site and other areas along the quays. It also includes Mountjoy Square and I hope that there will be uplift and renewal there as a result of the Bill.
I know that the Minister of State is particularly interested in this Bill and that he has done a lot or work in connection with it. I am glad that he held his position when he became Government Chief Whip because other people may not have been as committed to urban renewal. The Minister has been a member of Dublin Corporation for years and is well aware of the problems in the inner city as he represents an area similar to mine on the other side of the Liffey.
Ten years ago I would have made a far more critical and attacking speech regarding neglect and urban blight in the inner city of Dublin and other cities. However, things have changed in recent years and there are now signs of hope and optimism. We should not be too depressed about the inner city, we should look on the good side and see how we can improve matters. There is much talk about the terrible crime rate, lack of investment opportunities and resources and how depressed people are. It is not all like that; as Deputy Manning said, we have a beautiful river, one of the finest ports in Europe and, thanks to the wide streets commission at the turn of the century, we have some fine streets and many of the best parks in Europe. There is more land under park development in Dublin than anywhere else in the world.
Those who live in the inner city are a unique population and, unlike other inner city people round the world, they tend to be a very close-knit community. You can still leave your key in the hall door in most areas of the inner city of Dublin which you cannot do in the suburbs. The cynic will say that is because there is nothing to rob in inner city houses because of the level of deprivation but there is a great spirit in those areas. There are strong residents' organisations and many inner city festivals. The Custom House overlooks one of the finest areas of renewal in Europe, City Quay and further up we have Merchant's Quay. On the other side of the river there is a new housing development at the back of the Four Courts which is also a very good example of urban renewal. There have also been improvements in Dorset Street and Seán McDermott Street. Corporation Street and Foley Street were pulled down and we now have Liberty Park which, unlike any other park in any other part of the world, is free from vandalism. It is in the heart of one of the most deprived areas in the country; the trees were planted by the young people in the area who play there from early morning until late at night. There is a sunken all-weather pitch and there has never been any trouble. Indeed, the rate of crime and drug taking has fallen drastically; perhaps it has moved to another area but I can only speak for my own area. There is massive unemployment but it has not broken the spirit of the people.
Undoubtedly the inner city area was used by criminal gangs to launch into the drugs area in the early eighties but the people there now appreciate what the taxpayer and the State have done to change it. I was born and reared in this area. My family have been there for 50 years and my wife's family have lived on the quays for six generations. When there is a family get together our anthem is "Dublin in the Rare Old Times", and they all agree that the inner city has improved since the forties, fifties and sixties. When agriculture was booming in the sixties, the Government forgot about the inner city. It was not until the end of the seventies, when Deputy Haughey was Taoiseach, that things improved. He initiated local authority housing developments and some of the industry like the IDA Pearse Street development. There is also a new one on the Gardiner Street-Seán McDermott Street junction which will open in about a month's time. However, many investors and agencies, including banking groups, look on the inner city as Outer Mongolia and will not do anything to help the area. What has the Minister's Department done in relation to the PMPA offices in Mountjoy Square, one of the finest squares in the country? The PMPA invested money, which perhaps they did not have, but at least they improved the area.
There is a good joke going the rounds in the inner city, but it is a serious one, that whatever else one may say about Joe Moore he will be long remembered for what he did in Mountjoy Square. The development there is superb but the agents, Harrington Bannon, with whom I have had discussions on many occasions, have tried to almost give that office development away to State, semi-State bodies and business organisations but they cannot get tenants. I do not wish to mention the multinationals who were approached, or the semi-State bodies, but my opinion is that the people concerned were more worried about what would happen to their cars or the handbags of their staff as they walked through Mountjoy Square than they were about inner city renewal.
That fantastic office development which is within minutes of O'Connell Street has been idle for three years. There is little use in bringing forward legislation to give tax reliefs and other incentives to encourage entrepreneurs, land speculators, developers or banking institutions to develop areas in the inner city if buildings like that in Mountjoy Square are left idle. That office development is located on one of the finest squares in the country and overlooks a beautiful park where very little vandalism occurs. The building is adjacent to one of the country's biggest Garda stations and within walking distance of the city. We should take our heads out of the sand and try to find out why the building has been idle for so long. I know the background to this. I am aware that major firms were about to sign letting agreements but then adopted the view that on a cold winter's evening at Mountjoy Square when one would be leaving the office one would be lucky if one's car was where it was parked in the morning. Those people also expressed the view that the handbags of some of their staff might be stolen while they waited at the adjoining bus stop.
The State must take a lead in regard to such development work. Why is it that a Government body have not rented offices in this building? I understand that the amount sought is 30 per cent lower than anything on offer in Dublin 4. According to the Minister today only 15 per cent of the offices built in the last 25 years in the greater Dublin area were erected north of the Liffey. We should not be talking about building more offices when a fine building is left idle in Mountjoy Square. The Minister should deal with that when replying.
Deputy Doyle and I lead the two major parties on Dublin Corporation. That body have an active housing programme and continue to build houses which are of a higher standard than any in Europe. Public representatives from Europe have expressed surprise at the quality of the houses we build. Their specifications are higher than those in houses sold for up to £60,000 in the greater Dublin area. The facilities in them are second to none. It is the policy of Dublin Corporation, for as long as the Government continue to give us the resources — we have not received the 1986 allocation yet but we are hopeful that it will be paid shortly — to continue with our housing programme. We hope to buy many of the derelict sites that CIE and other bodies do not want.
We will have to stop the move out of the inner city. It is frightening to see the number of houses that are for sale there. Many families are thinking of leaving the area. More than any other Member I am aware of the feelings of people who live in private houses in the inner city. They are crying out for private house development in the area. It is their view that as long as local authority houses are erected at every corner people will not be attracted to live in the inner city. Those people have a lot of evidence of how the area has changed, how they have been ignored while other areas have been facilitated. All they are asking is that there should be a balance. I am hoping that on the 27 acre site there will be a private development to accommodate families who live in the inner city. I am not referring to section 23 apartments to be used by business people during the week and left idle at the weekend. I am not concerned about people who will head for the green spaces at the weekend and stay in watching television during the week. We have to attract private developers to build houses on that site. We need an inner city private housing community. I have expressed that view at meetings in Seán McDermott Street, North Wall and East Wall.
I wonder if Members are aware that three-bedroom houses in the inner city cannot be sold for £15,000 although five or six years ago those houses were worth about £25,000. The main problem is that people do not see a mix in the area. People know that Dublin Corporation are sitting on compulsory purchase orders with road widening proposals for the year 3,000. The antiquated laws we operate under are ruining the inner city. The Bill before us may help but we should insist on more private houses and a certain number of business premises being erected there. If the site from the Custom House Dock to a point opposite Merchants' Quay is developed properly it will be of great benefit to the area.
The Minister should appoint people who are interested in inner city renewal to the proposed board and not commercial vampires interested in property speculation. If the latter are appointed we will have a lot of warehouses and office blocks erected but very few private houses. From the Custom House corner to dockland there are hundreds of acres of derelict sites, warehouses that were built 100 years ago. Those houses are monuments to stone masons of many years ago but they cannot be used by the Dublin Port and Docks Board whose offices are sited at Alexander Basin.
If people want to build offices, they can build them there. What we want on the Custom House Docks site, on the river, are people, families. I hope the Minister and his officials will endeavour to put that message across. People may contend that it is costly. They should remember that it costs much more to have huge numbers of gardaí, security and social personnel dealing with the social problems of the inner city. While one Bill or one section of a Department cannot solve all of the problems of the inner city, we are afforded a unique opportunity to go a long way towards that goal if that 27 acre site is properly developed.
I have mentioned one of the areas up through Gardiner Street but there are several other areas where there are business premises by the score lying vacant, right up into Dorset Street. I hope to draft an amendment with Deputy R. Burke for Committee Stage in this respect. Forty years ago Dorset Street was one of the finest trading streets of the inner city, if not 100 years ago. Because it became practically a no-go area in the past 20 years, people left. There is now very little crime in Dorset Street and an area like that should be allocated tax incentives for its development. Is it not better to have business open and trading than shops lying idle? There remain a small number of people — perhaps because it was their family tradition to trade there — selling a few things. But there is no real business or trade being carried on there. People now by-pass the area.
To see the number of shops lying idle between Clonliffe Road and the city — formerly a beautiful area through which people passed coming from the north side of the city — is frightening. This is particularly regrettable while other people are calling for the building of large shopping centres. It should be remembered that there are shops lying derelict in that area sufficient to fill three or four such shopping centres. I ask the Minister to extend the line somewhat because it will not cost very much. Under the various incentives afforded in recent years, section 23 or otherwise, developers have made an effort to go to Dublin 4 but have not gone near Dublin 1. It will be a hard selling job to persuade them to do so.
The Minister gave very little details this morning of the whole position with regard to the Dublin Port and Docks Board site. My understanding is that the valuation undertaken by Mr. Sudway of the Horgan Group was £17 million for that site, that was a pre-October 1985 valuation. Is that to be the relevant valuation? Has agreement been reached with the Dublin Port and Docks Board? Are discussions taking place with the Dublin Port and Docks Board? When is it hoped that agreement will be reached? Back in 1982 legal opinions were sought, with the board arguing their rights, with differences of opinion as to what should be the relevant valuation, whether it should be that of 1981 when a Cabinet decision was taken on it; whether it should be that of February 1982 when there were discussions taking place on this Bill, whether it should have been the September 1984 valuation, the Horgan review and the Sudway valuation, or that of the 1985 review when there were the Deputy F. O'Brien proposals on the site.
It should be clearly stated what is happening and what is the present position. Those of us who are members of the Dublin Port and Docks Board and of Dublin Corporation are interested in a quick solution being achieved in order to get some development going. I do not believe there is anything to be hidden. The Minister should spell out the details, letting the media see clearly what is happening behind the scenes. It should be remembered that we are dealing with State organisations all answerable to this House — Dublin Corporation, who get their allocation through the Department of the Environment, the Dublin Port and Docks Board, established under statute and controlled by the Harbour Acts, and who are the responsibility of the Minister for Communications. There is no reason it could not all be sorted out within a month if people but put their heads together to effect the development of this extremely important site.
I agree with what Deputy Manning said about the quays. My family connections are with the quays. I spend a lot of my spare time on the quays and in the docks area and know them extremely well. From a reading of the files I know that for years past the IDA have been making representations to Dublin Corporation to have these areas developed. They were embarrassed that people coming to see the quays and port should see all of this dereliction. However, I note that none of the IDA offices is situated on the quays or on the north side of the city — though they appear to be concerned at the state of those areas — as are a number of other State and semi-State organisations all of whom have built their new offices over the past ten years in Dublin 4. Had all those organisations been so concerned for the development of those areas they might have located their head offices, for example, on the quays, and this area would not be in its present position.
However, I understand that people are human, that talk is cheap and action difficult. Nonetheless such organisations could well back Dublin Corporation who have very little money for such development. I suppose the Department of the Environment have less. We thought about it in Dublin Corporation but it appears that many of these groups do not think very highly of us as councillors. If the Department were to take the initiative in getting all of these organisations together, ascertaining what they could do to help, that would be an extremely useful exercise. A number of groups in the universities and the architectural colleges, such as Bolton Street, Kevin Street, and Trinity and UCD students held a number of seminars over the past 18 months on the question of the quays. Excellent proposals were advanced but they would cost a lot of money.
Only the banking and insurance institutions and State agencies who are allowed borrow money, can really effect quick changes in that area. The pressure should be put on them. It is difficult to get private enterprise to undertake the task. Unfortunately, private enterprise do not lead; they are led by others. It will be interesting to see whether the tax incentives included in this Bill will cajole them into playing their part which they have not done to date.
As this Bill passes through the House there are some very good, old, inner city firms pulling out of the area. perhaps the Department of Industry and Commerce are encouraging such firms to pull out through their lucrative grants. One wonders whether they know of the provisions in this Bill at all, or whether the Minister for Industry and Commerce chooses to ignore them. It is difficult to understand why such firms should be pulling out. They have adequate space and resources and some of them are located in the areas covered by the provisions of this Bill and the relevant tax incentives.
As our spokesman on the Environment, Deputy R. Burke asked this morning: is it not a fact that the Government have not really their heart in the renewal of the inner city? Is it not true what senior EC people said only three weeks ago to the Lord Mayor of Dublin, the Chairman of Dublin County Council and the Chairman of Dún Laoghaire Borough Council — that there is no interest on the part of the Government in a co-ordinated integrated renewal plan for Dublin city? The Government should deny that accusation or accept it as correct.
I understand that most of my Dublin colleagues and a number of other Deputies from other cities wish to speak. I am glad to note the degree of interest being taken in the matter. In replying the Minister might make some comment on the revolving funds at present being established in local authority areas. The £5,000 grant for houses built more than 40 years ago will be a definite benefit. This grant applies mainly to the inner city. When a house becomes derelict in a terrace block, because of problems with wills and title — this regularly happens — it is vacant for several years. It cannot be demolished because it would leave a gap in the terrace: some of the houses only yards from O'Connell Street are 200 years old and totally derelict. There are houses only 200 yards from O'Connell Street which have no sanitary facilities, as I have said many times.
Deputy Doyle and I have been ten years in Dublin Corporation and we can name 40 or 50 derelict houses which could have been bought over by Dublin Corporation and renovated through a revolving fund. This would change the appearance of between 150 and 200 little streets in the inner city. Many of those houses have been lying derelict for 20 years. If one or two houses in a terrace were demolished, because of the way those streets were constructed all the other houses would fall down like a deck of cards.
Therefore, if the Minister is sincere in his interest in urban renewal he should put a few million pounds into the corporation revolving fund — it is very small considering how much is being given to the building of new houses in Tallaght, Clondalkin and up in the mountains for people living in the inner city — it would do enormous good because people in the inner city do not want to go to areas 12 miles away. That has always been a fact of life in the Dublin inner city. That money could be used to buy all the derelict houses which have been lying unoccupied for several years, and if the corporation were allowed to give private contractors the right to go in and to renovate, in 12 months it would make a significant contribution to urban renewal.
We have been expressing bright ideas in the past ten years, giving vent to airy fairy schemes, but the heart of Dublin is derelict. Money which we had in Dublin Corporation this year for urban renewal was highjacked by the Department and taken into the overall allocation. Where, therefore, is the sincerity? The wish of the people in the inner city is to see their districts revitalised. They hope that regardless of what happens we will still have an inner city. This Government have not the sincerity to do it. The Minister of State in the Department of the Environment, the Government Chief Whip, has an opportunity through this Bill to do something concrete about this problem. He could be responsible for changing Dublin's inner city. Is he prepared to do it? If he does not do it now we will be talking about it for another five or ten years.
I want at the outset to congratulate the Government and the Minister of State on bringing forward the Urban Renewal Bill which I see as the first step in a major urban renewal effort in the inner city areas of the five major corporations. The Bill, along with the Finance Bill, represents a very significant step towards the full implementation of the package of measures relating to employment and taxation which the Taoiseach announced to this House last October.
There are probably few subjects which command so much unanimous verbal support, but so little real action, as the need for vital and thriving inner cities. The package of incentives now being proposed by the Government is the first real attempt at providing widespread private sector involvement in the revitalisation of inner city areas.
We are all familiar with the need to make planning and management decisions on a sound economic basis and to make optimum use of scarce resources. The basic premise on which the Government's attitude to urban renewal is founded is that the inner areas of our major urban centres represent a very valuable resource in terms of people and community life, public buildings, business, commercial and cultural centres, infrastructure and other urban amenities. Resources of this value cannot be allowed to suffer from neglect, under-utilisation or dereliction without heavy and unsustainable costs in terms of social problems, physical decay and massive demands for less economic investment in other locations.
For many years, however, the inner cores of our larger urban centres have been decaying and large areas have become derelict. The difficulties involved in the redevelopment of such areas are well known. Site acquisition and development costs tend to be high; there are environmental and social problems and there has been a movement of established industries and other commercial activities to suburban locations. These and other factors have contributed to a process which is difficult to reverse.
Local authority housing of a high standard is being provided in inner urban areas, especially in Dublin. The situation in our inner cities, especially in Dublin, would be far worse but for the efforts of local authorities and various other agencies who have worked strenuously over the years to reverse the trend. Efforts to encourage private housing development in inner city areas, however, had little or no success. Activity by the private sector in general has been painfully slow in securing the redevelopment of such areas. All the evidence suggests that matters will get considerably worse unless a positive effort is made to redress the situation. Such an effort would seem to require Government intervention and that is precisely the requirement which has prompted the initiative now being taken by the Government.
Inner city areas were identified in each of the five county boroughs where dereliction and decay are extensive and which are likely to remain undeveloped unless special measures are taken. The areas had to be so located that their redevelopment would provide optimum effect for reversing the unfavourable perception of inner city areas as locations for investment and development. A range of substantial incentives has now been proposed which will create a substantial financial climate for large scale investment by the private sector in these areas and generate the confidence that the people living in those areas urgently require.
In the Minister's speech today, and in the Finance Bill, there are incentives to develop inner city areas. We must ask ourselves why huge tracts of land in the inner cities lie undeveloped. Between the canals in Dublin large areas have been zoned for industrial and commercial use. Unfortunately, the industrial and commerical sectors have not taken advantage of their position to redevelop those areas.
The Government are now taking certain initiatives, the main advantage of which will be to developers. There are two major areas in Dublin which require urgent redevelopment. The Bill provides for the 27-acre site at the Custom House and the other major designated areas lies between Bachelor's Walk and Heuston Station, on both sides of the river, known as the quays. They have been laying derelict for many years. It is sad that such a beautiful city as Dublin should have such derelict entrances to it.
As I have said, the Minister spoke about the financial incentives and he said the allowances include a 50 per cent initial grant and a 4 per cent annual allowance, with free depreciation allowances for occupiers. However, apart from the Custom House area only one half of those allowances will be available. Though I welcome wholeheartedly the incentives proposed by the Minister, I am disappointed that the areas on the quays will not receive the same financial incentives as the 27-acre site. If we are to redevelop the inner city here we must begin in the quays because that is what I would call the flagship of the city and the nation. The financial incentives which have been offered will create that climate. I am glad to inform the House that at a recent planning committee meeting of Dublin Corporation an application was received for the development of the quays, the first I have known of in a long time. I hope it will be the first of many and that developers will take advantage of these incentives.
The redevelopment of the inner city 27 acre site on the quays, in other designated areas and other urban cities will also bring other benefits. First will be an increase in employment, especially in the building industry. My colleagues across the House are always asking for support for that industry and in providing these incentives the Government are giving tremendous encouragement to that industry. This will create needed jobs, which is very important. It will bring business back to the inner city areas which has drifted over the past number of years to the suburbs and that is not healthy.
As someone who has made some little contribution to the housing programme of Dublin Corporation, I should like to say a few words on that aspect. In the past number of years we have continued to build a substantial number of inner city houses. The programmes provided for 2,300 houses since 1977. That is about 15 per cent of the total outcome. I understand that the corporation are pressing ahead with further housing projects with a view to rejuvenating Dublin between the two canals. The latest available data indicate that there are now 199 dwelling houses in the course of erection and a further 400 at planning stage or under construction in the central areas.
We have reached an unusual situation in our local authority. We have been building houses in the county area. There has been less demand for houses there and we have almost fulfilled the housing requirement. The programme for the inner city areas will go ahead at greater speed, but the availability of sites is limited. The Government have agreed that in this year's housing capital programme Dublin Corporation may use part of that programme for the refurbishing of existing housing stock. Many local authorities are using flats, especially in the inner city, which are urgently in need of refurbishing. That will be part of the urban renewal programme and I hope the authorities will avail of that programmes to carry out such work. Deputy Ahern has spoken about the odd house in a terrace of houses which could be taken over and refurbished. There is nothing to stop the local authority concerned from using part of their housing capital programme to carry out that work.
The programme for urban renewal has been sought for a long time. The Government are very courageous in bringing it forward. Fianna Fáil speakers are claiming that this Bill is the same as the Bill which they brought forward in 1982 to set up the urban development commission. This is patent nonsense. The 1982 Bill proposed to set up a commission in areas where the Minister thought fit, thus riding roughshod over the elected local authorities and taking over their functions. As far as I remember, the 1982 proposals had not got the financial incentives included in the present programme. Under the Bill before the House there will be consultation between the planning authority and the special authority which will be set up to develop the 27 acre site. Section 12 (5) provides that the Minister shall consider any objections that may be made by the corporation within one month of the sending of a copy of the scheme to the corporation.
I understand from a recent meeting of the planning and development committee that the committee consider a month's notice is a very short time for the local authority to act. They would like an extension of that time and I ask the Minister to consider bringing forward an amendment in that respect on Committee Stage. Under existing planning regulations the local authority have two months in which to approve a plan. There is great advantage in the authorities having special powers of their own in the planning area. Many developments have been proposed and passed by the planning authority but there often have been appeals by third parties to An Bord Pleanála and much of the redevelopment of Dublin has been held up because of these appeals. This proposal will give an added impetus to the development of the 27 acre site. There will be consultation and some time will be given to look at objections, but once the planning authority make the decision, the go ahead will be given straight away.
As a member of a Dublin local authority for the past ten years, I have been saddened by the continued dereliction in the city. The measures now being proposed are a very important step forward in the urban renewal of our city and the other cities in question. It is disheartening for members of a local authority, especially in Dublin city where we have made such efforts in housing that they have seen no comparable effort on the part of the private or commercial sectors. There is now a possibility, with the urban renewal programme, that Dublin will again become a fashionable place in which to live, that the dereliction will be removed and that the commercial life will come back to a far greater degree than heretofore. I welcome very much the proposals set out in the Bill.
Ar an gcéad dul síos, ní mór dom fáiltiú roimh an reachtaíocht seo, an Bille um Athnuachan Uirbeach.
I welcome the Urban Renewal Bill. On reading the Bill and the explanatory memorandum one is impressed by the extent to which the Bill and the Minister's Second Stage speech this morning centred on Dublin and the docks area in particular. We have already been reminded — and I propose to remind those who have not remembered — of similar proposals by our party given as a commitment. That commitment was accepted from our party by Members of this Dáil, in their own words because they could trust C.J. Haughey to fulfil an obligation or commitment when he gave it rather than when given by the other person seeking the post of Taoiseach, namely, Garret FitzGerald. Those words are on the record of this House more than once. From Malin to Schull in County Cork we are all familiar with the criticism levelled at Fianna Fáil at that time and in subsequent months for the commitment given to urban renewal of the inner city of Dublin. We welcome the Government's acceptance of those proposals as incorporated in this Bill and we are glad that those Government speakers who have contributed to the debate so far have indicated their support for the proposals. However, when we gave that commitment we were criticised by people from Fine Gael but we recognised the necessity for the proposals.
It was necessary to win the vote of Deputy Gregory.
Four years later that proposal is being welcomed by Government speakers. It has taken that length of time for them to realise the correctness of what we were proposing.
That is not correct.
What was recognised by us as being essential to the renewal of the inner city of Dublin is now being accepted by people who criticised us then. I trust that some of those who were even more critical of us than have been those who have spoken this morning will indicate their willingness now to admit that we were right. We had no trouble so far as our commitment was concerned.
That was why Fianna Fáil lost the election.
Our proposal was black-guarded and used in every derogatory way possible. It was referred to as something that was being put forward for reasons other than the reasons which necessitated the commitment.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
I welcome the change of heart and the commitment of the Government to inner city development as outlined in the Bill. When we made our commitment we recognised that matters could not be left as they were if the inner city areas were not to be denuded of population and activity. All the signs were apparent, especially in terms of school numbers. People were leaving the inner city. The point was that we recognised the problem and were prepared to take action on it. As my colleagues said earlier, a Bill in recognition of the problem was drafted and published by us. Perhaps the Chair could enlighten me as to whether this is a limited debate?
Acting Chairman
There is no limit for a Second Stage debate.
While I will be referring generally to the Bill I shall be dealing with it specifically also to the extent that it affects Cork city. We are all well aware of the downturn in the economy and life of Cork city in the past couple of years. Only 12 months ago that matter was the subject of a debate in Private Members' Time here. We indicated then the action that could be taken by the Government to reverse that downward trend. We put a good deal of emphasis on the question of revitalising the inner city and to this extent we proposed that various incentives and tax reliefs be offered to the construction industry. We indicated also that our decentralisation programme which had been put on the shelf by this Government should be reactivated. That has not happened and it seems as if our programme will remain on the shelf until we return to Government. Judging from the various sounds and signs from the general public, that will not be much longer.
Our decentralisation programme included proposals to site one section of a Government Department in the inner city area of Cork. By its location such a move would increase the demand for accommodation and services in the inner city and would have the spin-off effect of helping the recovery of the economy of the city.
In addition to the physical aspects of the proposals, such as the designation of areas, it would be well that we should reflect on the need that was established for a Bill of this kind. Because that need was established and referred to not only by us but by many groups — the CIF in particular — the Government recognised that the question of urban renewal had to be addressed. This was recognised also in the EC where funds were set aside for urban renewal. I am proud to say that in our Shandon renewal project in Cork we have achieved European recognition for our efforts. Cork Corporation initiated and followed through that renewal project. Their efforts were acknowledged by way of financial contribution from the EC.
By comparison with the cost of green field development, the cost of inner city development is high when one considers that such cost factors as way-leaves, boundaries and so on militate against inner city renewal. This Bill is welcome in that it proposes to make available incentives to property owners and developers to use the sites that are available and that are not being utilised. This will put them in a position to compete with the development of other lands in which the same cost factors would not apply.
The blight of inner city decay is evident in Cork as well as in other cities. It is reasonable to expect that even the small incentive proposed in this Bill will tip the balance in favour of creating a living heart in the inner city areas. These are areas in which the whole spectrum of services is available already — the physical services and the social services in the form of schools, churches and so on. The drain of people outwards left many of those services in danger of winding up or closing down. It was obvious that the real cost for urban sprawl was very high. Quite an amount of that cost was being borne by the State, which means by each and everyone of us. It was recognised by Fianna Fáil in the late seventies that the situation was undesirable and something had to be done. This we did. Up to then there were no positive incentives to maintain or retain the living life of the inner cities. Instead we had the added cost of providing the various services in the suburbs and beyond. As well as the overall cost to the Exchequer, we had the added cost of travel for those who had moved out. It must be said that we were slow in adopting and adapting to the changing pattern of traffic.
I am pleased to say in Cork, to help as an initial step in the revitalisation of the inner city, the land use and transportation study in the early seventies resulted in clearly defining the arteries and new bridges which were required to cross both channels of the River Lee. Urban renewal is not new and I want to say that very clearly. We in Cork recognised this and we have been working towards the creation of an infrastructure which will revitalise the inner city. That has been ongoing and continues to progress. Having set up the infrastructure we had the foundations laid on which to build the inner renewal of the city.
I welcome the tax and rates incentives in the Bill, we need them to form a balance and to tip the balance in favour of revitalising the city. In addition, I would have preferred if the Government had gone a step further and introduced a positive incentive grant. It will be seen in time that an incentive grant or a once-off payment will be necessary for the initial capital outlay required. In addition, to the employment that we hope will be created by the programme in the initial stages we are also conscious of the need for ongoing employment. It should have been looked at from that point of view and an incentive grant might yet be considered by the Government. Up to now any activity which went on in Cork was done by the local authority, for which they have to be commended. The revolving fund has been successful. Capital allocations granted by the Department of the Environment have contributed to the success of this fund. My experience as a representative for three-quarters of the city of Cork has shown that the enthusiasm of the people who had been moved out of the inner city to inner suburbia and the suburbs to go back to the inner city was an indication to us of the sincerely held view that through giving the correct incentives we could and will revitalise the heart of the city centre.
Still staying with the Cork area, I welcome the designated areas shown on the map issued to us. We will all say immediately we would prefer if this street, that street or some other street were added. In that vein, I welcome the limited amount that has been designated but what I am surprised with is that the Blackpool area has only a tiny part of its entire area designated under this Bill. Blackpool had a tradition for industrial activity in the sense that many of the industries which were there for years and some for centuries have closed down. Nevertheless, there is a tradition of industrial activity in the Blackpool area. Blackpool and its surrounding areas have a labour force. I would have thought that the Minister and the Department would have realised this and designated a larger area for special incentives. I hope at some stage before the legislation is finally put through that the Minister will see to it that we will again look at the area.
I accept that 80 areas in total designated in the Cork area is a reasonable beginning. I accept that it would not be desirable to have a much larger area designated with very limited development or little acceptance of the incentives to develop the area. It would be a sprawl that would not be conductive to the basic ideal of reactivating activity. Allowing for that, I must reiterate my view on the Blackpool area. The area designated is too limited for the conditions, the structure and the number of people in that area who would be accommodated in any industrial activity or service industry created by this proposal. The old distillery complex in that area and the number of units that have been successful there should have been a clear indication to the Minister and the Government that this area had something more to offer.
On Committee Stage, consideration should be given to the aspect about which I am talking. It must be known in the Department that the infrastructure which I spoke about includes a new thoroughfare right through that area to link up with the Mallow to Cork road. The infrastructure, the people and the tradition are there. I emphasise that this area should be looked at again with a view to extending the designated area and developing the incentives.
The Minister said this Urban Renewal Bill will help the construction industry. Over a year ago in a submission, the construction industry indicated to the Minister and the Government that, despite the constraints in Government finances, there is considerable scope for Government action to increase employment in the construction industry. The essential ingredients required are the political will to stimulate the industry coupled with decisive actions. I hope this Bill will help the industry. Over the past three years there has been a decline of 25 per cent in the construction industry. It has been established that the output target for the industry set out in the national plan Building on Reality of a 7 per cent growth rate between 1985 and 1987 is no longer achievable on the basis of current Government policies. I hope the introduction of this Bill and the discussion on it will once again indicate to the Government the position with regard to the construction industry.
Internationally the Irish construction industry has been experiencing the sharpest rate of annual decline when compared with our other EC members. That is totally unacceptable. We are all well aware that the construction industry plays a strategic role in the creation of employment provided the Government of the day create a positive environment through the provision of incentives to promote private sector investment and maintain direct public investment at the highest level. In that way the construction industry will be assisted.
Over 12 months ago during a discussion here on employment in the Cork area I recall referring to submissions made by the construction industry. I should like to place on record the views expressed at that time by various people including myself. A package of incentives directed at promoting development in inner city areas where unemployment levels are far higher than the national average and where many buildings and sites lie derelict, would make a very positive contribution to employment creation both at the construction stage and on a longer term basis. At that time I suggested that an inner city authority be set up to promote all types of development in designated areas and that a number of incentives be introduced. These incentives are not new and should not be introduced in a hurried fashion in the same way as the house improvement grants were introduced. No thinking went into them. This resulted in the confusion that now exists in regard to these reconstruction grants. While the scheme was a good one, its operation, planning and structuring were not dealt with before it was announced in the House. Because of that we have utter confusion and chaos. Recently it was dealt with elaborately and there is no need for me to go into it further.
It was indicated 12 months ago that a realistic level of tax relief for investors in all types of development in designated inner city and town areas should be introduced. An inner city development grant scheme could have been introduced to stimulate the refurbishment of dereleict buildings and new buildings on derelict sites. This is not taking place currently because development is uneconomic. That brings me back to the point I made earlier about the need for a positive grant incentive in addition to the other incentives outlined, such as tax relief and so on. Incentives for the construction or the refurbishment of commercial and retail buildings, including the extension of the 100 per cent free depreciation allowance as it currently applies to industrial buildings, exemption from local authority development taxes and levies, rates relief for a period of up to ten years and lower planning charges are some of the incentives that were not included in the Bill but which should have been included.
The Bill is welcome but more is needed if it is to be effective. The provisions in it are not broad enough or attractive enough. I do not want the impression to be given that I am downgrading the Bill. That is not the case. I am saying that the Government, accepting and realising the present position, should have gone further and made the provisions of this Bill more effective in order to ensure its success. I emphasise that I wish the Bill well and hope it will be successful but I maintain that more incentives are required. I appeal to the Minister of State to convey the view I have expressed to the Minister. I base it on my experience in my constituency and from discussions I have had with people. I have asked them for their views on the work of urban renewal that has already begun in the Cork city area. Although our city is down it is not out and we are still proud of it. In Cork we will not take things lying down. We will encourage every group, organisation and the Government to make a reciprocal commitment to the efforts we are making to pull ourselves out of the depressed state to which we have been subjected. If I put emphasis on the construction industry, that is as it should be. If the proposals we are considering now are to succeed the assistance and dedication of those in the construction industry are necessary.
When the national plan was published we said it was a non-starter. Within one month it was discredited and as time has passed it has become even more discredited because none of the targets set out has been achieved. If the targets for the construction industry as set out in that plan were to be realised it would require an increase in investment of 15 or 16 per cent during 1986-87. It is obvious to everyone that particular target is not likely to be achieved unless decisive new initiatives are introduced by the Government.
The Government may see this Bill as providing the incentives to achieve the targets they set out but so far as Cork is concerned more will have to be done. The scope of the proposals will have to be broadened. I have no wish to indicate whether the Bill will achieve the necessary results for other areas. Deputies have already mentioned one area and I am sure other regions will also be mentioned during this debate.
I have said repeatedly that the Government do not in themselves create employment. However, they have a major role to play in stimulating confidence and employment by creating an environment for investment through the provision of incentives to promote private investment and to maintain direct public investment. Nowhere is that more effective than in the construction industry. That sector can and will play a strategic role in employment creation, in the promotion of confidence and in the stimulation of indigenous manufacturing industry, if the Government play the major role necessary to provide an environment for investment by way of incentives.
It is amazing that the construction industry suffers to such a degree during the terms of office of Coalition Governments. It is difficult to understand why this happens. I doubt if the industry has ever taken such a battering as that inflicted on it in recent years. The cardinal error of this Government was the doubling of the VAT rate from 5 per cent to 10 per cent and despite all the protestations and the submissions to them the rate was not restored to 5 per cent. The primary solution to reducing the current high level of unemployment in the construction industry lies in measures to promote investment. Incentives to promote employment have an important role to play in the industry, especially for young unemployed apprentices and others who are not so young and who have been unemployed for up to three years. I hope this Bill will go some way towards redressing the situation in the construction industry because the initial employment will be created there.
It has been established that commercial building in the Cork area has been very badly affected. Civil engineering, while not so adversely affected as other areas, is a source of concern to all of us because if there is a dearth of contracts, schemes and so forth, the general operatives, trades people and those on site works are unemployed. Therefore, the longer the surveyors, the engineers and draftsmen are unemployed the more serious the problem becomes. Some projects may be as long as two years on the drawing board and it is only when the people who work in this area are back at work that we will see a return to work by everybody else involved.
That is the frightening position within the construction industry. The greatest problem in Cork is that nothing is being planned, very little is being done on the drawing board and that means there is no end in sight to the unemployment in the construction industry. We must address that situation. We are all well aware of the drop in the housing outturn. This Bill, I hope, will get some of our professional people to work preparing the required documents for the change of use of existing warehouses, derelict sites and so on. There will be extra detailed drawings to be done and the sooner that work is commenced the sooner will the operatives be on site. That is why I hope that the extra incentives that I have mentioned will get consideration as an added boost to people who may wish to get involved in the areas so designated.
This designation of areas is welcome. I have outlined the hopes that I have and the doubts that I have. I hope the Minister and the Department will see to it that this Bill will have the desired effect, that is, reversing the trend whereby commercial activity, business life and residential accommodation are all disappearing out of the centre city for various reasons. I hope this Bill will help to restore life and activity to the inner city. I hope that the renewal of the city of Cork that has already been achieved will be boosted further by the Bill. But I doubt that the Bill will be as effective as we would like it to be without further incentives. Without a positive incentive grant as well as other incentives that I outlined, the Bill will not achieve what we all desire.
I understand that there is a three year period for this. I am sure the determination of that period got consideration and that such period for the availability of the incentives was decided upon to counteract the possibility of speculation. Far be it from me to encourage speculation or create opportunities for people to make a fast buck, but I feel that three years may be just a little too short a time.
It is four years.
I thank the Deputy. I thought it was three.
A year is a long time.
A year is a long time because it has taken a few years for this Bill to come in and its need has been long established. With the help of God, a year from now we will be putting this Bill into effect with a few additions to give it the extra impetus it requires.
Is the Deputy putting it a year further back?
It has taken the Government so long to come up with this proposal that they probably feel they have covered all aspects and all areas and all contingencies. But I doubt it. There are further incentives that could have been included. Nevertheless we will give it a try as far as the city of Cork is concerned. We will look at the areas that have been designated. But there is that little area that should be given the consideration it deserves, not just because it is Cork or because I am speaking on it but because the potential is there.
Overall, the effort is welcome and all of us will endeavour to work towards the achievement of a successful urban renewal as initiated by the Bill despite the fact that there was a preponderance of references to Dublin and the Custom House Docks site by the Minister of State when he opened the debate this morning. It was for no other reason than to give a little balance to this debate that I came in to put the Cork case. Dublin is not Ireland, although it is a fairly important part of it, but the second city deserves attention because it has suffered economically over the past few years.
I should like to join with other speakers in welcoming this Bill. It is particularly worthwhile for many reasons, not least because it is concentrating on the restoration and renewal of our capital city. I am a Dubliner by adoption rather than by birth, but it is disheartening for anyone living in Dublin to see the extent of dereliction around the city. This Bill is addressing this problem in a very significant way.
It is particularly worthwhile to have a fixed time limit on the take up of these incentives. Nobody should advocate permanent incentives for any type of investment, but where dereliction is occurring it is necessary to give a shot in the arm to that area in order to get things going. It is important, therefore, that the time limit be rigidly abided by. It will ensure that something will happen quickly and that the taxpayer will not have a long term commitment without tests of what value he is getting for his money.
It is equally important that this Bill is setting up an authority to give an impetus to this development. It is not just relying on tax incentives and private initiatives, but there will be an authority to give an impetus and to make sure that the development is socially balanced and worthwhile. We have often seen what the free hand of development can do, the type of buildings it puts up and the sort of balance it brings into inner city areas. Therefore, it is important that there should be an authority to give an impetus and to ensure balance.
It is also welcome that the authority will have flexibility in taking in expertise. It would be a tragedy if the dead hand of bureaucracy came over an authority like this. It is important to take in expertise from the private sector, from people who are not in the strict planning mode but who have perhaps, more imaginative ideas than those who came up in the planning world solely. The flexibility built into this legislation is to be welcomed and I look forward to a real vision of renewal of urban Dublin coming from this authority.
A number of people have complained about the idea of incentives, that essentially development is a fixed pool, and that by giving incentives in one area you are dragging it from another. I think that is missing the creative potential of this Bill to bring about an urban development which is well designed and worth while. This is what is being promoted here and that is why public money is being used to give incentives in this area. It is not just a question of shifting investment from one location to another; it is a question of bringing about a better urban community.
Some people have complained that the Bill is going for a soft option in concentrating on an under-used site in the Custom House Docks in Dublin rather than the more thorny problem of derelection throughout the city. To some extent, there is validity in that concern. I am a little worried that the designated areas may take a back seat, partly because the incentives are less generous and also because, as the Bill is now designed, there is no obligation on the local authority, in this instance Dublin Corporation, to set about putting an impetus into this and setting out their own plan for the designated areas, as opposed to the Custom House Docks site. One element missing in this Bill is giving Dublin Corporation both the brief and some funding to make sure that the designated areas do not fall by the wayside as people concentrate exclusively on the Custom House Docks.
Some concern has been voiced in the area of public participation in the planning schemes to be drawn up by the new authority for the Custom House Docks site. As is envisaged, there is an obligation on the authority to receive submissions. However, this Bill is doing away with the normal procedure of third party objections to individual proposals. It is also doing away with the procedure in normal planning Acts of putting a plan on display and then having further hearings. It is foreshortening the period for public participation in the planning scheme.
I am a little concerned that the balance may be wrong on the side of public participation. This Bill, and the development which will occur under it, will be our last chance to influence what will happen in the heart of Dublin city. It would be a shame to sink the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar by excluding thoughtful consideration of views from the public generally on how these assets should be developed for the people of Dublin.
Without bringing inordinate delays into this procedure it should be possible to have some form of hearings revolving around the putting together of a planning scheme that would ensure fair consideration was given to the various submissions before the plan was agreed. It would be wrong if such hearings dragged on and became a barrier to getting this scheme off the ground. The Bill is correct in ruling out third party objections to individual applications because, once the planning scheme is there, that should be the context in which development occurs and individual applications should not be subjected to third party objections if they comply with an agreed scheme.
I should like to make a few other comments on the Bill. One element which is very important is the make up of the board. The Minister said he would like to see mixed expertise on the board and obviously people should be appointed because of their expertise, but I wonder if it would not be more sensible to write certain criteria into the Bill, as happened in the case of An Bord Pleanála, thus ensuring that there will be a certain balance in the make up of the board.
On the question of staffing the authority, it is very important that the contracting possibility be utilised by the board. It would be wrong to utilise purely, say, people seconded from local authorities to staff this authority. If they are to bring in development, new ideas and imagination it is important that people who have experience in development and in the environmental development of cities be contracted in and that we make full use of the talents available.
I would like to make a few comments on the content of the planning scheme proposed under section 12. It is a pity that there is not a more explicit statement in that section of the Bill defining the sort of development we would like to see. What is in that section is very limited. I would like recognition that conservation of the character of the docks within the two waterways should become a focal point in this development for the Custom House Docks site. We have a valuable asset in the two docks. It would be a tragedy if they were to be filled in, as was once envisaged. If these docks are filled in they cannot be restored. The Bill should contain something explicit recognising that we have an opportunity to develop building around the waterways in the docks area. It is well to remember that other cities have done this very successfully. I understand that in London and Swansea there have been very successful developments that have made use of the waterways that are there and which have become very attractive for both commercial and residential use.
I would like to see in the Bill an expression of the clear intention of the Minister that there should be a social mix of usage. If the port and docks proposal had gone ahead there is no doubt that it would have been heavily if not entirely on the commercial side. We should seek social balance in this development and there should be some clear recognition that that is what we want and that is why we are willing to put concessions into these areas. We want to achieve a vibrant and socially mixed development. I wonder to what extent the connection between Dublin Corporation's housing activity and programme and this new Authority has been thought through. A clear link there is important in getting mix into the area. It is crucial that the Authority in their scheme put building around the water that is there as a very high priority in the environmental improvement of the area.
I notice in one section of the Bill provision for the disbandment of the Authority when their task is done. That is very sensible. It would be wrong to have a permanent Authority running side by side with Dublin Corporation. This inevitably would cause tension and would be a waste of resources. We want this Authority to go in. They have five years in which incentives are available and probably they will need more than five years in which to complete their work, but a definite time limit should be set on this and the intention should be clear that there will be a hand back of the area to Dublin Corporation. It should be clear from the outset to people joining this Authority's staff that it is a limited period job, that the Government intend it to be completed at that stage and that the area will be handed back to Dublin Corporation for maintenance. On the other hand, this Authority after their period of work and after they have completed and handed over their job in Dublin, may well have built up expertise that could be applied usefully in other areas. Therefore, the Bill should try to put a deadline on their work in this area but should not close its mind to the possibility that if successful in the Custom House Dock area this approach could be used elsewhere. If a body of expertise and experience get together in the Authority that should not be thrown aside. However, that is all for the future.
I am a little concerned that with the emphasis on the Custom House Dock area the problem of dereliction in our city which is to be tackled under the special designation of sites will take a back seat. I question why it has been decided to give lower incentives in the designated areas as against the Custom House Dock site. If anything, the task of tackling dereliction is tougher than the task of developing an under-used site. The section 23 concession was very popular and was very probably too generous an incentive when introduced in 1981. The benefit of that full concession has been given only for the Custom House Dock site and not in any other designated areas. I cannot quite understand the sense of that.
A need which is not expressed in the Bill is to give explicit responsibility to local authorities involved in designated areas to draw up some form of action plan in order to sustain and exploit the opportunities given by designation. For instance, to make some of the designated areas attractive for residents to go into them it is essential that the local authority look to ideas like pedestrianisation of certain areas, controlling litter, controlling traffic coming into certain areas, the use of commercial vehicles and certain areas of parking. All of these must be addressed by the local authority in a concerted way if the opportunities of designation are to be exploited fully. I would like to see some onus placed on the local authorities to put together just such an action plan. Some funding would have to go with that so that essentially they could just prime the pump and secure for the designated areas a balanced development.
In order to minimise planning delays which sometimes have been a problem to the corporation internally when so many sections of the corporation must be consulted in order to get a proposal through, the corporation should consider the sort of one stop shop idea developed by the IDA in regard to industrial projects looking for support. It might be possible for the corporation to have a more streamlined procedure for dealing with planning applications so that this period — only four years after all — is used to maximum advantage. Again some onus should be on the corporation to see how they can shorten any unnecessary planning delays. There is a need for the corporation to do some marketing of this idea. I am glad that the Minister has asked the corporation and the local authorities involved to have an officer to deal with this, but to sell it would probably need an injection of marketing imagination that the corporation might not have. Perhaps they should have a small sum of money to get the expertise they might need to make this an attractive package. I am particularly worried about the attraction of residential development into these areas and unless the corporation take a lead in developing designated areas the opportunity could be lost.
Another issue of importance in regard to designated areas is the apparent bias in the Bill against renewal and in favour of new development. The Bill does not deal with the requirement to preserve buildings of particular worth and the financial incentives are loaded in favour of demolition and new development rather than restoration. I refer to rates relief where a developer who restores a building will only get the rates relief on the extra rateable valuation added to the premises, whereas the person who knocks it and rebuilds will get relief on the full rateable valuation. That is a bias against restoration and it would be more sensible to give the full rates relief to buildings which were restored, with perhaps discretion on the part of the local authority to rule out cases where the restoration was of minimal worth.
If we are giving 100 per cent depreciation on new development we should be giving slightly more on restoration work because it is probably more expensive and commercial interests might go for demolition and rebuilding as a more attractive option than the more painstaking restoration work. The Bill should cater for buildings of particular worth and should remove the bias that seems to be there in regard to restoration work.
There is one other area which I am concerned might act against restoration, the double rent allowance provided for under the Finance Bill in the area of letting property. As I understand it, the double rent allowance will be paid in the case of buildings that are restored but there is a question mark over how they intend to define a building which has been restored sufficiently to allow the double rent allowance. I ask those drawing up the technical provisions to err on the side of being more generous towards restoration rather than being too niggardly and trying to exclude work which is not of major structural benefit.
In regard to restoration and improving existing buildings, I should like to see some incentives given for what might be cosmetic rather than redevelopment work. At present there is a very clear division, if restoration involves bricks and mortar it has access to some of these concessions but if it is of a cosmetic nature, making buildings visibly more attractive in providing flower boxes and so on, it cannot avail of any concessions. I should like the corporation in drawing up an action plan, which I advocate, to set out the improvements they would like to see to existing buildings. There should be small tax concessions to existing property holders who are willing to comply with the corporation's plans in that area. It is probably a mistake to regard urban renewal as solely an issue of bricks and mortar and the restoration of the spirit of the city should get some attention also.
I welcome the Bill which is a constructive and timely attempt to arrest the very serious problems in our cities. I hope that an opportunity will be taken to build on the character of this city as a maritime city and that we will not end up with development which has missed an opportunity to maximise its potential for the community.
Rather belatedly, I should like to wish the newly appointed Minister well in her office as I did not have an opportunity to do so before now. It is a complex ministry and I hope she will make a success of it.
This legislation is a rehash of the Urban Development Areas Bill, 1982. I suppose it would have been preferable if the Government had introduced that Bill in its entirety because it encompassed very much more important areas to which I will refer later. However, I welcome the Bill and the incentives and initiatives which are about to be taken. I would be doing the House a disservice, nonetheless, if I did not indicate that there is a huge degree of overlap in the 1982 Bill and the present legislation. Some would view that with a distinct degree of cynicism. At that time I had responsibility for urban affairs and I remember a very heated debate in the House when the Bill was going through. The Opposition at that time used the Bill as a vehicle to bring down the Government, which seems extraordinary four years later. Nevertheless, it happened and should be remembered and referred to. It was wrong to have taken that action at the time because it was constructive legislation and still is. The damage inflicted on our principal cities and throughout the urban environment and the havoc wreaked over the last four years was primarily due to that delay. The environment suffered as a result through buildings becoming derlict, uncontrolled traffic through the streets of our capital cities and the general damage and destruction of the environment which, although not due entirely to the four years delay, was partly as a result of it. I must put that on the record of the House because, if that is used as an example when politicians are debating legislation, if a Bill can be introduced in the House just a few short years later couched in slightly different jargon due to juggling by the parliamentary draftsman, but essentially, with the same content, it is to be deplored. Perhaps, it gives rise to the type of cynicism that exists throughout the country regarding the way the business of the House is carried on.
Rapid changes in population in the past 30 or 40 years have altered the character of our principal cities and towns in a way which could not have been contemplated at the time of the foundation of the State. Some people maintain that more than 40 per cent of the population live in the Dublin area. The population shifts on the demographic map in recent years are alarming. One of the difficulties in relation to the environment is that much of that shift happened so rapidly — that is why I referred to the four years — that there was not enough time to cope with the degree of change in the structure of our environment in the city.
Some years ago when we were debating a similar Bill it was considered that I was living in a dreamworld and looking for a Utopian type of environment for our principal city. I still long for that and I cannot see any reason why it is not possible. However, unless we try to educate the public into a sense of pride in their city, legislation of this type will go only part of the way.
I should like to refer to an area I have an interest in, the archaeological significance of the city. It is my view that the Bill falls short of what is needed in this context. I accept that the Custom House Docks site is an ideal area for redevelopment and that the remission of rates for designated areas will be of benefit, but the Government have an opportunity in the Bill to designate an archaeological site in Dublin city. Such a provision was enshrined in an urban areas Bill in 1982. The Dublin city wall and its environs were included in the Bill and I appeal to the Minister of State at the Department of Finance to consider doing that today. A great degree of redrafting would not be necessary, but it should be remembered that a wealth of archaeological treasure lies within that area of Dublin. By coincidence I saw a photograph of the Minister of State admiring some of the work under way at Dublin Castle in this morning's newspapers.
I did not hear the comment by Deputy Kelly but, as it came from him, I am sure it must be of some significance. With the permission of the Chair I should like to ask him to repeat it.
It is not worth repeating.
While Deputy Kelly is in the House I keep on my toes ready to listen to any constructive comment he has to make.
That is all it would be as far as the Deputy is concerned because he is one of the most courteous of the lot of us.
I should like to thank the Deputy for that comment. The Minister of State will be aware that a whole range of artefacts from pottery pieces to coins was found within the heart of Dublin city and I am convinced that a huge amount of treasure was plundered over the years. The fact that our city does not have an official archaeologist is bizarre bearing in mind that the city is of great international importance with treasures dating from the Vikings to modern times. We are all aware of the bureaucratic vandalism that took place at Wood Quay. The ghost of Wood Quay will stalk our streets for many years to come. What took place there was an example of a particular type of vandalism that we must prevent in future.
The Bill gives us an opportunity to develop in the area I have referred to. Tax and other incentives should be given to people to erect shops and other facilities within the city walls of Dublin. Unless action is taken, many historical aspects of our city will be lost and buildings will be erected with little consideration for the treasure that exists.
I accept that there is an unbridled use of metal detectors throughout the city. It appears that when planning permission is granted the developers move in but archaeologists are not called in. There is purloining of the treasures of our cities and countryside. They are got out of the country as quickly as possible. People do not go through the process of having the finds recorded and presented to the museum. That is a bandit area at the moment and what is taking place throughout the country is shameful. The Minister has an opportunity to adopt a strong line and prevent such treasure leaving the country. I am aware that the Department are investigating certain finds that were not reported — they are investigating two at the moment — but I am also aware that hundreds of finds were not reported.
I do not know what we will do about the civic offices at Wood Quay, whether they can be painted out or not. They are anything but pleasant within a walled city. Dublin Corporation, in their late conversion to the concept of urban renewal, have set about trying to preserve some of the old buildings within the city. An enormous amount can be done in relation to renovation and preservation. Young people have a great opportunity to get involved in such work and they have the added advantage of having been educated in the area of civic responsibility. They have a pride in trying to preserve. In my view what is needed is a little example from people like the Minister of State. The Minister of State should engage in walkabouts in Dublin and try to get away from the old system which does not work. Should a Minister be appointed for Dublin? I hope that is not regarded as too parochial a suggestion to make.
I hope not, because I suggested it myself more than once.
Certainly I was right in what I said about Deputy Kelly because that would go a long way to focusing attention on the capital city ——
The first thing we need to do is get rid of Dublin Corporation.
And not consider that appointment in perpetuity when Departments become, in archaeological terms, fossilised into themselves, perhaps through Peter's principle, outgrowing their usefulness. Much can be done. Perhaps the appointment of a Minister for Dublin for a year or two would be the answer, in order to get on with a particular task rather than surrounding herself or himself with a huge bureaucratic entanglement. That is something that could be examined.
Within the context of this Bill I must refer to the rapidly deteriorating condition of our principal city. I will refer to three areas: litter, air and the acid rain causing so many problems with regard to our buildings at present. Regrettably the Litter Act, 1982, has fallen into some disrepute because its provisions are not enforced. This is leading me into what Deputy Kelly said about Dublin Corporation; they have the powers but they are not enforcing them. Much could be done to improve this whole position with regard to litter and so on. Perhaps it could be done through an audio-visual approach, perhaps with trucks manned by personnel moving around our streets talking to people. We have all become punch drunk with posters all over the place. I do not think people take much cognisance of them any more. A fresh approach is needed.
When we talk about improving the Custom House Docks site, of adopting a new approach to this whole area, which will constitute almost a village within Dublin we should ask what will it be like if it is surrounded by a veritable dustbin of litter, decaying debris, abandoned cars and so on? I would appeal to the Minister to encourage local authorities to re-enact the Litter Act, 1982. Its powers are tremendous if only pressure is brought to bear. The Minister has the power within the provisions of that Act to force the hand of local authorities, not allowing them to rest back on their oars in that regard. I realise it goes hand in hand with education but there has to be this active pressure from the Minister on local authorities or they will go their own way. Regrettably their track record is less than perfect.
I might refer now to the stagnation of the air we breathe which I know is very much an urban point of view. If we talk about redeveloping the Custom House Dock site, within the heart of our capital city, then we cannot allow the continuance of this foul air in our principal city. The Air Pollution Bill at present before the Seanad falls far short of what is required. It merely presents a framework within which legal authorities may or may not act. It is pandering to pressure groups or people who have a vested interest in carrying out their business, I think, to the detriment of the citizens of major urban areas. This type of innocuous, meaningless legislation should be resisted very strenuously. The Minister will have a strong role to play when that Bill comes before this House, because, as legislation, it is totally inadequate and must be changed.
The next matter to which I referred was the decay of our buildings. One only has to go outside of this House and look at the stonework of the National Museum or that of Leinster House, or any of the older buildings, to see that they cannot withstand the ravages of the air pollution and the even more insidious acid rain in Dublin at present. A lot can and ought be done to correct this. The natural environment of our capital city should be afforded very high priority because so much will flow from it. If people respect the environment in which they live — and this is very pertinent within the context of this Bill — then they will set about a greater work ethic, a greater aesthetic appreciation of the city which will percolate throughout the rest of the country.
When one examines the psychology behind the vandalism of national monuments, of headstones in graveyards, statues and so on, one discovers that, in the most extreme way it is almost symptomatic of a psychotic depression of neglect of buildings and monuments of which we are only the temporary custodians. We should leave our city and environment — this should be our aspiration — in a better condition than that in which we found them. But the present track record would indicate that we will be leaving our city in a worse condition than that in which we found it. The abuse of the city, its buildings, its archaeology just cannot be tolerated.
I make the strong plea to the Minister that she should urge the appointment of a city archaeologist. There are a huge number of young archaeologists coming on-stream at present through our universities. They work on some urban schemes, on a piecemeal basis only. They work in rural areas also, again on a piecemeal basis. Their work is not structured and it should receive countrywide priority at present. Rather than the Minister contending that it is up to local authorities to do so, allowing relevant decisions to be postponed, she might take the initiative.
I note that the remission of rates is one of the main purposes of this Bill. Nothing but good can come of that, if that remission is broadened somewhat and not applied to designated areas only. I am totally supportive of private enterprise, of the private entrepreneurial spirit, where one gets up and goes and does something for himself. Any such remission of rates should be extended somewhat beyond the designated area. I am thinking of parts of Dublin where business people are very hard-pressed, particularly small businesses, people who find the rates burden crushing and which prohibits them from improving their facades or the general physical appearance of their buildings.
I might refer to one excellent example of urban renewal, outside the Cork region, getting into the west part of Cork, where the architect responsible is obviously very particular about how buildings are painted. There they are bright and colourful and kept within proper, overall colour schemes. Incentives are given to shopkeepers to improve the general appearance of their buildings. One can think of many parts of Dublin city which are in an appalling state. One has only to look at the dereliction and so on. Here a call for a renewal of attitude towards the cleaning up of the city, as far as its physical appearance is concerned, a concerted effort right over the top of Dublin Corporation — not making a plea for them to do something about it — would be an extremely useful exercise. I remember during the passage of the Litter Act, 1982 there was a small area of the city designated litter-free. It could not possibly have worked. It is like having a smokeless zone, say, in Rathmines when there is smoke all over the surrounding areas.
There must be a new approach to the redevelopment of Dublin as a whole. We should appoint a team of experts, on an ad hoc basis. There should be a blueprint for renewal. It would not involve massive expenditure. In this way we would be encouraging people to do things for themselves. If an appeal is made in the right way it will be responded to because there is a big fund of good will. The city should appoint an archaeologist, an architect, a colour consultant, and so forth, a new team to take a look at the city.
We do not want to dramatise this, but Dublin is a city in crisis. We see books of photographs being published every Christmas showing how many buildings have gone since Flora Mitchell's book. Most of the buildings she sketched are gone and her booklet, which was issued at £8, is now valued at £300 or £400, just because so many of the buildings have gone for all time. There are buildings have streets in Dublin which could be brightened up considerably with a coat of paint. They do not need massive renewal. The Minister has a golden opportunity in this Bill. He should not hurry it through the House. He should not look at it as an instrument to develop the docks site and move on from there. This is an opportunity that must be grasped now.
Deputy Lehihan thought you could make the new ESB offices in Fitzwilliam Street beautiful with a lick of paint. He suggested whitewashing them.
Mistakes have been made in all areas. We have been warned by consultants from inside and outside the country. Deputy Kelly appreciates that we must look at this through the eyes of history. I look back at Wood Quay. At the time, we tried to sound warnings. The pressures were immense: internationally renowned experts from all over Europe warned us, but the building of the civic offices went ahead. All we can do now is to deal with this in an imaginative way. An immense amount can be done. There are valuable agencies at our disposal. For instance, An Taisce are watchdogs of urban environment who endeavour to improve the city environment. All these agencies can be used to great advantage. Their energies are being dissipated without achieving great effects.
The Minister, in her imaginative, inimitable style, could take a new look at Dublin and take a personal interest in it to improve our capital city. I welcome the Bill though it is very narrow. It does not take in the walled city of Dublin. I see the Bill as only a rehash of the urban areas Bill of 1982. That is regrettable. At the same time, we must welcome the initiatives that will be taken. They will get full co-operation from Fianna Fail because we are totally committed to getting our building industry moving again. So much will flow from it that it is essential that we do it. Unless that is treated as the highest priority, none of these provisions can get off the ground. I look forward to the debate as it progresses. Regrettably, I cannot be here for Deputy Kelly's contribution.
I am sorry Deputy Brady will be unable to give me more than three minutes of his time, if that, because he would hear from me only something disobliging. His concluding statement that his party had the visual welfare of this city at heart I could not allow pass. I sincerely accept that that is so of Deputy Brady and I am willing to accept on trust that it may be true of Deputy Burke, though I must say I am a bit queasy about giving him that unsolicited and, I think, unearned tribute.
I do not need tributes or abuse from the Deputy.
It most certainly is not true of the Fianna Fail Party in recent times. In my recollection I heard a Fianna Fail Minister for the Environment abuse in the grossest terms in this House people who were anxious that he would not allow the corners of St. Stephen's Green and the opening of Hume Street to be pulled down and replaced by modern buildings. He described those who were concerned about the destruction of the character of St. Stephen's Green as "belted earls", "West Britons", "the gin and tonic brigade". They were the expressions he used simply because he had no special feeling for the things that I have acknowledged Deputy Brady has. I know that Kevin Boland, the then Minister, was a man of quality in other respects — I will not take away from his qualities of character — but any idea that he was a sensitive Minister for the Environment would be quite out of place. I remember another episode, whose memory is so dim that I had better not risk it in the House, in connection with the proposal to destroy that curved entry to the village of Ranelagh where the tennis club occupied part of the grounds at Mount Pleasant——
On a point of order, are we not dealing with urban renewal?
I was trying to catch Deputy Brady. I know he has to go soon.
Would the Deputy tell us about Donnybrook Bridge?
I will make the Deputy a present of it. That bridge should never have been put up, or permission for it ever given.
Who put it up?
A Coalition Minister. I do not go around boasting about how Fine Gael and Labour behave as regards urban development and renewal. The only boasting I have heard in this debate came from Deputy Brady. It was quite out of place because for most of my life Fianna Fail have presided over the progressive degradation of this city into a dog's breakfast. There have been faults on both sides and I would not countenance some of the things done by Fine Gael and Labour Ministers, but I have seen the most awful things, both of commission and omission, under the party to which Deputies opposite belong.
The ESB offices in Fitzwilliam street destroyed two thirds of a mile of unbroken early 19th century Georgian architercture. They are the result of an effort under the aegis of a Fianna Fail Government in the sixties to give the ESB new offices. They thought their old offices were unsuitable. What an electricity authority were doing occupying a row of Georgian houses in the first place was a question nobody ever asked. Why people whose business it was to build pylons and string wires between them and provide electricity for lonely shielings on the back side of distant hills should have had to live and work in what I am perfectly certain were for them also the uncomfortable and unsuitable surroundings of buildings put up in the 1810s and 1920s, God knows. Nobody ever thought of suggesting to them that in the interests of urban renewal and preservation they might move out somewhere else.
Debate adjourned.