At 2.30 today I raised the matter of the national flag not flying outside. The rope broke on Monday night. It was reported yesterday morning. A new rope was provided yesterday and the Office of Public Works cannot get a ladder to put it up. Will you arrange to have the Army brought in because this national sabotage continues and we are afraid to demonstrate our nationality. We are becoming a banana Republic.
Urban Renewal Bill, 1986: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Final Stages.
The superintendent of the House is looking after the matter.
NEW SECTION (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 3:
In page 6, before section 8, but in Part III, to insert the following new section:
"8—There shall be established a body which shall be known as the Dublin Walled City Development Authority.".
—(Deputy R. Burke).
Nobody doubts that the core of Dublin is in grave decline because of city's life blood and raison d'être are based on commerce between members of a peaceful community. If you take the commerce away from the core of a city it is like a leech on the city's commercial life. It also triggers massive infrastructural expenditure in relation to roads, sewerage and services which were previously available in the city centre. Therefore, new funds have to be found to provide for such infrastructure and that has not been borne in mind in relation to these designated areas.
In relation to the proposal before us in this section, the city can be compared to a tree: when the core dies the tree perishes. It declines before it perishes and we had an example of that in Dutch Elm disease which affected so many trees over the past few years. That is also the case in relation to the city. You can plant a new tree. Only severe human folly will fully destroy a city. A city can only regenerate itself by prudent investment at the right time following bold and audacious decisions. This may be a step in that direction but I do not see why it could not encompass this innovation idea. The Minister is giving himself power in the Bill to create other designated areas. By investing in the city centre and in the old mediaeval areas we can make the city more attractive. It is vital, as Con Power of the CII said, that the stamp of quality is put on everything done under this new scheme.
As I said earlier, the centre of Dublin resembles a doughnut. What encourages a person to buy a doughnut is the filling in the middle, be it jam or sugar. If we liken Dublin to a doughnut we do not find anything in the centre except dereliction and decay. The city is teetering into the Liffey. There is nothing to attract tourists to Dublin. This is a great shame on the fathers of the city, the members of the local authority, and on us.
This legislation is designed to revitalise the city. However, we are just doing what has been done many times in the past. We have designated an area and, apart from giving various incentives to invest in it, we leave it up to the developers and speculators to think of ideas.
The quays are in tatters. They are a disgrace. Dublin Corporation adopted a policy in the past of not doing anything about them but rather waited for developers to think of schemes for them. The British architectural body, in a study undertaken over 20 years ago when they looked at the jewel which Dublin is, said that Dublin would be judged on what it does with the quays. Dublin Corporation did not do anything except bring one of our eminent citizens to court over Wood Quay and insisted on building what everyone regards as two massive bunkers which block out the view of Christ Church Cathedral. They would not allow time for the proper excavation of the remains of Viking Dublin.
We can see what happens as a result of having a wide street programme. At least in the 18th century when they spoke about having wide streets, those parts of Dublin had not been built. Now these wide streets go right through the heart of the city. They go through the Liberties and other mediaeval areas. I do not see why the track of the old wall should not be exposed. Within that area we could encourage the kind of things one would expect in old Dublin which has a very rich history. This has been done on the Continent in other walled cities and towns.
There is a lack of good, basic, cheap, efficient transport. Deputy Mac Giolla made this point earlier. This is one of the keys to the revitalisation of Dublin. It makes the centre of the city more accessible. There were plans to build a subway system. Had this been done in the fifties we would now regard the amount spent on it as being very little. With the high inflation of the seventies the building of such a system would have cost a fortune. There is one last opportunity, based on the scheme CIE have of building bus stations in the city centre. This scheme is supported by the FUE and the city centre businesses. It is also supported by An Taisce.
Those who write about Dublin criticised the Government recently for trying to attract development to a part of the city which is not being developed. Growth in the city is towards the west, towards Heuston station. No-one in their right minds would invest in the docks area. The place to invest is in the other designated area along the quays.
Deputy Burkes's idea should be taken up. The concept is a good one and I hope the Minister will not say that because it comes from the Opposition it cannot be considered. It is constructive Opposition at its best. We need a springboard from which to create the rebirth of the city. Such a springboard is a public transportation centre which would have a phased income of funds from the private sector.
The real jewel in the crown of Dublin would be to tackle the mediaeval area. Enough of it exists to save it. I welcome Deputy Brady back into the House. He has given the lead on many environmental and urban renewal issues. I have despaired of the life of Dublin to such an extent that I could not bring myself to read Frank McDonald's book. I cannot bear to turn the pages because I know what I will see written on them. It is a tale of woe, of scandal and shame. There is nothing in it to be proud of.
In the last number of years, in spite of all our troubles, we are fortunate to have had many schemes put forward, many with the help of the EC and there are hundreds of millions of pounds floating around. I have heard calls in this House for all of these schemes to be put under one umbrella. If we were to examine the various schemes that are available we would have to question how the money is being spent. If about £5 million was taken out of the total each year to finance a definite plan, we could do wonders. This is probably the last opportunity we will get. I am glad to see that there are people who think like this in the upper echelons of the main Opposition party because, in the event of an election and the Coalition not being returned to Government, we still have some hope for the future and that is very important in the light of the knocking that goes on in here.
That is negative thinking.
It is building on reality. It is not entirely negative.
I hope it is more positive than Building on Reality.
We have to face facts. We will give Fianna Fáil a good run for their money and hope that we get back. I am just making the point that this is a positive, constructive contribution. What I am suggesting would not be a blot on this map, produced courtesy of The Irish Times on 27 March. I would go so far as to suggest that it should have been the first to be put on it. Long term investment in the docks area is questionable. Within hours of the docks area being designated, the top property people gave it the thumbs down. Developers are not anxious to spend money there because it is not where the action is. One will notice that Irish Life have not proceeded with their scheme across the river from the Custom House.
Every history book I have ever picked up has got a map of old Dublin in it similar to the one on the wall here beside the Malton prints of the 17th century. The old city is delineated very clearly and buildings can still be seen in it which are referred to as being "within" or "without" and this refers to whether they were within the walls or outside the walls of the city. Children looking at these do not understand this and wonder why it is that they cannot get in touch with that part of their heritage. A long time ago, maybe 20 years ago, my wife who was teaching in the national school in the north inner-city, brought the children on tours around the different streets to show them our heritage of old buildings, old Georgian houses and so on. She was criticised and reprimanded for doing this and told that that was not really part of our heritage, probably because it came down to us from the British.
I often wonder is that the reason we let everything go to rack and ruin. A lot of the good things came down to us from pre-Irish Parliament days. We should take this amendment on board, if not in its entirety, at least in principle. The Minister has the power to declare an area to be a designated area where he is satisfied there is a special need to promote urban renewal therein and may, by such order, describe such area in whatever manner he sees fit. The power is there and we are not asking him to spend money on it immediately.
That was section 6. We have dealt with that.
He has the power to do this under this section and to put this amendment into effect. It could focus the attention of the various bodies, the old Dublin groups and the voluntary groups who work within the city on that area.
We need a transportation system, and we need it fast. We need easy access to the city because such massive development has taken place on the periphery of the city. There are probably people who have been born and reared to an advanced young age, many to their teens, on the outskirts of the city who have made very rare trips to the centre because it is so difficult and expensive and so awkward, and when one gets there it is difficult to get around it. Let us not forget that, if this section is taken on board, it is the one which will give the cultural boost to the city because there will be a definite place for people to go and to tramp around.
The most enjoyable period I ever had in Dublin was during my days of anonymity when I was able to trample around the different side streets and back lanes and cobble-stoned areas of Dublin city. I often listened to the competitions that took place in the pubs among Dubliners to identify particular streets or lanes and so on. That was an old game that was played and some of these places are mentioned in this section. I would therefore ask the Minister to consider this proposal. I hope to get an opportunity later to put forward reasons and ways to develop these designated areas in Dublin.
I have tried many times in the past, and could not believe I could get such opposition from my own side of the House, to put forward ideas for the development of Dublin city and its revitalisation. What does not seem to be accepted is that it can create literally tens of thousands of jobs if we take a step in rebuilding our city. We can benefit while rebuilding it. It is negative to do nothing but say it will come right. That is what has happened to Dublin city; it has been left to rot. One can pay £5 to see houses of lesser quality, in, for example, the city of York, where they have preserved and refurbished such houses. We have termed these as rubbish, bulldozed them and put up something new.
We have had a long discussion on amendment No. 3 which proposes that there shall be established an authority which shall be known as the Dublin Walled City Development Authority. The Minister in his response said he has designated that area and that designation on its own, with the package of measures which he introduces such as rates relief and other tax breaks will be sufficient to bring forth the type of regeneration which everybody admits will be required. I suggest strongly that for years the corporation have had the opportunity, with their development plans and all the other facilities about which the Minister has been talking, other than the tax breaks, to cause and bring about a redevelopment and regeneration of that area. That procedure has failed and been seen to have failed miserably. What are required are the very special powers that are being brought in under the Development Authority Bill and being used on the Custom House Docks site. If those special powers are seen to be needed to bring about the redevelopment of the north of the city approximately 300 or 400 yards from O'Connell Bridge equally they are required 300 or 400 yards from O'Connell Bridge on the south side of the river, in what was the heart of old Dublin.
Hear, hear.
There is no logic in saying that one needs development authority powers for what is practically a virgin site, which is the Custom House Docks site, and does not need them in what is a very complicated area for redevelopment because of the myriad of ownerships, the complications of the corporation's plans for the area with road reservations and so forth over the years. What is needed is the very special treatment of a development authority in that area. The whole effect will be to shine a spotlight on the area, to give the development authority the power to come up with the programmes and manage them to allow for regeneration.
Let me give the example of the new towns around our city, of Blanchardstown, Clondalkin and Tallaght. Let us take first the example of Tallaght. This is probably the most developed as far as the number of houses being built in the area is concerned. I firmly believe that a major mistake was made in the construction of Tallaght. It was left to the planners who designed a new town. Tallaght today, if it had had a new town authority with special responsibility for Tallaght itself in its development as a new town, would not just consist of housing. We would have all the social infrastructure, the shopping areas and everything else needed. A development authority would have concentrated their minds on the development of the area. So it is again, with regard to the regeneration of the old walled city area. It is absolutely essential that we do not continue with the mechanisms which have failed since the foundation of this State. They have not brought about the type of city that we all cry out for as Dubliners, that we want to see. The city has been crumbling around us.
The Minister has been given an opportunity in this Bill and I am asking him to take it. I am offering him the support of this side of the House to extend his development powers into this area and establish a development authority. The need for these extra powers is evident to anybody who walks or drives through the parts of Dublin I have included in the amendment. They are the areas in amendment No. 18 which we are discussing here. They are names that ring into our history — Grattan Bridge, Cork Hill, Dame Street, Parliament Street, Palace Street, Ship Street Little, Werburgh Street, Bride Street, St. Nicholas Place, John Dillon Street, Lamb Alley, Cornmarket, Thomas Street. These are areas which are synonymous with this country, not just with this city. They have everything to do with this country; they need very special treatment, indeed. I am asking the Minister to take on to himself those powers.
I am grateful to my colleague, Deputy Skelly, for his complimentary remarks about the forward thinking on this side of the House and for his plea to his own Minister to accept the amendment, despite the fact that it comes from this side of the House. If it is a question of not being seen to accept a Fianna Fáil amendment, I am quite prepared to withdraw mine, allow the Minister to bring forward his own amendment on Report Stage and take whatever political kudos are involved. The case for doing what is proposed in my amendment is unanswerable.
We are discussing amendments Nos. 18 and 19 in association with amendment No. 3 and I want to make the case in relation to the general question of the powers in the Bill to establish further development authorities. The Minister, in responding, did not reply on this point. He has restricted himself to designating areas but only establishing one development authority in the case of the Custom House Docks site. He is tying his own hands. He is making a major error in not giving himself the facility in the future, without having to refer back to this House with amending legislation, to establish development authorities in other parts of the country, if he so decides. he might decide to establish one in part of Limerick, or in Cork as we had intended. He might decide to pick a specific portion of a town which is of such historic uniqueness of character that it requires this very special treatment.
I ask the Minister to accept amendment No. 19 because, even if he does not want to do this immediately, it will give him or some of his successors, whoever they may be, the facility in the future to establish development authorities. I appeal to him, as a representative in this House of the area — many parts of it anyway — of the walled city about which we are talking. He has represented this area down through the years. I ask the Minister, as a former Lord Mayor of Dublin and a man who has a deep feeling for his city, to accept this amendment for the establishment of a Dublin walled city development authority.
I agree entirely about the special features of the walled city area and with many of the points made by Deputy Skelly and Deputy Burke. It is a very special area of the city and requires very special treatment. For that reason its treatment should not be equated with the manner in which the Custom House Docks site would be treated. In that area one can do everything to bring about commercial development and provided one adheres to a general plan one has a free hand. One can dig down as far as one likes and put in whatever type of foundation one wishes. If we are looking for commercial development in the walled city area, we have to make very special restrictions. The Minister mentioned the site beside Taylor's Hall in High Street where commercial development was likely. I think it is still on the map. About three years ago there was to be a hotel developed. Very detailed examination of the site was carried out. Part of it had been excavated about ten years ago. Another portion had not been excavated. The important feature was to ensure that, if a building was constructed there, the foundation would be placed in such a manner that it would not interfere with the unexcavated site so that future generations, in 100 or 200 years time, could still excavate the site and find it in its untouched state beneath this building.
One cannot just bring in a commercial company and tell them to construct a building, a hotel or whatever. Restrictions have to be put on and these will cost money. There will not be a rush of developments because of those restrictions. Over the past ten years all of these sites should have been archaeologically investigated and excavated. The money is not available and that is why it is not being done. Every site, even along the quays, should be tested. If they are of any value the National Museum should do the archaeological dig. If the money cannot be provided special restrictions and building regulations should be made in that area to make sure that no site which has not yet been excavated will be disturbed in the construction. So that if we cannot do the archaeological work, future generations can do the digs.
Deputy Skelly mentioned the walled area. If work is to be done there, we would need to have continual excavation to trace the exact position of the wall. A whole series of things must be done. To develop the vacant site, special restrictions would have to be made. For that reason I do not think we can just set up a development authority. It needs a separate development, but it could not be given the same terms of reference as would be given to the Custom House Docks site. There would need to be very special restrictions and features.
Unlike the previous speaker I find this a fresh approach for the city. I cannot see any reason why a development authority could not be set up. Unless we get away from the jaded systems that are perceived to be unworkable, inefficient and cumbersome, we will not attract private enterprise into these areas. The thrust behind this amendment is an endeavour to encourage private enterprise, to encourage young people, to try to encourage a fresh approach to tackling the inner city problems. At the founding of the State we inherited a city that was well in a state of decay, even though it was a city that was very well set out as far as open spaces, its central river, open parkland, and so on, were concerned. Many of the buildings up to 50 years ago were in a state of rapid decay. It was patently obvious that as years went by the problem would have to be tackled and should have been tackled in tandem with development as it took place. We are now at a critical stage where much development has taken place without concern for the previous layout of the city. Radical action has to be taken.
The purpose behind this amendment is to encourage that type of strong collective action. The previous infrastructural systems have failed in effect. It is better to admit that they have failed in the minds of people who live in our capital city from the point of view of environmental ecological reasons, for traffic reasons or the difficulty in trying to encourage people into the city centre. All of these factors combine to point to the central fact that the local authority, with the very best will in the world, cannot cope with the problem. This amendment is at least finger-pointing a particular area. It is pointing an archaeological unit structure core from which we can work. The city has grown out from that area. It is a tremendous opportunity. I compliment my colleague, Deputy Ray Burke, and concur fully with him that this side of the House sees the issue as political. There is no reason whatsoever why we would wish to foist any amendment or pressurise it through for any reason. The Minister could think about this and come back later with the intention of establishing or extending this idea. He would have the entire support of interested parties, preservationists and those who have a deep scientific knowledge of the entire area.
I am sure the Minister realises that the city is very rich in its heritage of street trading right back to the 17th century. A whole range of opportunities exists to project not only, as has been spoken about at great lengths, the Viking and Norman parts of the city, but also the mediaeval and later parts through the 17th and 18th centuries. It is all there in archaeological layers and is of great significance. That should be developed and put on show.
I am not one who suggests the creation of quangos or groups that do not get involved in any activity, but I suggest that the Minister advocate the appointment of a Minister for the capital city. Dublin Corporation could be under that ministry. The local authority seem to be working to Peter's principle as far as the powers vested in them are concerned. They have done so much and do not appear to be capable of projecting into the nineties in regard to the scale of preservation the people want. Some examples that spring to mind are St. Audoen's Church and the many parks. Many good ideas have emerged from interested parties.
Earlier I stressed the importance of appointing key personnel to Dublin Corporation such as a city architect and a city archaeologist. If they are not appointed we must create a new forum for ideas, the idea behind the amendment. I accept that the Custom House Docks site is an important one and that it represents a fresh plot for development, but it does not compare with the walled city of Dublin. Very few realise that the principal street of Dublin was Cook Street, down from Fishamble Street. All the information about that area is listed in the paper I have referred to.
It is important to draw the attention of the Minister to the concern among people about the huge number of artefacts that have been removed from the Wood Quay site. Those items which could fill a museum on their own are lying in the National Museum and have not been chronicled. They represent only a fragment of the archaeological treasure that lies within that area of Dublin. We should try to do something about that because, if the opportunity is not snatched now, when will it arise again? We seldom get an opportunity to discuss such matters. We may table questions or ask Private Notice Questions if Dublin Corporation happen to damage the mediaeval wall or the monument as occurred recently. On that occasion Dublin Corporation had to admit they damaged the wall but that body did not have an archaeologist to survey the damage. I will be disappointed if the opportunity to adopt the proposal in the amendment is not grasped. We must remember that one-third of the population of the country reside in Dublin and that this work will be carried out for the sake of the nation. Dublin city belongs to everybody.
Private enterprise should get involved in this work and start by erecting small shops within the old city walls. We should go further than giving rates or tax relief to those who get involved. Many people, not just civil servants, are interested in doing something for the city. They are not enmeshed in the bureaucratic entanglements of national or local politics. Many people who return home after spending years abroad ask what they can do to preserve the old city. This work should be highlighted internationally particularly in the wake of the Wood Quay saga. At that time we established that we have a city of international renown, that had flourishing industries within its walls many years ago.
Big industries do not seem to function too well in Ireland and small industries appear to give a certain amount of protection to employees. The Government could give a great lead in this regard as far as the development of the inner city is concerned. I do not want to see this issue politicised in any way. That is not the intention behind the amendment. We are giving the Minister an opportunity to shake up Dublin city. He should call on other agencies to help. We should not pussyfoot about this but single out those who for one reason or another have the will to get involved. The Minister should encourage private enterprise to invest money in improving our city.
Listening to the debate during the last hour one would get the impression that a destructive hand was about to fall on the old part of our city.
It is happening.
On the contrary, for the first time somebody is getting Dublin's inner city by the neck and giving it a shake. We cannot compare the different sites but they are all of great importance. With regard to the designated area running along the quays, I should like to point out that the mediaeval portion of that city is within that area and is under the control of either the corporation, the Office of Public Works or some other statutory body. Some Members do not appear to have confidence in the local planning authority and suggest that they caused havoc in the area but I disagree with that. Some people are saying that Dublin is tumbling into the river but I do not hold that view. I accept that Dublin has its problems but it also has great charm around College Green and Merrion Square. The parks throughout the city are a monument to a progressive local authority.
I agree with that.
In regard to housing the local authority have done a magnificant job in erecting houses in the inner city. I draw the attention of the House to schemes at City Quay, the Coombe, Ringsend and Pearse Street. The renewal work carried out there was excellent. I want to put on the record, for fear that someone might feel there was a shower of vandals wrecking the city, that is not the case. I am not against the setting up of a commission or authority whether in Cork or Dublin if it is necessary. What I am saying is we have set up this designated area. The local authority felt they would be the best authority and were not opposed in any great way to the statutory authority on the port and docks site. It is a huge site requiring tremendous development and some sort of special authority. It will act as a catalyst for both sides of the quays. There is now dereliction on the south side of the quay at the lower end.
Was the Minister of State opposed to the other area?
It will act as a catalyst. The reason we felt that a statutory authority was required in the ports and docks site is its vastness. It is a type of development which has not been undertaken before. To get it moving, it required this type of authority. I do not believe the same is required in the mediaeval walled city.
Much more so.
A different type of treatment and approach is required. Whatever we might say about the local authority and the question of Wood Quay, we all learn lessons. I know an entrepreneur who is in the process of building a factory in and about that area for which he has planning permission. Before he got planning permission he had to excavate and to get and give a report. There is a greater concern on the part of the local authority before granting permission that there will be no despoiling of any archaelogical remains.
I take Deputy Mac Giolla's point that if we cannot do it now, it should be preserved for the future. That is what the local authority are doing before planning permissions are granted. As I mentioned earlier, they have asked the mediaeval society to indicate to them their views with regard to the formulation of a draft development plan.
Archaelogical finds in Dublin have gone unreported because they would hold up progress.
I am not disputing that, but what I am saying is that there is a far greater awareness of that now than heretofore. No matter what body we set up, that could still happen. The Deputy knows that as well as I do because if an entrepreneur wants to do something like that, he can do so if he so desires. I would hope there would be the right spirit in a particular area of the city.
The local authority's approach is now one of enlightenment. They are concerned that what is there will be preserved. What I want to see is good development which will be in character with the area. Surely to goodness, a local authority as the planning authority can lay down their criteria for that as a special commission could.
Would the Minister of State recommend a city archaeologist for that?
That is a matter, in fairness, for the local authority. We do not recommend to local authorities what staff they require as the Deputies well know as former incumbents of the Custom House. The local authorities are the people who tend to make the case and that is the way it should be if they are intended to be local authorities having some form of self-determination. Given that we have taken the great majority of what the Deputy is looking for within the designated area and under the control of the local authority as the planning authority, they can do a job in planning and directing the type of development which should be there.
There is no reason why we cannot look at this in the future. I want to say here and now that I am opposed to putting into the Act that we could designate areas for commissions in any part of the country. If we impose a commission or a statutory authority on any area, it is incumbent on us to lay the proposals before the House to have them properly discussed. I am against the idea that, by order, we can set up something removing the rights of the local authority. When I was involved in the working party one of the concerns and reservations I had was about removing planning from the local authority in the port and docks site. That is a fact of life and it is something I had to exercise my conscience on. If we set up commissions or statutory authorities, they should be thought out and brought before this House so that it can be specifically explained how we are going to go about them, how they are going to be funded and developed. It should be done through legislation. That is my strongly held view and I will not depart from that. It is only right that, if we are to remove powers from local authorities we do it in this House.
I accept the thrust of the argument made on the far side of the House. I am as concerned about that part of the city — I have represented it for a number of years — as everybody else. I hold the view that it can be done with the kind of generous incentives that are there. When incentives are reasonably generous you can attract low density business into an area. It does not have to be high density to make a profit. There is the write-off on the building, the rates and the double rent relief, all of which make it possible to create a climate for good development. It was Con Power who said we should put the stamp of good developments in all of these areas. I go along with that fully. It is important that wherever we develop in the designated areas, they should be buildings of high quality and esteem which will be a credit to our capital city.
Because it is the capital city of Ireland we are doing this. We owe it to the city to ensure that whatever we do is properly developed with good quality. Only time will tell whether we were wise to proceed in this way or whether we should have accepted the Opposition's amendment. Both our hearts are probably in the right place with regard to the area. It is a question of emphasis — whether we should have an authority or leave it to the local authority. On this occasion I come down on the side of the local authority. I might have a change of mind on that in a couple of years if I did not see it was working right, or if the faith I had in them was not justified. As I see it now, I must trust the local authority. They may have made mistakes in the past but lessons have been learned and the future of that area will be as well handled by this local authority as it would be by any other.
I do not want to delay the House further on this point. The Minister said we were suggesting there is some destructive hand at work in this. We are proposing a benign hand to take care of the development of the old walled city. The Minister says the corporation can do it because much of the property is owned by the corporation and the Office of Public Works. Why then has it not been done? Is it because there have not been incentives?
The old Dublin walled city deserves special treatment. The Minister agreed that it is an area of great charm. It has potential for great development with galleries, restaurants, shopping arcades, etc. Havoc has been wrought in that area in the past 100 years and it can be plainly seen today. I have no objection to the local authorities participating in the work of the development authority but rather than leaving this to the corporation or the Office of Public Works the site should get the special attention of the development authority which we are proposing in the amendment. The Minister said he can look at it in the future, have a look at it in a couple of years. That would be another two years lost. How can anybody with any knowledge of the destruction being wrought in Dublin and who has seen the continuing decline and decay, say he is happy there will not be further destruction if we wait another couple of years? He says he is happy to let the incentives work through the system.
What is needed is a concentration of minds on the old walled city, and that can be done only by the type of authority responsible for the Custom House Docks site. We are suggesting an authority should be set up for the old walled city. Deputy Mac Giolla said such development would be piecemeal, with a promoter coming in to develop a hotel and that he would be asked to dig in advance of planning permission. That is not the type of development we need. The officers of the corporation are very busy men with a whole city under their care. They do not have time to concentrate their minds on the redevelopment of the centre city area. If they had that time we would have seen development and regeneration before now.
The development we suggest would require day-to-day supervision. You cannot build a new town like Tallaght, for instance, by laying out a plan and saying to a developer: "You may build in that field but in the field adjoining we will build a road". There should have been a new town commission for Tallaght which would have been responsible for providing a whole social structure side by side with housing development.
The sort of regeneration we want in the old Dublin city has not taken place because there has not been a concentration of minds. The Minister has assured us that his heart is in the right place and that he has a general feeling of support in the House. He says he may be convinced about the need for this amendment in a couple of years. We are asking him not to delay for a couple of years, and therefore his suggestion seems to be appalling. We must do it now not only for this but for future generations.
I would not have a vote of no confidence in the local authority in Dublin. I believe they can do the job well. We seem to be getting mixed up. Because we have a statutory authority in one area we are looking for one in another. In the other area we have to avoid delay and we require, therefore, very careful planning. We will agree that there are no better people than the planning authority to look after the walled city area. I agree that I would not be averse to change but for the moment we should proceed in the manner we have proposed. The planning authority are the best people to do it. It would be different if a statutory authority were to come in and develop the area out of their own resources, but development will still have to depend on private enterprise developing in a planned way. The planning authority can lay down criteria and lay down conditions as to how deep we can dig into the ground. I do not understand the fears expressed here.
The special authority suggested would seem to be all right but the practicality is that the local authority are more capable of doing this effectively. The corporation will have a special staff for such work like all five county boroughs. Such staff will have special responsibility for planning and development of designated areas. There will be no question of development not being done in a delicate and efficient way. It will not be a case of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 55; Níl, 68.
Tá
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Francis.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, William.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Edmond.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Myra.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joe.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Creed, Donal.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Martin Austin.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dowling, Dick.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, Willie.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Prendergast, Frank.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ryan, John.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Barrett(Dublin North-West): Níl, Deputies F. O'Brien and Taylor.
Amendment declared lost.
On a point of order, earlier I raised the issue that the national flag is not flying——
That is not a point of order.
Would you confirm that no member of the staff of the Office of Public Works will go on the roof to raise this flag and that a steeplejack will be called in at 6 p.m. today to re-erect the flag?
I reported this to the Superintendent.
They could have got a steeplejack yesterday if they are afraid to climb up onto the roof.
The Deputy is out of order.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment No. 4
In page 6, subsection (2), line 34, to delete "four" and substitute "six".
This amendment relates to the operation by the authority of the proposed Custom House Docks site. The Minister suggests that the authority should consist of a chairman and four ordinary members. My amendment suggests six ordinary members for a number of reasons. With a committee consisting of a chairman and four ordinary members, human nature being what it is, it may be difficult to get a quorum. The authority would be far more efficient if there were six ordinary members. This would give the Minister the opportunity to invite onto the authority a greater range of experts — architects, businessmen and so on. I ask him to accept this amendment. It is not an earth-shattering proposal.
This amendment would increase from four to six the number of ordinary members on the board. Basically, I am opposed to large boards; the smaller the board the more efficient they are. What I want is an executive rather than a representative body to get the work done and to secure the development of this site as quickly as possible. This can best be done by a chairman and four ordinary members. I am interested in keeping this board to as reasonable a number as possible and therefore I cannot accept the amendment.
To suggest that changing the board from four to six is to set up a large body which will be unable to operate is ludicrous. I am giving the Minister an opportunity to make the board more efficient by expanding the potential range of expertise which will be available to him. I am not talking about a representative or representatives of anybody. I am talking about the Minister's capacity to select the best from the wide range of expertise available in the city of Dublin and the country to run this authority and this unique site.
As I have explained, from my knowledge and the Minister's of life on committees and boards — many of us are on them — for efficiency, for operation and decision making and to have an adequate number for a quorum etc., six would appear to be a better number. I will not delay the House on this. I regret that the Minister is taking such a tough line on a relatively minor amendment. Somehow or other he has this feeling that all wisdom lies in the Minister and Minister of State for the time being so advised by his officials in the Custom House.
Did the Deputy not know that?
If you look at the 1982 Bill you see that the same Minister and Minister of State at the time advised by the same group of civil servants had six. I do not see why, but I am not going to delay the House on it.
I do not agree with Deputy Burke that an authority of six would probably be a better number. I had experience of large groups as compared with smaller authorities. I was in the Isle of Man recently and I saw that they work very efficiently with committees of three. If you have the right people then the smaller the authority the better. If the Minister can get four people representing different interests and a chairman, that committee could work as well as if not better than a committee of seven people.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 7, subsection (1), to delete lines 26 to 31 and substitute the following:
"(v) to provide such infrastructure and to carry out such works of amenity development or environmental improvements as, in the opinion of the Authority, may be required to encourage:
(I) the development of public and private housing,
(II) the industrial development of the area, based, in so far as is practicable on the resources of the area, and to provide secure jobs, particularly for the people of the area,
(III) the provision of shopping and recreational facilities.".
Whatever about the whole idea behind creating a new authority to deal with the site, I am concerned about the approach that such an authority would adopt to developing that site. I was surprised to read in the official journal of the Construction Industry Federation in February 1986 on page 61 that "the Department of the Environment and Dublin Corporation have agreed that no public housing should be built in the Custom House Docks site as Dublin's north inner city suffers many community problems due to a huge concentration of existing public housing." If on the one hand we are talking about regenerating that area of the city we should be doing so in terms of regenerating it for the benefit of the people of the city, particularly those living in that area already. That is why Deputy Mac Giolla and I have put down this amendment. Section 9 (1) (a) (v) reads:
to provide such infrastructure and to carry out such works of amenity development or environmental improvement as, in the opinion of the Authority, may be required to encourage people to work, shop or reside in that Area or otherwise to use the facilities provided in that Area.
Deputy Doyle will agree with me when I say there is no problem whatsoever in encouraging the ordinary people of this city to live in that area if housing is provided in that area by the local authority, but it is virtually impossible to get a local authority house in the inner city of Dublin. In most cases well in excess of 100 points are needed to get a house in the inner city. Compare that with the Tallaght area at the moment where a house can be got for 12 points and the disparity between the demand for housing in the inner city and in the outer suburbs can be seen. Therefore, there is no problem in encouraging people to live in the area.
However, in this section of the Bill we appear to be talking about encouraging people other than local authority tenants to live in the area. That is the clear implication of that section. Perhaps the Minister can clarify the report in the CIF journal of February and whether agreement has been reached that no local authority housing will be built on that site. It seems that if we pursue this line of approach to developing that site we are creating a new kind of ghetto. In the Sheriff Street area people on very low incomes with very poor job prospects in a very poor environment in terms of facilities and so on are in a ghetto. If we proceed to develop purely private apartment style living in that area, we will be creating a ghetto at the other extreme of our society, a ghetto for the rich, so to speak. I would be concerned about any part of the city becoming the full preserve of any income bracket.
I have argued at Dublin Corporation level that housing in Dublin should be provided on the basis of need rather than income level, residential qualification and so on. The idea has always obtained that we should have a social mix, as it is called. The popular idea is that we build a corporation housing estate here and a so-called private estate there and that is supposed to create a social mix. It does not. Practically all experience in the city over the years has shown that it does not create a social mix. It would create a social mix if the housing built by local authorities, or by private builders if we want to push it in that direction, were available to persons whether on the housing list or not, purely on the basis of need. If they can afford to buy a house and can get a loan from the HFA or a building society, well and good. If they cannot afford to buy, they get the house on differential rent from the local authority. That would require a major new approach to housing provision in the city.
Therefore, in this amendment I am arguing that at least the principle be accepted that public and private housing be provided on this site, that there be no exclusive building of private apartments, as would seem to be the intention. At present quite a large number of people who want to live in the inner city cannot live there because the houses are not there. In other words, the people who need housing and cannot afford to buy a place cannot live in the inner city unless the corporation provide a house or a flat for them there. This is an ideal opportunity to provide public housing in the inner city.
The people about whom we are talking about displacing — let us not put it too thinly because in this Bill we are talking about displacing people living in that area in local authority houses or flats — will have no say whatever in the authority being established to decide what goes on on that site. There is no local community representation on it. The corporation, who are responsible for public housing in the city, have only a consultative role in the development. Normal planning procedures are being overridden by this Bill. These points are important in support of the amendment I am putting down in relation to housing.
Another point in my amendment is the encouragment of industrial jobs on the site. Experience in other cities, especially in London, has been that when dockland sites are redeveloped in this way — my understanding is that this proposal is largely taken from the London experience — mostly white collar jobs are provided. In the vast majority of cases, the jobs located on such sites will not be new but relocated from outlying industrial estates or other factories around the city, presumably because of the various incentives in relation to rates and so on.
There is an inbuilt discrimination against the local population as a result of this development because people living in the area will not have the skills to fill the jobs provided on such sites. A number of studies and assessments have been made of the unemployment problem in the inner city area and it is clear that the vast majority of people unemployed in that area are unskilled or have manual or industrial skills. That is why I argue that there should be an emphasis by the authority which we are setting up for this area in the Bill in regard to industrial jobs on the site.
A number of other points also need to be considered, including the question of encouraging development along the lines of the Bill, although there is no reference in it to the money which will be provided to develop the site. Judging from the experience in London and similar areas in Britain, most of the investment comes from the State. It would be wrong for the State to have to provide the bulk of the investment to develop this site while, at the same time, encouraging discrimination against the local population in regard to jobs and housing on the site. In London the investment ratios have been as low as £1 from the State and £3 from the private sector and, in some cases, £1 from the State and £7 from the private sector. However, the State must lead in all cases in relation to investment and presumably it is only when the project is seen to be taking off that the private investor comes in.
I strongly urge the Minister to accept the amendment and to indicate what status the statement in the CIF journal has that a deal has been made excluding public sector housing from the site.
I share Deputy De Rossa's concern that this section setting down the functions of the authority should be made clear because there should be no ambiguity in regard to it. Amendment No. 6 in my name says that in performing the functions assigned to it, an urban development authority shall, as far as practicable, maintain a balance within its functional area as between housing, industrial, commercial, social, amenity and other development. The wording proposed by the Minister in the Bill is far too loose. There is not enough emphasis on the specifics and I share the view that we must have a balance in housing——
May I interrupt the Deputy to ask him if it is in order to take the two amendments together?
We may discuss them together. My aims and those of Deputy De Rossa are very similar. I do not want the site to become one commercial blob without any consideration for the housing or amenity needs of the area. It is essential to specify to the authority that they must operate within certain guidelines. I want to see that there is a balance within the functional area of housing. There should be private and public housing on the site. They must decide the level and density of housing but there should be a mixture because, for far too long, the inner city area was associated with public housing to the exclusion of private housing.
I do not want the balance to tilt the other way so that there will be only private houses. There is room for a marriage of the two and, in giving the authority their instructions when they are established, it is important to specify that there must be a balance in the housing area. We also want to see a balance in so far as industrial units are concerned, I do not want to see the site covered with factories because it is a unique site, only a couple of hundred yards from O'Connell Bridge. It is an opportunity to hand on to the next generation a redeveloped area and it is incumbent on us to do it properly.
We must have a balance which will be correct from a planning, living and employment point of view. Therefore, there must be public and private housing, industrial units to provide jobs on the site and for the area generally and shopping arcades. I should like to see something on the lines of the Wharf project in Boston and other cities. There should be good commercial development on the lines of the Powerscourt centre although it could be bigger on this site. There should also be social activities and amenity projects as far as open space and recreational facilities are concerned. It is a unique site and the section dealing with the guidelines and functions of the authority is far too loose. This would be wise to accept the amendments before him to tighten his guidelines because his proposals are far too vague. The Minister needs to be more specific.
I have been in a number of cities in Europe but no city has seen the progress which we have made in local authority housing in the inner city area. The local authority have developed some very prime sites. This programme began under the 1973-1977 Government with the development of City Quay. That stands out as a prime development. In no other city would that site have been given for public housing.
I do not agree with Deputy De Rossa regarding points. The last house on City Quay was given out for 72 points and I understand that the number of points required for the north side of the inner city is 60. The Government and Dublin Corporation intend to continue that policy of public housing.
I do not believe we have to build local authority housing everywhere. Certain sections of the city can be excluded. Deputy De Rossa did not do justice to those living in the inner city. There are many people who have second-level education and, indeed, on my side of the city many have third-level. They would be well qualified to work on any development which takes place in the inner city.
That is wishful thinking.
I worry when I see the Minister of State change his spectacles. I have been watching him all day and it is a bad omen. Straight away I know I am in trouble.
Not always. Section 9 deals with the functions of the Authority and imposes a general duty on the Authority to secure the redevelopment of the Custom House Docks area. Paragraph (v) will enable the Authority to provide such infrastructure and carry out such amenity or environmental improvement works as are necessary to encourage people to work, shop or live in the area or otherwise to use the facilities that will be provided. Initially the Authority will help to prepare the site for redevelopment, do any necessary clearance work and provide the infrastructure. What is to be built on the site will be published in a plan made by the Authority under section 12 of the Bill. What goes into the plan will receive wide discussion and will be approved of by the Minister.
I agree with the concept of the amendment but I should not like to see it written into the Bill. What we want is balanced development. The working party report makes that clear. We have never said that we do not want local authority housing on this site. We are appointing a statutory authority and will leave them to do the job. The Minister will have the last say on it. The working party report clearly indicates the type of mix we want. It includes housing, commercial, industrial and leisure amenities on one site. To put into the Bill that there should be X number of houses——
That is not done.
That is what we will do.
Why not accept the amendment?
What is a balance?
You would not recognise one if it came up and bit you in the street.
"Commonsense" would be a better word than "balance". I assure the House that what will be on the site will be a balanced development. That is important. We are appointing a statutory committee to do the job and we are giving them responsibility. We will give them a broad instruction on how to approach it. They will draw up a plan which will be discussed with the local authority. There will be public participation in it and then it will come before the Minister who will either make or accept amendments to it. Only then will the development go ahead. I take the Deputy's point. We are not disagreeing about it, but have different attitudes on how to go about it.
I spent all day with the Minister agreeing with me but have not achieved anything on any amendment I put down.
I like to be reasonable.
I would hate to see the Minister of State if he were disagreeable.
I do not know what Deputy De Rossa read in the construction magazine. We have no definite plan as regards what type of housing there will be on the site. Hopefully there will be some industry and leisure activities.
Social activities, amenities and other development. Does the Minister of State not think it would be a good idea to write it into the Bill?
No. If we did so we might turn potential developers away. They might feel inhibited by it. We will leave it open and tell the Authority what we want. At the end of the day the Minister will decide on whether to accept the plan. That is important. We are not giving the Authority the sole right to come up with what they want and impose their will on the Minister. I accept the spirit of the amendment. That type of development will be achieved but it should not be written into the Bill as it might prove to be an inhibiting factor.
Surely that last point illustrates that it is essential to write into the Bill exactly how we want the Authority to operate and how they are to perform their function. We do not want them playing footsie with some developer who will be able to persuade them, in the preparation of their plan for the Custom House Docks site, to go too far one way or the other.
What we want to do is write into the Bill a specific instruction to the Authority that, in the carrying out of their functions, they will maintain a balance. This is not too specific. It is a general instruction to maintain a balance as between housing, industrial, commercial, social, amenity and other developments. The Minister agrees with me point by point with regard to each of the items I have listed there. He assures the House that this is where his heart is, that this is what will happen. Unfortunately, the record of this House has no legal standing as far as the board or the Authority are concerned. What they will look at is what is written down in the legislation as passed by this House. They will not look at the record of this debate as it goes on. They will merely look at the legislation as it is passed.
The Minister agrees totally that his aim is to achieve this balance that I speak about in my amendment. The Minister agrees with the principle. He says that is what he hopes to see achieved and what he intends to see achieved and that if the authority do not do it the Minister will, at the end of the day, instruct them to achieve that balance. But what we are passing is a legal document, a Bill, an Act of this Oireachtas. What we need to do is write into the Act a clear instruction as to what they are to go for, and that is a balance between the list of items, housing, industrial, commercial, social, amenity and other developments.
This cannot be achieved in any other way. No instructions can be given to the Authority other than by writing it into the legislation. With due respect to the Minister, he is not doing justice to this Bill unless he accepts this amendment. That is what the Minister wants to see achieved, but he has not written it into the legislation. There is no constitutional obligation on the Minister to reject every proposal just because it comes from the Opposition. The Minister sees the wisdom of it and agrees with it but, at the same time, he will not write it in. He is saying that in some vague way the Authority will know it and the Minister will tell them and they will do it this way, and that way and so on.
We are not saying that half an acre is to be housing, two acres open space, three acres commercial or whatever. We are putting this in the broadest possible terms. What we want to see, without tying it down or chasing away any developer or potential investor, is a balanced development, because it is a unique site, a unique opportunity for this generation to hand on something to future generations. It will be a developed site only a couple of hundred yards from the main thoroughfare of our capital city. Surely, with that sort of obligation on us, we should write into the legislation the type of balance we want. It should not be vague. It should be written in the way it is there.
There are a number of points I want to return to including points raised by Deputy Doyle and the Minister. Deputy Doyle indicated that I might be doing less than justice to the people living in that part of Dublin in implying that they would not be in a position to take up the white collar jobs which would be on offer if experience in other similar types of development abroad is anything to go by. That is not in any way a slight on the abilities or otherwise of the people in the area. It is a recognition of the fact that the vast majority of the unemployed in that area and in every other area are not white collar people; they are not people who have experience of white collar work; they are people with experience in industrial work, manual work. It is not in any sense a comment on their ability, whether they be educated or otherwise.
I do not for a minute hold, for instance, that a person is better or worse because he holds a particular certificate. I do not have any great number of certificates myself and I do not regard myself as any better or any worse in terms of ability or otherwise than any other person in this House or outside of this House. I do not regard it as a slight to state the facts, that the vast majority of the unemployed in the north inner city area will not be in a position to avail of the jobs that will be provided on this site. That is a statement of fact. To try to believe otherwise is an illusion.
Deputy Doyle also made the point that we do not have to have local authority houses on every site and that there is no reason local authority houses should not be excluded from some sites. If we were talking about a general principle, I would agree. But we are talking here about a major part of the inner city which will have very wide and far reaching effects on the whole city, an area in which there are thousands of local authority tenants already residing, in some cases, in very poor conditions.
It is clear to me that what is intended is that Sheriff Street will be cleared not only of tenants but of flats. What I am arguing is that we must ensure that those people will be able to live and stay in the area in which they were born and reared. It is my contention that, unless we include the kind of amendment which I am proposing here, we will have a development on that site which is totally geared towards commercial and up-market apartment living. Experience in other countries has indicated that that is so. The Minister said he intends to see that there will be balanced development on the site. He goes on to say he is not too sure what balanced development means. I draw his attention to the fact that section 9 (1) (a) (i) provides for the acquiring, holding and management of land in that area for its development, redevelopment or renewal either by the Authority or by any other person. There is no reference at all in the section to the right of Dublin Corporation to be engaged in development on that site.
If the Minister is correct in saying he would like to see local authority housing on that site, how will that be facilitated if only the Authority have or any other person has the right to develop or redevelop the site? The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but certainly I am not aware of local authorities, in any legislation that I have come across, being referred to as a person. They are always referred to as a body or a borough council and so on. There appears to be no opportunity in that section to permit Dublin Corporation to develop housing on that site.
The third point I want to make in relation to the Minister's response is that this Authority are required, under section 9(1)(a)(iii), to develop that site to secure the best use of any such land. Paragraph (iv) says they are obliged to dispose of land on the completion of its development, redevelopment or renewal to secure the best use of the land.
We are dealing here with an Authority which will be primarily concerned with the commercial development of that site. I am talking about a development which will ensure that they do not go into the red. They will be looking for the best possible return on any development which takes place on that site. If it is housing I argue that it will be mainly private apartments. It can be factories or amenities. I hope I am proved wrong, but you may find that the amenity area, the marina, will be confined to those who can afford to pay to moor their boats there, or whatever people do at marinas. It is the people who can afford to pay to use the amenities who will be facilitated. No provision has been included in this section to ensure that there is an obligation on the authority to provide public housing. There is no obligation on the Authority to ensure that development on that site will be anything other than geared towards the best possible financial return from the use of the land.
With reference to the question of balance being written into the Act, I indicated earlier that directions can be given to the body. Section 9(6) empowers the Minister to give a general directive in writing to the Authority as to policy in relation to the performance of any of these functions and the Authority must have regard to any directions so issued. There is no ambiguity about that, and I can see no problems there. Eventually, the plan comes back to the Minister and there can be amendments from the local authority or from the public which he may accept or reject. He may ask for changes in the plan of the statutory authority. There are sufficient safeguards here to ensure that the balance is right, without literally nailing it down and tying anybody's hands.
With regard to Deputy De Rossa's comment on employment, there are two elements here which would well serve the particular area. First, the redevelopment will probably go on for five to eight years, which is the opinion of most people and will need building operatives on the site and provide building jobs all during that period. The particular skills of many people in that area will be needed. On a site as large as 27 acres there would be a number of service jobs and I am not ruling out the possibility of there being some industrial development also. Considering the commercial sector alone, there would be a large number of service jobs. Following that period of up to eight years, there would also be a large number of service jobs on the site. The general workforce in the area would be quite capable of taking on that type of work. I am not going to pre-empt at this stage some light industrial development within the site, but that is a matter for the Authority.
Deputy De Rossa expressed doubts as to whether a local authority could be regarded as a person. A person can mean any corporate body within the legal terminology. Therefore, there is nothing to prevent the local authority from developing housing on the site as a body operating there. I want to make that point quite clear. I hope the contents of section 9(6) will allay the fears of the Members who have put down this amendment. General directives will be issued on the standards expected, but they will not be hard and fast rules. That is the way to do this.
I am delighted to hear that Dublin Corporation is a person.
Under legal terminology.
In the definition section of the Bill, for the Deputy's assistance, it will be seen that Dublin Corporation are specifically mentioned as meaning the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of Dublin.
The Lord Mayor is a person.
I shall accept the Minister's decision that the corporation is a person and included under that section.
It is in the Interpretation Act of 1937.
Fair play to the Minister.
That is a nice back-up there. I wish to make a point in regard to subsection (6) which is supposed to be all-facilitating and enables the Minister to do this, that and the other. It is surprising that the word "directive" is used here. In that case it is a directive which is not a directive at all, as the following subsection shows. The Authority must have regard to it, but they do not have to accept it. If it were a directive, they would have to accept it. Subsection (7) says:
Nothing in this section shall be construed as enabling the Minister to exercise any power or control in relation to the performance . . .
The Authority can say: "Within our terms of reference that directive does not apply. We do not like it. We will have regard to it, but we are not implementing it." This does not mean anything; it is a cover for the Minister.
I should like to mention housing and jobs. I emphasise that the expectation of the citizens living in this area are rather high in connection with this site. It has been talked about now for years, first by the Dublin Port and Docks Board, with the local people talking to that board about it, then by Dublin Corporation who were discussing the matter with the Dublin Port and Docks Board. Various plans and ideas were put forward and the local people had input into these and suggested amenities, housing and jobs. These were the three things they wanted and that they have not got. Housing is developing just outside that area and there is a very good Dublin Corporation housing development in the general area, but housing is still a major issue for people in that immediate area.
However most important of all are jobs. I am sure the Minister is well aware that the whole inner city problem began with the loss of jobs in the whole port area, the movement of all industries out to Finglas, Ballyfermot, Tallaght, Clondalkin and so on, and the emptying out of jobs from the area. The potential and resources of the area were in connection with the port and the railhead, which goes right out into the port. The cattle industry also collapsed. The lack of jobs created problems with regard to housing, drugs and other social ills in the area. They are looking to this development as being important not just for the city but for the citizens in the area. That is what both these amendments are about. They have the appropriate balance for development that will give jobs. The Minister has not given any great thought to industrial development, which is very important.
In regard to housing, I am delighted to hear the Minister giving a guarantee that nothing has been decided. It is surprising that he has not corrected the very specific and strong statement in the official journal of the Construction Industry Federation. It is rumoured that the site may ultimately house the new north Dublin Garda headquarters. It states that the Department of the Environment and Dublin Corporation agreed that no public housing should be built on the Custom House Dock site, probably due to a huge concentration of existing public housing. It is the understanding of everybody in the construction industry that that decision has been made. I accept the Minister's statement that no such agreement has been made. I hope that, either through his statement in the House or in some other way, this will be conveyed to the Construction Industry Federation and to Dublin Corporation.
We can take it that when the Minister speaks about housing he is talking about a mix of housing in the area. I cannot see why he cannot accept both or one of the amendments put down, which simply state — not in specific terms but in general terms — what industrial and housing development it should contain. If the Minister accepted them there would be less apprehension among people generally, and in particular among the people living in the area, about what type of development is in mind. There is no alternative method of appeals or of public participation in the planning of the development. When the Bill is passed neither Dublin Corporation nor the citizens will have any say in this. The Minister can give general policy directives which they may or may not have regard to. I would like to see something in the Bill to show that this balance that Deputy Burke and Deputy De Rossa spoke about will exist in the area.
On the point that has been highlighted with regard to subsection (6) and subsection (7) of section 9, the Minister was hanging his case on the basis that he did not have to accept the amendment before him requiring a balance within this development between housing, industrial, commercial, social amenity and other factors. Subsection (6) states that the Minister has the right to give a general directive in writing to the Authority. As has been clarified, subsection (7) shows that nothing in this section shall be construed as enabling the Minister to exercise any power or control in relation to the performance in particular cases by the Authority of a function assigned to it by or under this Act. The longer we discuss this the more the case is proven that it requires a specific instruction to be written into the functions of the Authority of the type that I have laid out in the amendment. It asks that in performing the functions assigned to it an Urban Development Authority shall, as far as practical, maintain a balance within its functional areas between housing, industrial, commercial, social amenity and other developments. This is becoming more and more obvious. It is essential to write this into the Bill for the security of this historic site which has become available to the people of Dublin only a couple of hundred yards from the main thoroughfare of our capital city. We owe it to this and to future generations to get it right with regard to development.
It is essential that the Minister accept this amendment or a variation of it. My own amendment is loose enough to leave the Authority a free enough hand and at the same time give them specific instructions with regard to their terms of reference. If this is not written into the terms of reference, no ministerial directive will have the force to make them do what we want them to do. It is vitally important because, as has been clarified, there is no right of appeal in this Act with regard to planning appeals as would exist in a normal third party appeal. That is not in this Act because we want to see development take place as fast as possible. Because we are doing away with many of the safeguards in the planning Acts, it is incumbent on the Minister to ensure that the Bill, when it is passed by this House and becomes law, is specific as far as the type of development that we want to see and that the Minister assures us will take place is concerned.
I assure the House that there will be a reasonable number of jobs in the development of the site. With regard to the industrial content, I cannot give any assurances until the plan is drawn up. As chairman of the working party, I spoke to the IDA to see what they could do to bring industry to that site. In all our deliberations we spoke about the whole concept of industry coming into that site because we wanted a mix. The IDA are better equipped to encourage the type of industry that would come in there. I hope that in the final plan we will have industry coupled with building jobs and service jobs. The number of jobs will be substantial for the area. Unemployment is high in the area and I hope that when the scheme is in operation industries can be attracted to that district. There is no reason why the people in the area cannot be trained in the various skills while a factory is in the course of construction. I am optimistic that that will happen.
Great play has been made about subsections (6) and (7). Subsection (6) empowers the Minister to give a general directive in writing to the Authority. That is the general practice and I am sure Deputy Burke when he was Minister issued directives to planning authorities of which they had to take note.
I gave one directive, the only one ever given under the planning Act.
Therefore, the Deputy knows what I am talking about. Subsection (7) states that the Minister may not exercise any power or control in relation to a particular case or in particular circumstances. In other words, he cannot be nit-picking in regard to what the Authority does. However, if the Minister issues a general directive it must be taken into account, but the Minister should not have power to say where a house should be erected. He will have overall control when the plan is sent to him. I am sure all Members agree that the Minister should not be involved when the plan is being prepared. I am satisfied that under subsection (6) the Minister has power to direct the Authority to take account of his directions.
Subsection (7) is a contradiction.
It is not.
I should like to raise a question in relation to the Minister's right to direct under subsection (6) and the obligation on the Authority to make the best use of the site. For argument's sake, if the Authority in their plan exclude local authority housing on the basis that they do not think it would be feasible to include such housing — they may not consider the erection of houses to be making the best use of the site and may say that it would make it difficult to encourage companies to take up factory space — and the Minister issues a direction to the Authority to include a specific percentage of local authority housing on the site, in what way will the direction have precedence over the obligations on the Authority to make the best use of the site? If it is the intention of the Minister to ensure that there is industrial development and local authority housing on this site, I cannot see any valid argument for not including that in the Bill. To say that he has the power to direct the Authority to do that seems to me to be saying that he will get the Bill through as it is and he will see then how things develop. He appears to be saying that, if the Authority feel that local authority housing, a certain type of industrial development or a particular type of public amenity should not be on the site, they have a free hand to refuse it. They have a free hand to develop it because they were appointed to do the job. Presumably the members of the Authority will be selected on the basis of their expertise in this area.
There is a contradiction in that. If the Minister feels a certain type of development should take place on the site, he should include that in the Bill. He may argue that he has the power to do that anyway, but there may be a conflict between what he might direct them to do and what the Authority may see as their duty under the legislation to make the best possible profitable commercial use of the site.
I should like to ask the Minister to put it on record that the statement I read out from the official journal of the Construction Industry Federation is not true, that there is no agreement between the Department of the Environment and Dublin Corporation that there will be no public housing on that site.
There is no agreement that local authority housing should not be on that site. I did not make any pronouncement about any type of development on this site. The working party dealt with the development in broad terms. It was said that housing, commercial development, industrial development, leisure facilities, a conference facility and, possibly, a hotel should be there. That was the general idea of what we would like to see on the site.
This is the first time we have heard about a hotel and we have been talking about the site for a long time.
A conference centre has been thrown in today. I think it is a great idea.
It will be up to the statutory Authority to produce the proposals at the end of the day.
What will happen if they do not bring forward proposals?
The statutory body will have to produce a general plan; but, if we include in the legislation that that body must carry out certain developments and they find it difficult to get a party interested in one of those items, it will mean that the plan cannot be changed. When we are talking about creating jobs we should not be talking about putting too many impediments in the way. We must have a broad objective and work towards it. At the end of the day we will have to see what we have in the pot and include that in an action plan which will be sent to the Minister for approval. We should not be painting ourselves into any corners. I cannot guarantee the House what will go on the site until I see the plans. We must remember that business people are not queuing up for industrial sites.
They are not queuing up to go into industrial sites anywhere.
They are queuing up at the visa section in the American Embassy.
There is no incentive to get involved.
There is incentive in this and I am sorry if the Deputy cannot see it.
I can see it in the number of jobs lost.
If the Deputy cannot see it, he has got problems.
The unemployment and emigration figures show it.
Deputy Lyons, please.
My apologies.
What I want to assure the House on is that the Minister will give broad directions. When the plan is submitted he then will have further time to consider whether it should be changed. Deputy Mac Giolla indicated that the local authority and the general public in the area have no say. The general public in the area can make submissions about this site, as can the local authority. Obviously, the Authority do not have to accept what they propose but they do have to take account of what they say and consider it. That is a reasonable approach, given the type of Authority we are setting up. There should be consultation with the local authority and the general public. I would have to refute the allegation that there is no direct consultation and no one has any say other than the Authority. The Authority will finally make up their minds on what they want, but after they have listened to the other bodies. That is a reasonably civilised approach.
If we define what we want in the Bill we can run ourselves into trouble. Section 9 (6) clearly indicates the powers the Minister has. Irrespective of whatever arguments are put up, the facts are there. Deputy Burke knows the facts are there. He admitted himself that on one occasion he issued a directive. That is a fact of life. Authorities such as these have to take this into account. They cannot ignore a Minister's directive, because it is the law of the land. That is important. I understand the fears of Members of the House and I respect the amendments which they have put down. I believe my approach is flexible and gives power to ensure that the development we all appear to want will be there at the end of the day when the plan is drawn up.
On a number of occasions the Minister took the opportunity to refer to a directive which I issued while I was Minister for the Environment with regard to the development of shopping centres as distinct from local shops to try to protect the interests of local shopkeepers. That was a directive under the specific planning laws of this land which give the Minister for the Environment the right to issue directives to An Bord Pleanála.
That is what this is saying.
Could I say to the Minister of State that the thrust of the legislation is to disregard the planning laws so that one will no longer be subject to third party appeals or all other types of appeals? This legislation scraps for the designated area the planning laws with regard to directives. On a number of occasions the Minister of State made the point that he does not want specific guidelines written into the Bill because they might delay development and hinder discussions between the Authority and developers, who would want to see the site developed in a particular way.
Is the Minister of State suggesting that a single developer or a consortium of developers will be working with the Authority in the preparation of the plan, so that the Authority will produce a plan which will suit a particular consortium and so that the consortium can say we will build a hotel or a shopping arcade that the Authority have suggested? Why does he keep emphasising that he does not want it to be specific? Amendment No. 6 is anything but specific. It sets down general guidelines, which the Minister of State says he is going to issue as a directive anyway. What we want to see is that they are written into the Bill. There is no question of delaying the development of the site. We all want to see the site develop but we do not want to see it developed in some sort of cosy relationship between a consortium and the Authority.
We want to see the Authority preparing a balanced plan which will meet the housing needs of the people in the area, private and public, their job needs and their commercial needs, along with the commercial and amenity needs of the city as a whole. The plan should not comprise just tower, flat and industrial blocks but should be something that we, from a visual point of view, will be very proud of. Because it is so near to the main thoroughfare of our capital city it is vitally important that this be done correctly. I insist, and I will continue to insist, because the Minister of State has not convinced me. The Minister of State has not given me one good reason which I can hold onto as to why he will not accept the amendment. All the Minister of State can say is that he can accept the thrust of the amendment but does not want to write it into the Bill because it will delay development. I do not accept that.
We have gone over the ground fairly well. Whether it is a planning authority, this Authority or any Authority, they have to take account of the directive. That was the only point I was making. I was not making a point on planning. The Deputy indicated that we are removing the planning powers from this site. If we are, it is the only site we are removing from them. Under the Deputy's Bill, planning powers were removed from all the designated sites.
True, but we were setting down clear guidelines.
Under section 9 we can do that. The Deputy admitted that he gave a directive to an Authority who had to take account of what he directed them to do.
That is right.
The very same directive will be issued to another authority and they will have to take equal account of that. There is no problem or ambiguity there whatsoever. Therefore, I do not understand why we are getting upset because we are not writing it in. The important thing is that the power is there to direct the Authority. They have to take account of it.
If the Minister changes his mind and says this will be an industrial site and he instructs the Authority accordingly, the Authority according to the Minister of State will have to take that instruction. What we want in this House is to write in that this unique site will be developed in a balanced way for the people of this country generally and not at the whim of some direction from a Minister or some cosy arrangement between some authority and developers. We want it written into the law as it passes through this House.
I want to say this, that it will not be at the whim of an individual Deputy who sat down to write what will be on this site in 1992. I can well understand the Deputy's concern if he was prepared to site away under those circumstances. There is no question of that in this Bill. I can assure the Deputy that there will be clear directions for a proper balance. It will not be written by one individual in this House who would not have the responsibility of doing it. That is all I want to say.
It is important that this site is being brought forward, first of all, to develop a particular area which has been lying derelict for so long. The north inner city has been deprived and starved of development. In the last 20 or 30 years only 15 per cent of all office development was north of the river and 10 per cent of that was by Irish Life in the Brooks Thomas complex. In other words, only 5 per cent of general development in the city occurred in the north inner city. One must question that. If we could get good prestige development in that area it would act as a catalyst for development right down the quays. We hope that further up the north side of the Liffey the area will become known as a location for good development. That will happen only if we take the correct steps. This Bill will enable us to take those steps.
This is the most important site ever to become available in this city, the jewel of the city. We now have an opportunity to polish it up and display it properly so that it will act as a beacon for further development along the north quays and across into the lower end of the south quays. That area has been the cinderella of our inner city, and as a Dubliner I am satisfied with the probable effects of this legislation. The south inner city has been over-developed. Planning there has moved into Dublin 4. The office developments in the Blackrock area should have been directed to the north inner city but people felt it was more prestigious to develop in the south city. We hope this legislation will give the incentive to people to move into the north inner city.
Unable to answer the arguments put forward by me in favour of this amendment and totally unable to answer the points put by Deputies Mac Giolla and De Rossa, the Minister has reduced himself to insinuating that there is something improper in regard to the Fianna Fáil proposals with regard to the development of this site.
There certainly is.
The Minister is obviously not aware of the 1982 Urban Development Areas Bill dealing with this site. Section 4 of that Bill is similar to the section we are now dealing with and it dealt with the functions of an urban development commission. Subsection (1) (b) provided:
In performing the functions assigned to it by paragraph (a) of this subsection, an urban development commission shall, as far as practicable, maintain a balance within its functional area as between housing, industrial, commercial social, amenity and other development.
They were the clear instructions laid down in the Bill introduced by us in 1982. The Minister here now is not prepared to give the same guidelines to the Urban Development Authority to be set up by this Bill.
The Minister referred to this site as the jewel in the city, a unique site which he wants to polish up. I have been arguing in the last hour against letting the Minister or any other Minister steal that jewel. We will defend and put up burglar alarms against Ministers so that this national asset will be protected from the whim of any Minister. It must be specifically written into this Bill that there will be balanced development there, as was provided for in the 1982 Bill. If it was correct then it is doubly correct now that no Minister should have the legal right to direct the Authority so broadly that there would not be a balance.
The Urban Development Authority to be set up may advise the Minister that because they could not get a developer to go in to build houses and create a balance of commercial, industrial and social developments they might get a consortium with a couple of pension funds who would be prepared to go in to develop commercial and industrial interests, but not housing or to look after the social or amenity aspects. What would happen around the Cabinet table? The Government would look at it and say: "We need jobs. We will go ahead with this though it is not exactly as we would like — we will go ahead with just the commercial and industrial development."
We on this side do not want that sort of development. Because of the uniqueness of this site we want to see it protected for the country in generations to come. I accept the Minister's good faith. I accept that he wants to see this site developed properly, but there can be commercial pressures. The Authority may say that they cannot get sufficient interest in the site to develop it as quickly as they would like, but they might have a consortium made up of a pension fund or two prepared to go in to cover half the site in factory space. That would not be in the best interests of the people of the country.
The Minister will be protecting himself and future Ministers if he inserts a provision like that in the amendment. If the Minister does not accept it today, on a change of Government it will be put into later legislation. I accept the Minister's bona fides, that he wants a balance, but it is the height of folly to reject the advice he has been getting from all sides of the House.
All of us have different opinions about the development of Dublin and I hope that what I have to say will be taken in the spirit in which it is said. What dragged me from the office down here was the Minister's statement, which I heard on the monitor, that this is the jewel of a site in Dublin city, that it is the most important site. In my opinion it is not a jewel of a site, not the most important site in the city. It is very far from it. The most important site in the city centre is the other designated area, up along the Liffey going westwards towards Heuston Bridge, between O'Connell Street and Heuston Station.
That is where the jewel is, on the north and south sides of the Liffey. The redevelopment of that area, properly and sensitively, would be in itself a clear statement of faith in the future of our capital city. If it were properly developed it would encourage and even compel redevelopment of the rest of the quays. That is the most important thing. Developing the docks area will not do anything for the quays.
The development I am speaking about proposes the River Liffey as the cultural and business artery of the capital, as Deputy G. Brady said earlier, not the unknown quantity, the 27-acre site in the docks area. This part of the city could be developed into a new commercial epicentre for Dublin and could become a magnet for shoppers and others. The infrastructure there has cost billions of pounds during the years. It is there in situ. I am amazed this has not been appreciated. I have pushing this for the past three or four years but it has been ignored totally. I know from experience elsewhere that we have a long way to go before the development is carried out and it is difficult to know if it will be successful. It may be a success in the long term.
The jewel I am talking about is in the area up the river. If we develop that it will arrest the advance of the city towards the mouth of the river, away from its established starting point of Heuston Station to the Custom House building. All of us have strong opinions about this matter and I am not being over-criticial about anyone else's view. If we could provide public transport from the railheads to be revitalised centre by means of a tunnel or rapid transit link interconnecting with the DART, we would underwrite the success of the venture and of the development in this area. We need a much improved and dependable bus transport system for the city.
We are making an error here. I understand the reservations the Minister has about the site and his reluctance to commit himself on the matter. I do not think there will be any rush to develop it. I do not think it will happen overnight. I think the considerations mentioned in both amendments will be taken on board but the Minister will make a mistake if he commits the area to development now in one way. We are talking about an unknown amount of money and an unknown type of development. We do not even know who will be willing to do the work or whether the site will be a success.
Recently it was stated clearly and unambiguously by commentators that we are making a mistake in moving to the docks area of the city and concentrating development in that place. Many people have spoken today knowingly and authoritatively about Dublin. The jewel must be in the centre of the city. It must be where the people are and where we have the decay, not on a barren site around the docks. Having the pious hope of attracting people and investment here will not be enough because developers will only go where there is a profit for them. I hope the venture will be successful but options must be left open. I wish to emphasise the other area which has been left out of all the considerations.
The amendment seeks to guarantee harmony for the development of this site but that point seems to be missed here. It is uniquely situated close to the Custom House designed by Gandon but there is no guarantee that the new development will harmonise with that building. We do not have a city architect and we cannot guarantee that the new development will harmonise with the existing landscape. Deputy Burke's amendment must be written into the legislation. Otherwise, we could end up with a mixture of offices that would not achieve what I think the Minister is seeking to achieve.
There has been talk about jewels but I am not so sure that all the jewels are in the areas mentioned by previous speakers. There is a jewel in the Cork area that the Minister overlooked and where there is activity. Sections of this Bill were prepared in 1982 but the Government of the day were not satisfied with them. It has taken three years to bring the measure to this House and the legislation is being rushed through now. There are 22 sections in the Bill and we have got to only section 9 at this stage. I have tabled an amendment for Report Stage but it will not be taken because of the guillotine imposed by the Government. That is unsatisfactory to say the least.
This is by agreement.
Nevertheless it is unsatisfactory.
I accept that the Deputy is disappointed but the House has agreed that the question be put at 7 o'clock.
This morning the Minister indicated that 80 acres were to be developed in Cork in a designated area. I should like to remind him that allowance should be made for churches, schools, public buildings such as courthouses as well as offices for the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social Welfare, for the Southern Health Board, cinemas, hospitals, educational centres, roadways and waterways and places of entertainment. This morning the Minister was asked to consider an extension of the area in recognition of the fact that development is proceeding but he resisted. I shall quote my amendment which reads as follows:
"In addition to the areas specified in Part IV of the Fourth Schedule to the Finance Act, 1986, the Minister shall make, with consent of the Minister for Finance, an order under subsection (2) of this section, to include Watercourse Road, including the Watercourse Road Industrial Site, Gerald Griffin Street, the remainder of Shandon Street and the proposed commercial centre at Mahon in the designated areas for Cork City.".
I appeal to the Minister even at this late stage to agree to accept either amendment No. 5 or amendment No. 6. We are dealing with the development of an important site, whether we agree it is a jewel. It is an important site; it is a major portion of the city, and it needs development. We must ensure that the kind of development that takes place is suitable not only to the commercial developers who will hope to make money out of developing it but that it is also suitable to the people living and working in the area. That is why we have pressed the amendment.
The Minister said he has power to direct the Authority if they come forward with a plan he does not like. That is fine as far as it goes, but we do not know the mind of the Minister. We do not know what notion may take him in six months time when the proposal comes before him, or what pressures he will come under from any one of hundreds of different interest groups concerning development of the site. If we had inserted in the Bill the requirement that there be a balance, that there has to be industrial development and public housing included, we would be satisfied that the Minister would be obliged to comply with the legislation. As it stands, the Minister will decide, in discussion or consultation with the Authority, what will go on the site and I am not satisfied with that.
There is an amendment down in my name and in the name of Deputy Faulkner that Dundalk and Drogheda be included for designation purposes. This amendment was to be dealt with on Report Stage but unfortunately we will not be in a position to contribute on it.
It is now 7 p.m.
I would ask the Minister to have regard to this amendment.
I am putting the question: "That Committee Stage is hereby agreed to, that the Bill is reported to the House without amendment, that Report Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed".
Question put and agreed to.