Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 4 Nov 1986

Vol. 369 No. 5

Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission (No. 2) Bill, 1986 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. Tunney

Bhí mé ag éisteacht leis an Aire agus é á rá go mba mhaith leis cúnamh a fháil ón taobh seo den Teach. Níos luaithe rinne sé tagairt don ghá a bhí le hairgead a chaitheamh ar thithe a choimeád in ord seachas tithe nua a thógáil agus tagaim go hiomlán leis sa mhéid sin agus cuirim i gcuimhne dó, ag Bardas Átha Cliath le déanaí, gur ritheadh rún a mhol mé féin go gcuirfimis in iúl don Aire go mbeadh roinnt mhaith airgid ag teastáil uainn díreach chun an gnó sin a dhéanamh. Agus tá súil agam, nuair a thiocfaidh an t-eolas sin os comhair na Roinne go mbeidh an tAire in ann a rá leis na Státseirbhísigh ansin go dtagann sé go hiomlán agus go ndúirt sé sa Teach go raibh gá mór leis an bpolasaí seo a chur i ngníomh, an t-airgead atá de dhíth ar Bhardas Atha Cliath a chur chucu ionas gur féidir leo cabhrú leis san obair atá idir lámha aige.

Níos luaithe rinne sé tagairt don phointe atá sroichte againn sa chathair anois, go bhfuil tithe ann agus nach bhfuil daoine againn le cur iontu. Tarlaíonn sé sin, mar a tharla sé i 1957 cheana féin — na daoine a mba cheart dóibh a bheith ag dul isteach sna tithe sin tá siad imithe thar sáile, daoine óga go mba cheart dóibh a bheith ag dul ag pósadh, go mba cheart dóibh a bheith ag iarraidh tithe sa chathair, níl siad anseo. Agus mar a dúirt mé, mar a tharla i 1957 nuair a bhí Rialtas den chineál céanna is atá againn anois i gcumhacht, tá tithe sa chathair seo anois nach bhfuil daoine ann lena gcur iontu. Tuigim go raibh an tAire, agus é a rá go raibh cúrsaí tithíochta go maith, go raibh sé ag tabhairt moladh do Bhardas Átha Cliath. Dá bhrí sin, ní féidir liomsa a dhéanamh amach ó thalamh an domhain cén fáth gur chuir sé an Bille nua seo os ár gcomhair, is é sin an Bille go ndearna mé tagairt dó an lá faoi dheireadh — Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission. Tarlaíonn sé go raibh plean socraithe cheana féin ag an mbardas chun an obair seo a dhéanamh. Tharla sé go raibh tosnaithe againn féin ar an obair agus gur theastaigh uaínn bualadh ar aghaidh leis ach amháin nach raibh an t-airgead le fáil againn. Tuigfidh an tAire gur ghearr sé siar airgead na bliana seo orainn. Tarlaíonn sé anois go bhfuil an tAire ag caitheamh drochmheasa ar Bhardas Bhaile Átha Cliath mar nach bhfuil sé ag tabhairt cead dóibh na dualgais atá orthu a chomhlíonadh agus bualadh ar aghaidh leis an bplean a bhí socraithe acu chun feabhas a chur ar na sráideanna seo.

Ní féidir liom é a thuiscint — agus tuigim go raibh baint aige féin leis an gcomhairle áitiúil agus glacaim go ndearna sé obair mhaith agus é ina bhall den chomhairle chontae — cén fáth gur thug an tAire seo an masla atá tugtha aige do Chomhairleoirí Átha Cliath. Dúirt mé anseo agus dúirt mé i chuile aird na cathrach go bhfuil sé ag tabhairt mhasla freisin do mhuintir na cathrach mar is iad muintir na cathrach a thogh na daoine seo chun an obair seo a dhéanamh. Agus tá an tAire tar éis a shocrú go gcuirfear daoine isteach, daoine nach bhfuil ceapaithe ag muintir na cathrach agus, ní fheadair mé féin an bhfuil siad chomh cáilithe le comhairleoirí na cathrach chun an obair seo a dhéanamh. B'fhéidir go bhfuil sé dhéanamh sa lá anois chun iarraidh air, ach measaim féin tar éis dó machnamh a dhéanamh air seo go dtuigfidh sé féin nach raibh gá leis an mBille seo, go bhfuil sé ag cur am an Tí seo amú a bheith ag plé leis, mar thuigfinn, dá mba rud é go raibh comhairleoirí na cathrach ag déanamh faillí ina gcuid oibre, go mbeadh iachall ar Aire ar bith obair a cheap sé a bheith riachtanach a dhéanamh. Ach ní shin mar atá, mar a dúradh agus muid ar scoil agus buachaill amháin ag "cogáil" ó fhear eile. Is "cog" díreach é seo ón bplean a bhí socraithe cheana féin ag Bardas Átha Cliath.

That would force me to direct a question to the Minister in respect of this great plan he would have people accept at his presentation to the city of Dublin, arising from what, understandably, he would regard as the failure of the members of the corporation to do this work, which it would be incumbent on them to do. It appears that he is making available £10 million. Section 12 (1) states:

Subject to subsection (2) of this section, the Minister may, in each financial year, after consultation with the Commission in relation to its programme of expenditure for the year, make grants of such amounts as may be sanctioned by the Minister for Finance out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas towards the expenditure of the Commission.

Section 12 (2) states that the total amounts of grants paid to the commission under this section shall not exceed £10 million.

Subsection (3) states:

Dublin Corporation shall, in lieu of expenses that would otherwise have been incurred by them in the Metropolitan Central Area, contribute annually to the Commission such sums of money as shall be agreed with the Commission or, in the event of disagreement, as shall be determined by the Minister.

The Minister expects that he should get compliments and kudos from the people of Dublin for making £10 million available for improvements which were already regarded as necessary by Dublin Corporation. They sought the money from him but he did not make it available. Now he proposes to establish a commission which will carry out this work and he will then send the bill to Dublin Corporation. That is my interpretation and any person who has any facility for interpretating anything will have to agree.

I am obliged to ask again what it is all in aid of. What justification is there for the Minister for local government — I use that former title because of the affront that has been offered to local government by the Minister — to establish a commission to carry out a plan already prepared by the corporation and then to charge the corporation for doing it? We must visualise the disruption which will occur, even in respect of personnel. One of the backbenchers said last week that the personnel of Dublin Corporation would be on loan to this agency but would be paid by the corporation. The Minister has said in his not untypically dictatorial way that if there is disagreement between the commission and the corporation the matter will be determined by him. If Dublin Corporation do not pay up, he will insist on their doing so.

When I was endeavouring to teach students in school I told them all the time to feel free to ask in respect of any proposition I put to them, "what is it in aid of, Mr. Tunney?" I would put that same question to the Minister. We find ourselves in a new situation in Dublin Corporation since it can be regarded as a Fianna Fáil corporation. The plan was already there but the Minister in his inimitable style is making it appear that whatever fruits come to the city arising from the plan come through him or his Minister of State, rather than the people who through concern and interest had already prepared the plan. There would be some justification for it if he were to play Santa Claus and give a separate £10 million. He is not doing so. He is protecting himself in respect of every penny that will be spent by Dublin Corporation.

Dublin Corporation have limited resources at present, bearing in mind that the Minister last year made them endure a cutback of £6 million. How are we in Dublin Corporation to manage our estimates if we know that in respect of certain operations in the city the Minister of the day can demand a certain payment? This is the worst attempt I have encountered at putting another stratum of bureaucracy on top of the existing layers.

I turn now to the lack of faith as expressed by Professor John Kelly last week, followed and ably assisted by Professor Shatter, that other great exponent of local democracy. They castigated Dublin Corporation because of the sins of the corporation in respect of certain developments in the city. I should like to remind Deputy Kelly that during the period when he was Minister and Attorney General, Dublin Corporation resisted a proposition that led to the construction of the most ugly and inappropriate building in this city in the heart of Deputy Kelly's area in Donnybrook, close to where he lives. Dublin Corporation resisted it every inch of the way but the Minister of the day, James Tully overrode the corporation and gave his permission for the construction of that building. It has remained there ever since, a monster. The monument to Ozymandias is nothing compared with the monstrous building opposed and resisted by the elected members of Dublin Corporation and which was imposed on the city by the Government of which Deputy Professor John Kelly is a member — the man who, in the words of his own student, is "always good for a laugh".

Mr. Skelly

Will Ballymun rank as a monument to Deputy Leyden?

Mr. Tunney

The Deputy has his own plan and can later make the comment that he considers appropriate.

Mr. Skelly

Deputy Tully is no longer a Member of the House.

Mr. Tunney

Two wrongs will not make a right, if that is the case.

Mr. Skelly

He is no longer a Member of the Dáil and he cannot defend himself.

Mr. Tunney

I have not been aware of his offering any great defence to the Deputy and because of that, Deputy Skelly's magnanimity is a lesson to him.

Mr. Skelly

I agree with the Deputy there.

Mr. Tunney

As I say, the Deputy will have an opportunity to expand on that. That great upholder of everything that is professional and right, Deputy Shatter, castigated Dublin Corporation for the civic offices. I am not saying that those buildings satisfy what I regard as appropriate in the matter of architecture and of suitability for that site, but I would remind Deputy Shatter that if he wants to attack Dublin Corporation, the majority position in the corporation at the time of that approval was with the Coalition groups. If he is disposed to attack the building, he can direct his attention in the first place to them. He can also direct it against professional people who sat in judgment on the plans and decided that, in their opinion, these were the buildings that were most worthy of the prize which was offered at the time. A small point that I make is that if he is going to castigate Dublin Corporation he should bear in mind that he is castigating his own party and his colleagues in the Labour Party who controlled the corporation at that time.

Secondly, he is castigating not just the elected people but rather the professional people to whom we are inclined far too often to bow in the matter of legal and architectural matters. At any time, in respect of what is suitable, I would match the considered view of any layman and accept his opinion of what is suitable, what is in harmony, what helps and is easy on the eye. I would always be prepared to listen to him. However, people in professions, whether legal or architectural, seem to think that they have a monopoly and are not always anxious to listen to the person whom they would describe as the ordinary person or the layman.

I must not allow either of the two Deputies in question to divert me from the main thrust of what I would wish to say, which is the direct and indirect insult which is contained here in respect of elected representatives. Even if there were only one Fianna Fáil member on the corporation it would make no difference to me. They are the people elected by the citizens of Dublin in accordance with existing legislation which requires of those elected persons to carry out certain functions. It annoys me very much and it is an affront to that system that any Minister from whatever Government would come in here and endeavour to impose upon us this fraud. That is what it is. I must be careful about superlatives, but this is one of the greatest con jobs that I have seen coming before this House. I shall be listening carefully to the Minister's reply for one reason for his thinking it was necessary for him to establish this commission following the election of so many members of the Fianna Fáil Party to Dublin Corporation. If he was so conscious of the needs of our city in this regard, why did he not do that prior to the election of 1985?

In respect of the key section which refers to money which has not been made available to Dublin Corporation in the fashion which has prevailed for some years past, where the corporation are being cut back in practically everything for which they require money, I would ask the Minister to pay special attention to my question in respect of section 12 and to indicate whether I am astray in assuming that he will spend Dublin Corporation's money and expect credit for so doing. Otherwise, how can he justify the protection he is giving himself in that section? This is even to the extent where he is not prepared to have faith in his commission. They would get money to which they would feel they were entitled, but according to subsection (iii) "in the event of disagreement, as shall be determined by the Minister". That is the Government that promised us that they would be the Government of consultation and communication, that promised that when they took over they would be conscious all the time of vox populi, that they would keep close to the people and whatever the people wanted the people would have. Surely, in defence to that expression of concern for the community and local government, they must have respect for the elected representatives? Whether the people, in their wisdom or otherwise, have returned 25 or 24 Fianna Fáil members should not make any difference.

Dublin city is in urgent need of all the attention that we can give it. I do not want to repeat what I said on the last occasion, but we know its position in respect of the country, the position of the capital of any country. Springing from it is everything of importance. Those in rural areas, although they would have the same approach towards the metropolis as people in rural parts of every country — I know from speaking to them — realise that Dublin as the capital city is of great importance to them.

There is urgent need of expenditure of maximum amounts so that we can bring our pavements and streets up to standards which are in accordance with the wishes of the people, so that we can influence people who under the Planning Act as it operates have been guilty of great sins of omission and great sins of execution in respect of what they have provided for us in our main streets. When I was Lord Mayor, Dublin Corporation approached the good people of Henry Street and Mary Street and the traders there and with the help of professional people we encouraged and succeeded in getting them to change some of the appalling frontages on their premises, so that they would be more in character with this great city.

We had the capacity and had plans for doing the same with regard to O'Connell Street and every other street, because we must remember that it is not just the main streets that are important. The main sinews may have an importance which is superior to that of a lesser street but I am as much concerned about retaining the character of Foster Place or any of the other smaller streets. However, naturally we are concerned with the main streets. Elected members of Dublin Corporation, together with the manager, had the capacity and interest to do this and now we are being thwarted by the Minister who has introduced this Bill which almost guarantees a delay of three years. Moneys which normally should be available to the corporation will now be directed by this commission.

Tuigim go bhfuil mo chara An Teachta Liam Skelly ag iarraidh teacht isteach. Tuigim go bhfuil plean socraithe aige cheana féin. Ní bhaineann sé go díreach leis seo ach tá sé ag iarraidh feabhas a chur ar dheacrachtaí na cathrach seo. Agus é sin ráite agam tiocfaidh mé féin ar ais go dtí mo shuíochán agus tabharfaidh mé cead cainte don Teachta Skelly agus beidh mé ag cur suime i ngach rud a bheas le rá aige. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr. Skelly

When speaking in the House last week about another matter that was put forward by the same Minister in relation to the building societies I said that there are talkers and doers. This Minister seems to fall very definitely into the latter category. This is another small example of doing something in order to get things moving in the city, something simple and cheap. It is very easy to do nothing, which is mostly what is done. It is also safest to do nothing. If Ministers do nothing they are not likely to make a mistake and to be blamed. They are not likely to fulfil their mandate but are likely to last for the duration of their term in office and qualify for a pension. If a Minister adopts that attitude the people and everything around him will suffer depending on the portfolio held by the Minister.

This Bill has a very simple and desirable objective. Yet we found cause to complain about it and to deny it coming into the House before the summer recess. I do not know who can find fault with it. I do not think the objective of it is to hit anybody over the head with a stick, not even the members of Dublin Corporation who try to make improvements not always to the approval of everybody in the city and not always fast enough. They often do things against the wishes of the people and to the detriment of the city. PR men frequently try to paper over the cracks and the damages. It is without doubt and it is unquestionable that the city centre is in a dreadful state. I know that many people will say — and it is true — that there are many good things about the city. Generally speaking city centre streets are in a bad state. This Bill is a simple answer. It is a temporary one and it depends not on the goodwill of people but on nudging people into doing something that must be done. There is appalling taste and little care for the environment, the surroundings or even the pollution of the city or for the quality of life we expect to find around the centre of the city. O'Connell Street has been almost a no-go area for a number of years. This simple attempt is a step in the right direction.

There was an attempt made to set up designated areas in the city, to encourage investment and also to set up the Custom House Docks Development Authority, which was established on 17 November 1985, to develop that site along the north quays. There is no reason why this Bill should not go through the House with the approbation of everyone in it. It will certainly not do any damage. I would draw the attention of Members to the fact that we can pull £10 million out of the air when we want to do something like this. This money comes out of the kitty and no-one gives it a second thought. When we try to do something much more beneficial which would cost less money per annum there is a cry about it. What is more important in the city, and other cities throughout the country, than job creation? If we tried to do something in that area which would cost between £500,000 and £3 million, people would give all sorts of reasons why it could not be done. That money could be recouped by rates on new buildings.

It is becoming plain to me as a Member of this House that the object of many people much of the time is to do nothing and to get away with it. The reasons for that should be examined. We may find out something about ourselves, our psychic and why we are in the mess that we are in. I know that there are problems with some of the plans that are coming forward. I like to see them coming forward so that we can at least make progress. There is another simple matter relative to this on which the same Minister made a decision last week. He made the first special amenity area order that was ever made for the Liffey valley. There is not a great interest in the environment. The environmentalists and An Taisce were shouting about that piece of good work which will help protect the valley for future generations from Chapelizod to Lucan.

That order was brought in after the county council failed to act just as the corporation has failed to act in this case even though they were given the opportunity, studies were carried out and they were urged to do so. If the Minister in this case does not take his responsibility seriously and risk the criticism of the Opposition and the public in trying to do what everybody realises needs to be done then we will never get anywhere. We should not spend a lot of time on this but we should agree to it and take the benefits from it. The amount of money allocated to it would encourage me to ask if similar amounts of money cannot be found for job creation attached to the city centre project for the building of a transportation centre. It does not augur well for Dublin's future in the next ten to 15 years unless we tackle the transportation problem in the city. We can have walk-through streets from Grafton Street to Henry Street but if you have not the means of getting to the city easily and cheaply I am afraid they will not be used or be successful. Many cities on the Continent have already embarked on this sort of programme and you see very pleasant centres such as in Bonn in Germany and Basle in Switzerland where it is a pleasure to go into the centre and walk around the square to shop or even to sit there. This Bill was brought in with that intention, and it was sour grapes on the part of the Opposition.

Debate abjourned.