Vol. 369 No. 7
asked the Minister for Communications if assurances have been given to Caneire that a decision will be made on their set of proposals for a major development in the centre of Dublin by any specific date; if he will arrange to have the proposals published so that they can be subjected to public scrutiny; if, in view of the public transport dimension of the proposals he has discussed them with CIE; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
20.
asked the Minister for Communications the terms of the proposals from Caneire for the new complex to be built in Dublin city; and the reply sent by him, as Minister, to the proposals.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 13 and 20 together.
The proposals from Caneire Developments Ltd. are just one option for the development of a transportation centre orginally proposed in a report submitted to CIE in 1975 by Skidmore, Owings and Merrill. Two other options — both from Irish interests — have also been tabled with CIE.
In the case of the Canadian interests, they want an exclusive option, that is to say that the Government would be irrevocably committed now but the promoters would have six months to decide whether or not to commit themselves. During that six months, they would then see if financial backing could be arranged for the project and check in detail to see if their proposals are viable and feasible. Discussions have been held with CIE and their views will be taken into account. The House can be assured that the only basis for decisions will be the merits of the proposals. In the case of the Canadian interests, the Government have indicated that, within the next few weeks, they will decide whether or not to pursue that particular option at this stage.
It is not normal to publish proposals which are under consideration at Government level but, in any event, as the House will know, this matter has been the subject of extensive media attention and controversy.
Do I take it from the Minister's reply that Caneire Developments Limited have been advised that a decision will be made on whether they will get an exclusive option by 20 November? Have the Caneire company been advised that a decision will be made by that date?
That date has been suggested not by Caneire but by a Member of the House but, yes, a decision will be made by that date.
Who put forward those proposals? I understand that Caneire has been in existence for one year but the proposals were put forward about 12 months before that company were established. Who put forward the proposals first and what other Ministers, or Departments of State, were involved other than the Department of Transport?
I cannot remember any issue that has been so confused with statements that are erroneous and claims that make the mind boggle. A few weeks ago we were given the impression that the Government were getting a gift of a tunnel under the Liffey and a transportation centre that would create thousands of jobs. We were told that somehow or other we were looking a gift horse in the mouth, but everybody understands that it was not a gift horse. These proposals have been in existence since 1975 and the Canadian interests first got involved — from memory — in October 1984. What is called a letter of intent was lodged in July of last year. The person or persons involved subsequently constituted themselves as Caneire Developments Limited sometime earlier this year. That is when that company came on the scene. An impression has been given that I have had these proposals before me for years but a letter of intent was only submitted to CIE in July of last year. I should like to add that in November of last year CIE indicated that they were not happy with the proposals but, nonetheless, I felt that they needed deep consideration. I appointed consultants to look at the overall plan because of my concern to rejuvenate Dublin, something everybody is concerned about. The consultants reported to me on 29 August last.
After what period?
They started their work on 1 May. In late March the Government decided to hire consultants and they were engaged during April. The consultants started work on 1 May and reported on 29 August. A memorandum dealing with their report was submitted to Government in September last. It was agreed then to ask for the comments of the Canadian proposers on that consultants report. We got them three weeks later, about 14 October. We have now said that in the light of all the information available and the discussions which took place in recent weeks which included representatives of my Department, the Departments of Finance and the Environment, and the Office of the Attorney General, a decision on this option will be taken in the next few weeks.
The Minister has not replied to the question I asked. Where did the proposals come from originally? It is unfortunate that the proposals cannot be published. We are all in the dark. We do not know if it is a gift horse or not. Deputy Skelly says it is and the Minister says it is not. Who made the proposals in 1984?
The first expression of interest was in 1984. A letter of intent was submitted to CIE in July 1985 on behalf of the principal, Mr. Halman, and one other associate. They subsequently became known as Caneire Developments Limited earlier this year. Mr. Gibson was the other person.
If we were to discuss this matter in depth we would be here for hours.
This is one of my priority questions so there is an anomaly. The Minister said that Caneire Developments Limited are of recent birth. Are they a properly incorporated company in Canada or in Ireland?
I would need notice of that question.
The Minister said that somebody and somebody and two Irish groups and then Caneire made proposals to his Department. I agree with Deputy De Rossa that it is difficult when we do not know what the exact proposals are, but can the Minister say whether they were substantially the same?
I accept that there is a difficulty since the report has not been published. Quite frankly I should like to publish the report, given the media speculation and all the comments that have been made. I have remained very quiet on this. It is normal for a Government to get proposals and to treat them confidentially. They are given calm, quiet consideration before public announcements are made on them. I was asked to do that by the Canadians many months ago. I have remained quiet despite the fact that they and many others have not remained silent. When the Government make a decision on it it is my wish that the proposals will be made available. I hope we can bring that about.
Does the Minister agree that the time allocated to his consultants to study this major proposal was exceptionally short? Did they have time to travel and examine any similar developments in any other city or country?
I accept that the time was short. My problem is that I have been accused of simultaneously dragging this out and rushing it. That is one of the dilemmas when dealing with this distasteful controversy. It has been distasteful in the way it has been conducted.
Not guilty, m'lud.
I accept that the Deputy is not guilty and has played a very responsible part. I will not be drawn into a public controversy on the way this has been conducted. However, our silence should not be taken as agreeing with many statements and claims which have been made which are totally erroneous.
Will the Minister state if the fact that CIE had been acquiring properties on the quays prompted the proposal from any of the three groups he mentioned who made proposals, or whether to his knowledge CIE encouraged any of the three groupings to put such a proposal to his Department?
Deputy Wilson's question gives me an opportunity to state the facts. This plan was a CIE one based on the 1975 report by the consultants Skidmore, Owings and Merrill. Since then CIE have been acquiring property as the opportunity arose in that location. One would be forgiven for forming the impression that what was an overall objective of CIE has been hijacked. One of the Irish proposals was discussed at length by CIE and they decided some time ago it was not propitious to proceed at that stage with the proposal. In view of the controversy that Irish group came back and asked if it was propitious now because they were anxious to discuss their proposal. The controversy has also prompted a second Irish group to come forward with an interest in the project based on the original Skidmore, Owings and Merrill proposal.
Will the Minister honour the deal made with Deputy Skelly to ensure the survival of the Government? A deal was hatched out.
That question was asked and answered.
I assure the House that there was no deal with anyone. The only commitment given was that a decision would be made by 20 November. That commitment was given many weeks ago.
This is a major question and it is very important. Will I be able to take the question up again at priority time?
I know the Deputy will understand that this is far too big an issue, as far as I can gather from reading the newspapers and looking at television, to deal with at Question Time. It is a major question that would take hours to deal with.
I understand the dilemma. It is unfortunate that both Deputy Mac Giolla and I crossed on it. It would have been better if we had put down a joint question. I have a difficulty in that we are now moving into priority time which would normally be used for answering this question. When will a decision be made? Do I understand it is with the Government in a formal document at present?
No, it is not. A decision will be made by 20 November on whether to proceed with this option at this stage. That is what we are committed to.
Is that the Government or the Minister's Department?
That is the Government. There are four Departments involved — my Department, the Departments of the Environment and Finance and the Office of the Attorney General. There is a group looking at this whole project to see if this option should be proceeded with at this stage or whether more information is needed or whatever. We are dealing with the Canadians at present.
Is 20 November just a date Deputy Skelly was given?
Deputy Skelly was told many weeks ago that, within weeks of the receipt of the response by the Canadians to the consultant's report, a decision would be made. He did not accept that at the time but subsequently he did accept it.
The Minister conned him into accepting it and now he does not need his vote any more.
The Minister said he had discussions with CIE regarding the matter. What was the attitude of CIE? Were they happy or displeased?
Let me try to explain.
The Minister had better do it in one minute as I am moving from this question.
CIE had been looking at options and possibilities. This is one that has come up. In November last year CIE told me that, as proposed, it did not have much interest for CIE. From an overall transportation point of view and also because of the Government interest in urban renewal, which would not be a responsibility of CIE, I felt we should look at it in greater detail and that is what we did.
I am moving now to the Priority Questions.
I have just one question which is not about that matter, but simply about the status of the remaining questions here, the lottery questions.
They will go for written reply, unless you request otherwise.
I do not want my questions to go for written reply.
The same applies to mine.
I am taking a note that lottery questions in Deputy Wilson's name are to be included in the next lottery.
