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

Debate resumed on amendment No. 5:

In page 5, subsection (2), to delete lines 4 and 5 and substitute the following:

"(a) the transfer of the property and the rights of the Commission to Dublin Corporation,".

—(Deputy R. Burke.)

Mr. R. Burke

Prior to the Adjournment, I had been making the point in relation to amendment No. 5 in my name that the words, "the transfer of the property and rights of the Commission to Dublin Corporation" should be put in place of the words, "the transfer of the property, rights and liabilities of the Commission to Dublin Corporation." This amendment would have gone with amendment 7 which has been ruled out of order by you, a Cheann Comhairle, on the basis of involving finance. That amendment was proposing that all the outstanding financial liabilities of the commission should, on the dissolution of the commission, be assumed by the commission. Here you have a commission taking over the powers of the democratically elected Dublin Corporation and the corporation are going to be handed back this package in three years' time, with any liabilities that have been run up by the commission, without yea or nay.

I made the point that I am particularly concerned about possible compensation claims arising from planning. Dublin Corporation have their own development plan for the area. It is operative at the moment. Property holders within that area know their position with regard to the particular zoning or classification for their property. This commission will set up a planning scheme for the area and if there is conflict between the scheme as set up by the commission and the development plan of the corporation there is, at least, the possibility of a constitutional case in regard to property rights of the individuals concerned. The Minister made the point earlier that he did not see a situation arising, and if he did that it would be in the last month or two of the operation of this commission, of passing on liabilities to the corporation. I suggest that if at an early stage in its operation it interferes with particular development proposals of individuals in the area and that if the development plan is in contradiction with that of the corporation, there is the possibility of compensation claims. As the Minister will well know, compensation claims of that order would stretch for two to five years through the courts. Would the Minister clarify the position as to whether the proposition I have just put forward is factual?

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Boland)

The best way I can answer the Deputy is to say that the very same situation will obtain at the end of the lifetime of this commission as would have obtained at the end of the lifetime of the development authority which would have been established under his Bill and which would have had section 19 (2) (a) of the Urban Development Areas Bill, 1982, applied to it. Could the Deputy explain why he did not have fears in relation to outstanding liabilities with those authorities? Then I could perhaps better understand the case he is making.

Mr. R. Burke

That is no answer to the point. That legislation died with the Government of 1982 and was not brought forward again, except in amended form by the Minister. I am asking him in a noncontroversial way if he will clarify the position with regard to the possibility of conflicts between the development plan and a planning scheme laid down by the commission and the possibility of liabilities resulting from claims to the courts on constitutional property rights. The real problem is not small liabilities such as postage and telephone bills. Will the corporation have to take on the burden of property claims that might arise?

Mr. Boland

One of the first and most basic tasks of the commission will be to prepare an improvement scheme for the area. Deputy Burke's point seems to be that the improvement scheme might envisage a different type of usage for a particular section than is already provided for or allowed in the development plan for the same area. The best way to deal with that point is to say that the improvement scheme will be made at the outset of the three years of the commission's existence. Compensation claims could not arise from it alone but only from the commission looking for a discontinuance of use in compliance with their improvement scheme. The Deputy will recall that the improvement scheme will not be ratified until the views of Dublin Corporation have been sought and until the Minister confirms the improvement scheme. If there were material differences from the point of view of general usage of a section of the commission area from that provided for in the development plan which might give rise to compensatable claims, that would have to weigh very heavily in the mind of any Minister before approving the improvement scheme.

The position regarding the closing period of the lifetime of the commission is well safeguarded in section 10 (8). If necessary, the Minister could use the provisions of that section to ensure that there would not be a large amount of outstanding and perhaps unestablished liabilities at the end of the commission's lifetime. If, for some reason which I find impossible to comprehend, there were liabilities outstanding of an unusual nature, greater than if the corporation had been operating within the area themselves, any reasonable Government of the day would have to consider that matter at the time. We are talking about a hypothetical situation and this is not a problem which would have to be faced at the end of the three-year period.

Mr. R. Burke

I accept that any reasonable Government at the time would take on the burden passed by this commission. That reasonable Government will probably be our administration. The difficulty is that the debate which takes place in this House is not part of the legislation itself and any justice or future Government who are not of such a generous disposition as ourselves would be able to claim the law states that the liabilities belong to the corporation. I do not think the case is as hypothetical as the Minister suggests. He says the planning scheme will be the first task undertaken by the commission and that the commission will then submit the scheme to him. It will be examined by the corporation and they can make observations on it, but the Minister does not have to take heed of any of these observations. The corporation can go through the ritual of making their comments but legally the Minister can ignore them and sign the scheme whatever way he likes.

The commission will be dealing with a valuable section of property in the city. To change even one or two properties could cost millions of pounds in the area between O'Connell Street and Grafton Street. Premises have changed hands in this area for enormous sums. Even one minor change between the development plan and the planning scheme could result in huge compensation claims. I ask the Minister to agree with the principle I am putting forward, that is, that the liabilities in those circumstances should not be handed on to Dublin Corporation.

Mr. Boland

It is difficult to respond because we are talking about such a hypothetical circumstance. I said on Second Stage I envisaged that the vast bulk of the funds allocated to the commission would be used by them in the improvement of facilities on the streets — street furniture, paving, lighting, the provision of sculptures and management of the streets. The clauses relating to compensation and changes of usage ought to be minimal, both because of the cost implications and because any suggestion of trying to persuade people to change from a permitted usage should be based on fairness and equity. Property owners will themselves carry out improvements to their properties as a response to what is being done in the street and this will create peer pressure on operators of properties that are not compatible with the thrust of development of the street and its overall appearance. On the other hand it was felt correct that these powers should be built into the provisions of the Bill. They are not radically different from those already vested in the relevant local authority, indeed in local authorities generally, under the Planning Acts. However, my difficulty there is that I am really inviting discussion on a subsequent section.

Mr. R. Burke

Very much so. For example, in section 6 (5) we are into the whole question of exempted development, what will and will not be exempted development. The Minister must relate this liability question to that. It is fundamental to the provisions of the Bill that liabilities can be taken on by this commission on the basis of their undertaking the work set out by the Minister. For example, the Minister instructs this commission, as a general duty, to prepare a scheme. In so doing, then a list of things will be designated to be exempted development if they fit into the scheme — the carrying out of any development within the metropolitan area, all of these things. For example, section 6 (6) (a) says:

In the determination of an application for permission under Part IV of the Act of 1963 relating to development in the Metropolitan Central Area, regard shall be had to the provisions of an improvement scheme approved under this section, and a decision to grant such a permission shall not be made, except with the consent of the Commission, if the proposed development would materially contravene the provisions of such a scheme.

If planning permission for the same project had been applied for under a development plan and planning permission was received, then my view is that the property owner is entitled at least to submit a constitutional claim for loss of property rights, contending that he has been injured resulting from the provisions of this Bill and will have an eligible compensation claim. I am sure that is something on which the High Court would divide. It is not in the realms of fairyland; it is feasible that this can happen. It is unreasonable to hand over such a liability, if it runs into millions, half millions or figures of that order, which it can because of the property values in that area we are at present debating, the very spine of our capital city. It is unreasonable to pass on to Dublin Corporation such liabilities that may arise from such court cases at the expiry of the lifetime of this commission. It should be remembered that Dublin Corporation will not in any way have been responsible for those liabilities.

Mr. Boland

The situation outlined by the Deputy would not arise. However, I suspect that a difficulty might emerge were we to continue to pursue this line of thought or discussion in the House in that we might be influencing a future, unsuccessful applicant for permission for development within the commission area to entertain the idea of pursuing a case within the courts. I would not have thought that the case made by the Deputy would be a compensatable one. As he said, in the example he gave, it is one on which the High Court might divide. Therefore we are talking about an area — as applies to all of our legislation based on a written Constitution — in which ultimately any part of legislation may end up being tested in one form or another in the courts. In that regard the decision of the Judiciary can be clearly established only when it is arrived at. We are talking about something we can never establish with the utmost of certainty, until a case is actually taken and a decision handed down.

The Deputy and I will just have to disagree on our interpretations of the sections and on the likelihood of the outcome of any case being taken in that regard. In my view there would not be a compensatable case in the example cited by the Deputy.

Mr. R. Burke

I am not a lawyer. However, individuals whose opinions I would greatly respect make the point I have just made in regard to the difference that can arise between the development plan and the planning or improvement scheme as set out by the Minister.

Leaving aside the Minister's desire to engage in a cosmetic political exercise, I accept his intentions, that his heart is in the right place, that he wants to see the centre of our city improved. We all want to do so but in different ways. We feel the Minister is going the wrong way about it under the provisions of this Bill. However, I accept the Minister's bona fides as far as that is concerned; any Irishman wants to see the centre of our capital improved. But it is incumbent on us, when discussing legislation in this House, to ensure that we do not pass bad legislation. It is important that we ensure we do not pass legislation which will unwittingly involve taxpayers in millions of pounds by way of compensatory claims. My proposition is that if there is a difference between the development plan of Dublin Corporation and the improvement scheme, as laid down by the commission, and if that improvement scheme alters the property values set out in the development plan of Dublin Corporation, there is then at least a case to be answered in regard to compensation claims. As the provisions of this Bill are drafted Dublin Corporation will have to take over those liabilities at the end of three years. I do not believe they should be left to take over liabilities in respect of which they have had no responsibility. Rather that is something the Minister should take on.

The Minister earlier in discussion on this amendment made the point that any reasonable Government would take on that responsibility if the sums involved were seen to be excessive. All I am asking is that the Minister write his good intentions into the provisions. I fully accept that it would be his intention to pick up the tab in the likelihood of such an event occurring. I confirm that that would be our intention. However, personalities change; it may not be the Minister or myself who would be dealing with the matter. An occasion may arise when other Ministers will be here dealing with this who would not hold the same view. For example it could happen that the Minister for Finance of the day would not hold the same view, that even if the Minister for the Environment did, he would be unable to persuade the Minister for Finance or his Department. Therefore, I recommend that the Minister achieves what he wants. I contend that the best way to do so is to write it into the provisions of the Bill.

I am quite prepared to drop my amendment at this stage if the Minister will assure me that he will at least think about it between now and Report Stage, when we can re-examine it.

Mr. Boland

I have to disabuse the Deputy of a few things. I have every intention of being Minister for the Environment at the end of the three year lifetime of this commission, so that the Deputy's other remarks in that regard do not apply. I presume the Deputy can speak only from personal experience when he refers to personalities changing and the difficulties posed for Ministers for the Environment having to persuade Ministers for Finance of the day. That is up to the Minister for the Environment of the day. So far I have never encountered any problem in that regard and I would not envisage encountering any problem in the future if the need arose. It would help the debate if we stopped having these continual references to future Ministers and future administrations. If any reasonable administration saw that for some extraordinary reason the commission was going out of existence with excessive and unusual liabilities that would mean that an unfair burden of liability would be transferred back to Dublin Corporation, they should recognise it in the allocation of the rate support grant or whatever was the most appropriate vehicle available to the corporation at the time.

This section which the Deputy seeks to amend is an absolutely standard provision provided for in countless pieces of legislation. It was provided for recently in the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983, when all the rights and liabilities of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs at the time and of the Office of Public Works were transferred to An Bord Telecom and to An Post. What this provision seeks to do is nothing different from that. Without wanting to be contentious it is exactly the same provision as the Deputy, when he was Minister, sought to have included in relation to development authorities which might have been set up under his 1982 Bill and the transfer of their rights and liabilities to the relevant local authorities and the expiration of their lifetime. Apparently, there was no problem envisaged in the Deputy's mind in relation to that much wider ranging proposed legislation which would have allowed for a series of development authorities to be created at different times and in different places across the country. If we are to take the examples given by the Deputy the liabilities would be multiplied by X, X being the number of authorities that might have been set up under that legislation. The liabilities they might have incurred would have been passed on to the respective local authorities. Apparently at that time that was quite acceptable so far as the then Government were concerned. The standard way in which legislation seeks to provide for the orderly winding up of any body such as this is that all the assets, rights and liabilities would be transferred at the cessation of its business to the relevant authority who were assuming responsibility for what that body had previously administered.

Mr. R. Burke

I accept that in normal legislation such as that for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs being broken up into An Post and An Bord Telecom it would be standard practice to transfer the liabilities and assets from one to the other but what we are dealing with is not standard legislation. It is extraordinary legislation to the extent that in Government I was involved in the preparation of legislation in 1982 that was similar to what we are dealing with today. Personalities and Governments have changed but, with no disrespect to the Minister, it is the same officials basically who are drafting the legislation for him.

I suggest that he look again at this section dealing with liabilities in view of the very extraordinary powers that this commission will have in the preparation of a development plan, to be called an improvement scheme, which will and can run contrary to the development plan of Dublin Corporation. The Minister stated that the basis for this legislation is that Dublin Corporation have not been doing their duty with regard to the centre of our city, that they have been giving permission for the honky tonk establishment and that the character of the city has deteriorated. The Minister wants to see an improvement in that respect. He wants to see an improvement scheme which will tidy up the city, not just so far as trees, pavements or lights are concerned but in order that there will be exempted permissions and so on. As I have said a number of times, the Minister has produced legislation, the extent and the effect of which will be to leave the commission open to compensation claims. At the end of the life of the commission these compensation claims can be passed on to Dublin Corporation who will have had no hand, act or part in causing the liability in the first place. It would be unfair to pass on to the corporation a liability over which they had no control.

Mr. Boland

I will cite an example of an analogy. Deputy Burke expressed apprehension on the grounds that compensation claims might arise. At present a local authority may refuse permission for an application for development where the type of use applied for is in conformity with the general thrust of the development plans for the area but where, for other reasons, the application is refused. Similarly if that refusal is appealed or if a permission is granted and appealed to An Bord Pleanála, they may decide to make a decision in relation to an individual appeal although that decision is not in conformity with the general thrust of the local authority's development plans for the area. The example the Deputy cites and which he fears is a compensatable one already obtains in relation to the existing planning code and is not compensatable for that reason, though there may be other reasons. If the Deputy has this fear of contingent liabilities falling on a local authority, he will probably recall that under a section of the Planning Act, 1963 — from recollection it may be section 57 or 58 — in certain cases depending on the reasons for refusal given by An Bord Pleanála for particular applications a claim for compensation may fall upon the local authority although the decision is not one in which the local authority will have had any part. There already exists in law a position where a local authority may be liable for compensation through decisions taken by another body. What is being provided for in this legislation creates a lesser likelihood of that type of compensatable claim than does the example under the existing code I have outlined. The Deputy seems to have a different view on that — but as I said, that is something on which many Members of this House, whether lawyers or not, could have a view. It could only be tested to its exhaustive conclusion if a case were to be taken and a decision of the courts arrived at. As the Deputy suggested, it is a decision on which the High Court might divide.

Mr. R. Burke

We have aired fairly well this amendment on the question of compensation. On the question of the ordinary standard liabilities, can the Minister outline the whole question of——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Are you withdrawing the amendment?

Mr. R. Burke

No, I just want to speak about it on the general question of liability as distinct from court liability, standard liability such as office accommodation which might be surplus to the needs of the corporation. The corporation would then have to take over any liabilities other than the compensation type liabilities I have mentioned.

The Minister says that in standard legislation transferring powers from a Department to a semi-State body liabilities are passed over. That is understandable because the operation continues. In this case the operation will cease at the end of three years and it will be all in the hands of the corporation again. What happens? Will the Minister not pick up the tab for any other liabilities or responsibilities that are there? Why pass them on to the corporation who would have no say in being forced into this liability in the first place?

Mr. Boland

The ordinary liabilities will transfer to the corporation but really I do not see that these would be of any substantial nature. For instance, take the example the Deputy has given of office property which might be occupied by the commission. It would be a pretty extraordinary decision of the administrative staff of the commission were they to lease property for, say, a 21-year period on behalf of a commission with a three year lifetime. My intention is that this commission will have a very small staff who would be appointed for the lifetime of the commission and they would arrange their facilities such as office accommodation, equipment and so on on the basis that they were needed for the lifetime of the commission. Therefore, any fears that there would be an extraordinary bureaucratic apparatus in situ at the time of cessation of the activities of the commission are not grounded in fact.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy, are you withdrawing amendment No. 5?

Mr. R. Burke

No, I am not withdrawing it.

Question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 6 and amendment No. 7 have been ruled out of order. Both are in the name of Deputy R. Burke.

Mr. R. Burke

It is a pity that amendments Nos. 6 and 7 have been ruled out because their effect would have been to pass the financial liability of the commission straight on to the Minister rather than on to the corporation. I move amendment No. 8:

In page 5, subsection 3 (a), lines 16 and 17, to delete:

"subject to such modifications as the Minister shall specify in the dissolution order".

The subsection would read: "The functions vested in the Commission (other than those specified in paragraph (b) of this subsection) shall, on the dissolution of the Commission, become and be exercisable by Dublin Corporation. Why does the Minister want to make modifications? What had he in mind? Will he clarify that?

Mr. Boland

This is an example of what might be described as virtually a saver clause. It is merely providing for a possibility that at the end of the three year operation of the commission it might be recognised there was a case to be made for a change in the implementation of particular functions. If that was the case it would allow the Minister of the day to modify the transfer of the particular functions which are now being transferred to the corporation and to say that in relation to some aspect of them they might better be done by some other authority. I find it difficult to cite an example because there is nothing in mind.

Mr. R. Burke

That is what I was afraid of.

Mr. Boland

Another authority involved are the DTA. If it were felt in the light of experience of operation of the commission after three years that something in the area administered by the commission might better be done by the transport authority then that function might be transferred to the authority rather than back to the corporation. I cannot cite an example but the provision is there to allow for a modification should it be felt and recognised that such a need arose at the end of the lifetime of the commission. There is no specific intention relating to it as it stands at present.

Mr. R. Burke

The Minister has sold this legislation on the basis of one part of his argument which has been that this is only for three years, that we are taking the powers away from the local authority but only for three years, that we are setting up a commission to do their work which they had not been doing and we are going to do it more efficiently, but after the three years it is going back to the democratically elected council, the Dublin Corporation. The Minister says that the functions vested in the commission "shall, on the dissolution of the commission, become and be exercisable by Dublin Corporation". Then he put in this little sting in the tail and said that it shall be the function of the corporation but that perhaps between now and the end of the three years when he is dissolving the commission he may think up something else and put it in and not really leave these as functions of the corporation but give them to the DTA or some other body we do not even know of or does not exist at this stage.

The Minister had drafted this Bill and he is attempting to sell it to the public on the basis of a three-year limited lifespan which is going to conclude and then all of the functions will go back to the corporation other than those that are specifically for the DTA as already passed. He has in this Bill what he describes as a saver but I would describe it as a sting in the tail, giving himself the power to give the functions to some body about which we know nothing and which probably he has not even in his mind at this stage, rather than transferring them back to the corporation.

Mr. Boland

Sometimes I think that that much maligned fellow, the parliamentary draftsman, would welcome an opportunity to come in here and speak in the House on his own behalf. This wording is the wording arrived at by the parliamentary draftsman to provide, as I suggested, a saver. It is absolutely wrong for the Deputy to suspect that this is a sting in the tail inserted by a Machiavellian Minister to achieve some other purpose at the end of the period of the operation of the commission. It is merely to allow the transfer of a function of the commission to a body other than the corporation if it is felt that would be a more appropriate way to have that function handled when the commission come to the end of their period of operation.

Mr. R. Burke

On the basis of this legislation which is taking away the powers of this democratically elected council, Dublin City Council, the Minister has made his argument that all he is doing is taking these powers away for three years and at the end of the three years he is going to hand them back lock, stock and barrel to the corporation. We are not only handing back the powers but the property, the rights and the liabilities. We are now saying we will hand the powers back to the corporation but if we think up another way of doing this rather than have the corporation do it we are putting in this saver, that is, subject to such modifications as the Minister shall specify in the dissolution order. So that the Minister's bona fides can be absolutely transparent he should just transfer the functions back to the corporation and he should not allow himself to be tied by this saver of the parliamentary draftsman. It is important for the corporation and the people of Dublin to see that this commission will have a limited life and that it will not be a backdoor method of giving some of the functions to some other authority. I do not believe the Minister had that in mind when the Bill was drafted but he should look at it in the context of the overall legislation and accept the amendment put forward, even if it is proposed from this side of the House.

Mr. Boland

I hesitate to return to the 1982 Bill because it is not my intention to embarrass the Deputy.

Mr. R. Burke

It was the same draftsman. He made a mistake then and he has made it again.

Mr. Boland

I suspect the Deputy would have gone on to say it was the draftsman who expressed this intention in legislative form. This Bill provides a specific function for a specific authority for a set time. The 1982 Bill made provision to allow a Minister to set up an authority at any time. Section 19 provided that the Minister could by order provide for the dissolution of an urban development commission when it appeared to him there was no longer a need for the existence of the commission. As opposed to having a commission with a finite lifetime, that was allowing the Minister of the day to decide on any bad Friday that there was no longer a need for the commission. Subsection (2) provided that a dissolution order should contain such provision as the Minister thought necessary or expedient consequent on the dissolution effected by the order and in particular made provision for the transfer or dissolution of the property rights and liabilities of the urban development commission being thereby dissolved to one or more than one statutory body. Had that legislation been enacted the Minister could have set up a number of development authorities and after six months the Minister could have dissolved the powers of a commission, say, in Tipperary North Riding and transfer them instead to Tipperary South Riding Council. The Minister would have had virtually dictatorial powers conferred on him by that Bill. On the other hand, the Bill I have introduced provides for a commission to be set up for a set period to do a specific job and the powers are to transfer back afterwards. The words which have attracted the attention of the Deputy merely provide that if at the time of dissolution the Minister of the day thinks that another statutory body is a more appropriate one to handle an aspect of the function carried out by the commission he would have the discretion on the matter. That discretion being given to the Minister is a far lesser power than what would have been given to the Minister for the Environment under the 1982 Bill which is becoming more and more relevant to this discussion.

Mr. R. Burke

I know the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is absolutely amazed that Tipperary North Riding and Tipperary South Riding got into this discussion on the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission Bill. The 1982 legislation fell when that Government fell. However, when the Minister finds himself unable to answer a point he refers back to the 1982 legislation. I take it as a compliment that he has shown such interest in that forward-looking legislation. No doubt when we got to Committee Stage much of that Bill would have been improved considerably. There is always room for improvement, even here, much as that might surprise the Minister.

The Minister has stated publicly, whether in the newspapers or here, that it is his intention that this commission will have a lifetime of three years and that the functions of the commission will then transfer back to Dublin Corporation, other than those functions that relate to the Dublin Transport Authority. In section 4 (3) (a) the Minister has given himself powers to transfer the functions of the commission, not to the corporation but at the whim of the Minister of the day, to any other authority set up by the Minister in the meantime. For the Minister's bona fides to be transparent he must limit himself to the transfer of the functions to the corporation or to the Dublin Transport Authority. Otherwise the Minister is leaving himself open to the charge that, while he says the commission's lifetime is only three years he might set up another authority to continue its work.

Mr. Boland

Can the House understand that the Minister has not got the power to set up another commission because this legislation provides for the establishment of the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission? It is not as if the 1982 Bill had been passed and the Minister would have been able to set up a series of commissions. I invite the House to seriously consider section 4 (3) (a) and consider the following examples. If the commission had been operating litter control in their area on a 24-hour basis and not as street cleaning is being carried out at present in that area, it might well be thought at the end of three years that a 24-hour basis was the appropriate way to keep these streets clean. I give that as an example. I do not know if that will be the case but it might well be that in transferring the responsibility for refuse collection and street cleaning back to the local authority, the Minister of the day might wish to modify the transfer of those functions back to the corporation and to put a stipulation on the corporation that they should continue with a 24-hour refuse collection and street cleansing service.

If it was considered that the commission had been operating a system whereby commercial deliveries were allowed during certain periods only in the early morning or evening and that that had led to a greater usage and enjoyment of the areas in O'Connell Street and Grafton Street by pedestrians, the Minister might well decide to impose a modification to keep the streets to that standard. This wording would allow the Minister, while transferring the statutory functions back, to put a requirement on the corporation that in carrying out those statutory functions, they would have to do so in a certain way, to ensure that the work the commission had done in bringing the Dublin central area up to a certain standard would be continued in perpetuity. The special status provided for in the Bill in relation to the area will be recognised through the modification of the way in which the powers will be assigned back to the corporation. That is another example of how the subsection could be used.

Mr. R. Burke

Greater enlightenment comes as the debate proceeds. That brings me back to the question of liabilities of the commission. If the Minister intends to modify the functions by ordering the corporation to perform them in the manner just outlined by him and specifying the level of services which the corporation will provide, can he say what section gives him the power to do this? According to this section, he can modify and give the powers to another body. It does not specify the level of service which the corporation must provide, which is a matter for them within their financial constraints.

Mr. Boland

If you read the words we are discussing in conjunction with section 2 (3) which we discussed this morning and which requires Dublin Corporation, in the discharge of their functions, to have regard to the special importance in the national interest of the metropolitan central area, it may appear that the corporation may have difficulty in defining the special importance in the national interest of the metropolitan area. In reassigning the functions to the corporation, the Minister, by these modifications, could well set out to establish the way in which the special status provision should be enacted in practice.

Mr. R. Burke

That is a fairly elastic interpretation.

Mr. Boland

Section 4 (3) (a) should be read in the context of the discussion we had on section 3 (3).

Mr. R. Burke

Section 2 (3) states:

Dublin Corporation shall in the discharge of its functions have regard to the special importance in the national interest of the Metropolitan Central Area and to the need in that interest to ensure therein in a high environmental standard and a high standard of civic amenity and civic design.

The Minister suggested that the function vested in the commission shall, on dissolution of the commission, be exercisable by Dublin Corporation. He wanted to include the words "subject to such modifications as the Minister shall specify in the dissolution order". The only interpretation that can be put on such modifications is not related to the functions of the corporation but to the fact that some of their functions will not be returned to them. The original interpretation is that it is not necessary for the Minister of the day to transfer all the functions outlined to the corporation. He can transfer some to other bodies apart from the Dublin Transport Authority. The Minister has promised the corporation and the people of Dublin that the life of this Bill is only three years but it would be better for all concerned if the Minister accepted the amendment. However, I will not push it any further.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. R. Burke

Section 4 (3) (b) states:

The functions vested in the Commission ... shall, on the dissolution of the Commission, be transferred to the Dublin Transport Authority.

The Bill is taking over the functions of the Dublin Transport Authority which are having their first meeting at the beginning of next week. The chairman and board members were appointed recently and, interestingly, three of the members were nominated by Dublin County Council and Dublin Corporation. This Bill will take over the functions of the DTA before they even get going. The Authority, in turn, will take over functions of Dublin Corporation. We are told that the Bill we are discussing will improve the operation of public administration in Dublin city centre, the spine of our capital, through a more streamlined administration but there are too many Bills involved.

Tomás Mac Giolla

The Dublin Transport Authority are specifically referred to in this section. Therefore, special consideration should be given to them instead of merely transferring their functions to the commission. Many people are concerned about what will happen to transport when the commission do this beautiful job on the city centre. What will happen to the surrounding areas when transport is eliminated and people have to find other ways to travel?

The Minister suggested that there should be an advisory committee and he will probably find that, as it develops, it will take on a more important role. Dublin Transport Authority should also be represented on the advisory board. This area has been dealt with by a group under Dublin Corporation. This group comprised the corporation, the Garda Síochána and CIE. Those three groups will still have a strong input to make into the work of the Dublin Transport Authority. If they change one way streets or put in busways——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy could deal with that aspect on section 7 or 8.

Tomás Mac Giolla

The only point I wanted to make in support of Deputy Burke's point with regard to the Dublin Transport Authority was that the Minister previously mentioned the possibility of an advisory board. As well as having elected members of the corporation on that board the Dublin Transport Authority should also be represented.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 5, line 35, after "parking" to insert "the promotion of the greater use of public transport".

This amendment relates to the question of traffic in the commission's area of responsibility, which is mainly from Parnell Square, through O'Connell Street and D'Olier Street to College Green. As I said earlier, that is the main traffic area of the city. During the course of the Second Stage debate a number of speakers on the Government side, the Minister not included, made the point that O'Connell Street was destroyed by buses parking there and there were too many bus stops. There were considerable references to buses being an unsightly business in O'Connell Street. We were concerned that only buses were considered a problem while cars were not.

Everyone will agree that if the commission are to be there at all they will have to deal with standards of civic design, the convenience and safety of pedestrians, the general appearance of the streets, traffic regulations and parking and the provision of further civic amenities. In view of the comments made on Second Stage we felt we should put down this amendment on the basis that the greater use of public transport would reduce the overall amount of traffic. I am not saying that buses have always been of the highest design and colour. I was most disappointed a number of years ago when the old green buses were removed and the colour changed to a purple-yellow or purple-orange. Worse still, the purple disappeared and the buses became all yellow or orange. This colour becomes dirty very quickly because it is not a pleasant colour visually. A series of those buses in O'Connell Street always looked unsightly. I am very glad that CIE have restored the bright green colours on the buses. I think the buses in Dublin city look very well at present. They are kept excellently clean by CIE and their visual appearance is now much better. Some people may have objected to those big yellow buses coming up through O'Connell Street in rows. When the commission put up this beautiful mall in the centre of O'Connell Street it will remove at least one lane each way and, as was remarked on Second Stage, it could possibly remove two lanes each way which would reduce O'Connell Street to two lanes on each side. If that occurs, there will be a major traffic problem all over the city. If the Minister and the commission have that in mind, total use of public transport in the city centre area would be essential.

It was mentioned on Second Stage that buses do not need to come through O'Connell Street, that they could park nearby. There was no reference made to the fact that cars do not have to come through O'Connell Street. The impression should not be imposed on the commission from the outset that we must keep everything out of O'Connell Street and pack it into both sides of Middle and Lower Abbey Street. Where are people to go? Capel Street is already a disaster. It could not take one more car. In preparation for this new design the corporation are now speeding up their inner tangent ring road. One may have noticed that over the last five of six weeks from the Rotunda Hospital to Moore Street has been knocked down on one side. About three weeks ago we discovered that from Peat's to the Commodore pub had been levelled. Everybody wondered what had happened. That was in the plans for years. Suddenly, this plan is being implemented by the corporation. All that remains to be knocked are a few old houses on Parnell Street. The CPOs have been prepared. Some morning shortly we will come out and find that piece gone as well. Therefore, all of Parnell Street on the left hand side will have been knocked. When that goes the next to go will be from Brereton's in Capel Street to King Street.

The corporation's plan is to have a dual carriageway down Parnell Street breaking through on to King Street and it appears that is being rushed through by the city manager so that the commission can direct all traffic on to Parnell Street. In my view the commission should be considering the greater use of public transport in the centre city. Many local representatives hold that view. Since I was first elected to the local authority, councillors have been suggesting that private cars be kept out of the centre city and greater use made of public transport. Single deck buses should be used in that area so as to avoid traffic congestion. If it is the intention of the commission to try to reduce the amount of traffic in the centre of the city in order to provide a wide mall they should consider using public transport. I suggest there should be some inter-play between the DTA and the commission on this matter.

If traffic is crushed into the side streets off O'Connell Street the corporation's plan for an inner tangent ring road which caused such controversy in the area of St. Patrick's Cathedral will be pushed through very rapidly. The Minister might suggest to the commission that they promote greater use of public transport when considering traffic flows and the parking of private cars.

Mr. Boland

I appreciate the general thrust of the Deputy's amendment but I do not think there is any need to enunciate it. The choice of words does not fully convey the import of what the Deputy is attempting to do. The promotion of greater use of public transport would seem to suggest the commission should operate as a promotional or advertising agency for CIE although I accept that that is not what the Deputy intends. However, that could be interpreted from the wording of the amendment. Obviously, an integral part of the work of the commission will be to look at traffic flows, the way traffic is dispersed and the way traffic uses the central area at present.

Deputies are aware that a computer-based traffic model of the traffic patterns in the Dublin city area was prepared in anticipation of the setting up of the Dublin Transport Authority. The intention is to use that computer-based model to experiment with different suggestions as to alterations of traffic flows and to see the effect any suggestion might have on traffic in other parts of the city. It would be pointless to decide, for example, to remove all cars or buses from O'Connell Street if that resulted in Capel Street being totally fouled up with pressure being put on that traffic artery to such an extent that it would be rendered virtually useless and the rest of the city thrown into chaos. I am sure all Members accept that for a start there should be greater channelisation — a word traffic engineers use — of the existing traffic in O'Connell Street.

Mr. R. Burke

Only an engineer would come up with that word.

Mr. Boland

I suspect I first heard the word from traffic engineers whom the Deputy meets more often than I do. We should persuade traffic to use traffic lanes in a more orderly fashion. It has been suggested to me that traffic study engineers of Dublin Corporation came to the conclusion that the width of the existing traffic lanes in O'Connell Street could be substantially reduced and the narrowed carriageways could still carry the existing volume of traffic if that traffic was persuaded to use the street in a more orderly manner.

From that point one moves to examine the other options put forward. For example, Deputy Briscoe mentioned that Dublin Corporation traffic engineers have been looking at the possibility of inviting north-bound traffic to turn right at O'Connell Bridge rather than going into lower O'Connell Street before turning right into Abbey Street. He said the engineers felt that that change would reduce the heavy amount of traffic on that short stretch from O'Connell Bridge to the intersection with Abbey Street. The Deputy gave that example during the course of the Second Stage debate.

If the objective in setting up the commission is successful and a far greater number of pedestrians come to use the street for a variety of purposes, there will be a greater need for public transport access points adjacent to the central area. It will have to be easy for the public to get into and out of the central area by public transport while still gaining the maximum possible enjoyment from the centre. Members will be aware that that problem has been treated in different ways in other cities. In some cities areas have been extensively pedestrianised with free bus services operating around the perimeter of the pedestrianised area. In other cities there are special bus services which run through the centre while in others only public transport is allowed to the centre. All those options will have to be examined. The computer-based model is available for the commission and their advisers to look at in conjunction with, I hope, Dublin city traffic engineers and the DTA. They will have to examine all options before deciding on the best way to meet the objectives while, at the same time, trying to improve traffic flows throughout the city. Of course, that is one of the primary functions of the Dublin Transport Authority who are having their first meeting today.

I accept fully the point made by Deputy Mac Giolla on the need for close co-operation and discussion between the DTA and the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission but I do not want to go into that point any further today. It is not normal to talk about people serving on an advisory body although, in an effort to be helpful to the House earlier, I did and I got into all sorts of complications. I would prefer not to follow the Deputy down that cul-de-sac.

Mr. R. Burke

It is these lengthy cul-de-sacs that we are afraid of, particularly in relation to Dublin traffic from the north to the south. I share the concern expressed in Deputy Mac Giolla's amendment that the main street should still be available for public transport. I have heard views expressed outside to the effect that buses are not welcome in O'Connell Street. The Minister used the language of the engineers when he spoke about channelisation, in other words reducing the number of traffic lanes in O'Connell Street to three. That disturbs me. I drive through the city and I know the problems that can arise at the moment. I hope the Minister will spell out his proposals in regard to this idea of narrowing the traffic areas. Is a reduction in the number of lanes part of the Minister's plan in the Second Schedule?

That schedule also provides for cafes and other facilities in the centre island of O'Connell Street. It would be preferable if these things were written into the Bill, as Deputy Mac Giolla has in mind, so that the commission could not then make decisions that would in any way interfere with or discourage public transport to the city centre. Taking the traffic from O'Connell Street and putting it through Capel Street on the one hand and Marlboro Street on the other, with movement through Parliament Street, Tara Street, Wolfe Tone Street, etc, would cause chaos, though it might present O'Connell Street as a better shop window. We must remember that one third of the country's population lives in Dublin city and county, so we must have something more than an ornate centre spine. We cannot isolate the main street from the rest of the city and county. It is right to improve the core of the city but that cannot be done to the detriment of the remainder. We cannot take the double decker buses off O'Connell Street just for the sake of visual improvement.

What will become of the status of Deputy Skelly's hole in the ground in relation to the functions of the commission? If the centre of the city is to be relieved of traffic it will have a major effect on traffic movement to the stations and therefore I wonder if the commission will have a function in relation to the hole in the ground.

Mr. Boland

I am afraid the Deputy will have to wonder and wonder——

Mr. R. Burke

Will it be like the amenity order in relation to the Liffey valley?

Mr. Boland

If the Deputy's local authority complies with the Minister's direction we will proceed with that but if the Deputy's local authority do not then we will have to look again at it. If the Deputy looks at the First Schedule he will see that the area of land will be within the administrative control of the authority set out and not the area mentioned in the Deputy's comments. It would be out of order for me to make any further reference to the matter. In relation to the other point made by the Deputy, which has some relevance to the amendment, the Second Schedule provides that the improvement scheme could have to do with traffic management. It places an obligation on the commission in preparing improvement schemes to have consultations not only with Dublin Corporation but with the DTA. Because the DTA is such a new creature, having its first meeting today, there has not been as much discussion about it as there might be when it has been in existence for a year or so. Many of the functions which Deputies suggest will be transferred from Dublin Corporation to this commission, as of today are in the process of being transferred to the DTA.

I assure the House that there will be the closest possible liaison between the DTA and the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission. Adequate provision for the use of public transport will have to be an integral part of the commission's objective. Many of the contributions so far seem to envisage that I would be so reckless as to appoint commissioners who in turn would be so irresponsible and feckless as to set about virtually destroying the centre of the city rather than adhering to the task given to them, dramatically to improve the facilities for the general public. Much of the debate today seemed to be based on safeguarding the city centre against the barbarian horde who will wreak havoc in the city centre. We are talking about people being invited to serve on a commission for three years who will improve the appearance, use and enjoyment of the centre of Dublin. Deputies seem to suspect that the commission will set about destroying the Dublin central area. It is difficult to comprehend.

Tomás Mac Giolla

That may seem reasonable to the Minister but if we look at section 5 we will see that the emphasis is on improvement of environmental conditions, the level of civic amenities, the standard of civic design with special reference to the convenience and safety of pedestrians, the general appearance of streets and buildings, regulation of traffic and parking, etc.

If you want to improve environmental conditions these things may be taken to mean that there will not be buses with exhaust fumes coming up O'Connell Street, or if you want to provide for the safety of pedestrians that you will prevent dangerous traffic or heavy buses from going along the street. People have different attitudes as to how to improve the standards of design, cleanliness and appearance. They may wish to remove all bus stop signs, traffic signs and all the encumbrances of street furniture and improve the street in that way. People could see all of these objectives being achieved much better in O'Connell Street or the centre city area by not having buses stopping at Cavendish Row, down in Abbey Street, or below Marlborough Street. Passengers would only have 75 yards to walk, the Minister said — I would say 150 yards — to O'Connell Street.

Mr. Boland

I did not say anything about 75 yards.

Mr. R. Burke

It tidies the thing up of course.

Tomás Mac Giolla

Everybody in approaching this matter would have a different idea. While the Minister's attitude is quite correct, that the whole idea is to uplift O'Connell Street and have more pedestrians there, he sees that the best way of getting pedestrians into O'Connell Street is to bring them there, to empty the buses in O'Connell Street. I would agree with that. People like to walk straight out of their buses and into the cinema. We have many rainy nights, winter and summer.

Traffic regulators, experts in the field of architectural design and visual environementalists and such do not look at things in that way. They think of how they can make the street or the area bright, beautiful and clean with no encumbrances, no smells of exhaust fumes, no dirty buses and so on. Such improvements would make the place look beautiful but you might not be able to get into the city centre because of the way parking of buses is regulated. We must put what the Minister said into the minds of those who sit on the committee because that is their remit. Their remit is what this House will provide for. It is not what the Ministers, or Deputy Burke, or I would like. These are their terms of reference, this is what they are to do. I suggest, to get this into their minds, that the Minister include a reference to the need for greater use of public transport in the area. Would he endeavour to have a reference to the use of public transport inserted after the matters relating to regulations and parking? The first thing the commissioners will say is that the regulation is for no parking whatsoever in the commission's area. They would also want regulation of traffic parking around the city, but outside their area. The Minister should indicate in that section that pedestrians will be let alight from buses in the centre city area.

Mr. R. Burke

I fully share Deputy Mac Giolla's view on this. I accept the good faith of the Minister that he does not see it that way. If we are trying today to improve this Bill, the commissioners that the Minister appoints must have clear guidelines and know the feelings and views of this House as written in legislation. They will not be reading the Official Report and saying that the Minister said this, Deputy Burke said that and Deputy Mac Giolla said the other. For them it is going to be what is in the Bill. It is not stretching the imagination too far, knowing the approach that all of us in our public life, whether as Ministers and councillors in local authorities or other places, have got from engineers, architects and other experts, as they come before us. They come with proposals that are specific to themselves and their area and do not take the broad view of what is for the common good.

I share Deputy Mac Giolla's worry that there is no reference to the continuation of public transport in the streets. If it is not specified in the Bill then the measures to be taken by the commission could be of the order of thinking that if traffic were not let through there could be extra flower pots here, extra shrubs there, and extra cafe areas elsewhere. They might stop the buses at, say, Parnell Square and people would get connecting buses at Abbey Street or it might be that buses going to the south would have to connect up on the far side of the river. The commission might want to encourage people to stroll through the streets rather than having the through traffic. Admittedly, these engineers and other experts are very balanced individuals but we have all had our experiences with them. It is not right to pass legislation that is in any way loose and this legislation can be tightened up and improved by specifying that we suggest a concentration on, at least, a place for public transport through the areas under the control of the commission.

Mr. Boland

I have to return to the point again. The intention is that the commissioners to be appointed will be sane. I shall add that as another requirement to those I outlined this morning of their being sensible, with a sense of style and of what the street should be. Listening to some of the discussions this afternoon one would have to assume that I am going to recruit these people from the ranks of those who would set out with the malicious intent to do away with the centre of the city.

We are talking about people who will give up a lot of their time and effort to trying to make the centre of Dublin a better place for people to enjoy. They are, of course, going to be responsive to all points made by the Deputies. They will not act like commissars.

Mr. R. Burke

The Minister is giving them the powers of commissars.

Mr. Boland

They are going to have to respond to and interact with the other body. I have already assured the House that they will have the closest liaison with the Dublin Transport Authority. For fear, as Deputy Burke seems to think, that they would think so little of this House that they might not read the Official Report of the debates, or the advice of the Deputies, I shall ensure that copies are made available, as I suspect most Ministers do when they invite people to serve on bodies created by the House. I shall ensure that copies are made available to members of the commission and, in particular, will invite the members to pay attention to the specific points made by Deputy Mac Giolla regarding public transport. However, I honestly cannot see how reasonable commissioners could try to improve the street and attract more people in to use the street without paying the utmost attention to ensuring that the public transport system was such as to allow the maximum number of people to use the street with the maximum amount of convenience to the access points for public transport.

Basically, what is wrong with this street — and we probably all know it — is that there are many people who, if they were going from Limerick to Dundalk, would decide that the way to go was through O'Connell Street. Traditionally, Deputy Burke talks about O'Connell Street being the important north-south route but because many are familiar with the area they head towards O'Connell Street once they have to cross the Liffey at all. I should think the traffic that should logically be taken out of the street immediately is heavy vehicular traffic such as articulated trucks and the like. It is quite pointless to see trucks carrying loads of sand and gravel traversing O'Connell Street. That seems a totally inappropriate use of the street. I am hesitant to become sucked into this discussion but I suspect that the Dublin Transport Authority and CIE will, as part of their function, be examining all the CIE existing routes to see how they can best serve the needs of people. This is outside the remit of the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission and my remit but perhaps existing routings for the public transport system could with benefit to the public be examined to see if in many cases they best serve the needs. In the same way as we are all experts in relation to tourism, I suspect we all believe ourselves to be experts in the matter of improving the public transport services. That will be one of the vital tasks facing the Dublin Transport Authority. I appreciate the thrust of what Deputies are saying but I do not see any necessity for the inclusion of wording such as this in section 5 or in the Bill generally.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I have made the point and I hope the Minister is right. I suspect he will be wrong.

Mr. R. Burke

The Minister is giving a remit to these people to tidy up the whole centre of Dublin. Their concentration will be on trying to remove as much traffic as possible. The Minister let it slip earlier on that he will not allow traffic from country areas or heavy traffic through the centre of the city. That will be an attempt to change the habits of generations. I am prepared to go along with Deputy Mac Giolla's amendment, although he is not going to push it any further. Clear guidelines should be given to the commission that they should be encouraging the use of public transport.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. R. Burke

Section 5 states:

It shall be the general duty of the Commission to secure in the Metropolitan Central Area by every practicable means an improvement in environmental conditions, in the level of civic amenity and in the standard of civic design, with special reference to the convenience and safety of pedestrians, the general appearance of streets and buildings (including standards of design, maintenance and cleanliness), the regulation of traffic and parking and the provision of further civic amenities.

This must be read in conjunction with the Second Schedule of the Bill which deals with the provisions relating to an improvement scheme and states:

1. An improvement scheme shall consist of a written statement and visual display indicating the manner in which the Commission considers that the Metropolitan Central Area should be improved and renewed and, in particular, may indicate

(a) the buildings and facades in need of improvement, redecoration, renovation or renewal,

(b) the advertisements, shop signs, hoardings and kiosks that should be replaced, redesigned, redecorated or renewed...,

This brings me back to the question of compensation. The general duties of the commission and the provisions relating to an improvement scheme could lead at least to the possibility of compensation claims under the Act. Will the Minister clarify?

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. F. O'Brien)

There is no possibility of conflict with the development plan. Compensation may be made payable.

Mr. R. Burke

To the individual

Mr. F. O'Brien

To the individual who has to do the work. If the commission ask a person to carry out some work they will compensate him for it.

Mr. R. Burke

Where in the Bill is that stated?

Mr. F. O'Brien

Section 11.

Mr. R. Burke

Which subsection? My understanding is that the work would have to be done at the expense of the individual. Section 11 is the enforcement provision. There will not be a grant paid.

Mr. F. O'Brien

Not a grant. I am referring to section 11 (7).

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 6.

Mr. R. Burke

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 5, subsection (4), to delete line 49 and in page 6, to delete lines 1 and 2 and substitute "him and shall modify the scheme in accordance with such objections".

Section 6 (4) would then read as follows:

Where an improvement scheme is submitted to him by the Commission the Minister shall consider any objections made to the scheme by Dublin Corporation within one month of its submission to him and shall modify the scheme in accordance with such objections.

It seems reasonable that the detailed submissions made by the corporation, who are the planning authority, should be taken into account. Under the Bill as it stands the Minister would receive these submissions but would not have to give them any particular importance.

Mr. Boland

I do not see any particular reason to put an onus on the Minister to modify a scheme in accordance with the wishes of the corporation. In effect what the Deputy is seeking to do in another way is to nullify the commission. Far from their being the barbaric hordes they were being portrayed as, five minutes ago, they would be more like eunuchs if this amendment were to be accepted.

Mr. R. Burke

Their sanity has been questioned, their physical attributes have been questioned.

Mr. Boland

Nobody will agree to serve on the commission by the time the Deputy is finished.

Mr. R. Burke

The Minister has already ruled out a few himself. A few that the Minister had in mind would not fit in with the exclusions so far. I believe it is quite correct that there should be stronger control over the Minister of the day in the form of the scheme he would confirm. As the wording stands the Minister merely has to consider any objections raised but, having considered them, he can then ignore them. I contend that there should be greater control than that. I have no doubt that the Minister will refer back to 1982. The Minister's normal practice, when unable to answer a point, is to refer to the Bill of 1982. I would remind the Minister that we are discussing the Bill of 1986. In view of the fact that the Minister was not very happy with the 1982 Bill I should like to know whether he has learned anything in the four intervening years and will accept the points I am now putting forward.

Mr. Boland

The Deputy appears to think that at the time of passage of the 1982 Bill I was the Opposition spokesman.

Mr. R. Burke

The Minister was not.

Mr. Boland

I was not, of course. Indeed I do not know that I even spoke in the Second Stage debate in the House. One does have to compare the change in attitude of Deputy R. Burke then and now. At that time a variety of development authorities which he sought the permission of the House to establish would have been established and the relevant local authority would have had to amend their development plan to keep in line with the objectives of the development authority. In the Bill we have put forward the commission must prepare an improvement scheme, take account of the development plan extant at the time, seek the views of Dublin Corporation and then the approval of the Minister. They would have to be represented as a recalcitrant commission and an unreasonable Minister who would not take into account any responsible points put forward by Dublin Corporation in their observations on the improvement scheme. I honestly do not expect that the commission will operate in that way.

If I may revert for a moment to the unfortunate city manager whom I suspect by now to be heartily sick of the fact that I said he would be a member of the commission, again it is a lesson for the House that the membership of commissions should never be adverted to before the passage of the enabling Bill. Inevitably, as has happened today already, much of the discussion centred around the personality of the single person who I suggested would be a member of the commission rather than on the qualities.

Mr. R. Burke

His personality.

Mr. Boland

Well, the personage rather than on the qualities that might be expected of the commissioners. I want to say how much I regret that. Probably I brought it about by mentioning that I intended that the city manager would be a commissioner although I did so merely to demonstrate that I envisaged there being close co-operation between the commission and Dublin Corporation. But it is unreasonable to expect that the commission — which would contain within its membership the Dublin City Manager — would prepare an improvement scheme that would be vastly out of line with the objectives of Dublin Corporation. Indeed it would be unreasonable to envisage that Dublin Corporation, in their development plan, would not have the same broad objectives for the area as the commission. Many of the fears being expressed by the Deputy are not well based.

Mr. R. Burke

That brings us back to the points made all day here as we have discussed the matter. I accept that the Minister has a reasonable approach to the matter, that any reasonable person examining the matter would do X, Y or Z depending on which section we happened to be dealing with. The difficulty is that, when this Bill is passed, and becomes law, then it will not be what the Minister, or what we in this House feel is reasonable, rational or right that will obtain. It will be what the law says. The Minister says that any reasonable commission will take account of the reasonable objections of Dublin Corporation. But that is not what the Bill says. The Bill says:

Where an improvement scheme is submitted to him by the Commission the Minister shall consider any objections made to the scheme by Dublin Corporation within one month of its submission to him and may modify the scheme in such manner and to such an extent as he thinks proper and may approve the scheme or the scheme as so modified.

That is the whole point of the exercise. If the Minister feels I have gone too far in the wording of my amendment, which says that the Minister shall modify this scheme in accordance with such objections, then he should use some form of wording in this subsection which would cover the point put forward by him, that any reasonable Minister will take account of reasonable points being made by Dublin Corporation in deciding whether to approve a scheme.

In expressing those general sentiments, the Minister has portrayed himself as being reasonable about the matter but I must remind him that his sentiments will have no status whatsoever in law. The point I have endeavoured to hammer home all day, and Deputy Mac Giolla has done likewise, is that the intentions must be clearly written into the law before they will carry the force of law. I contend that the debate in this House, despite the Minister's reasonable approach to it, will have no force in law, that the intentions must be written into the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Boland

I appreciate the more conciliatory tone of the Deputy's last remarks in relation to the Minister being reasonable. I might quote again the provisions of subsection (4) which say:

Where an improvement scheme is submitted to him by the Commission the Minister shall consider any objections made to the scheme by Dublin Corporation within one month of its submission to him and may modify the scheme in such manner and to such extent as he thinks proper and may approve the scheme or the scheme as so modified.

Surely then that subsection already contains the very spirit of Deputy R. Burke's requirement?

Tomás Mac Giolla

I want to support the amendment. I take it that the Second Schedule must be taken with this section, or will it be dealt with separately?

Within this section, particularly subsection (4) — in respect of which Deputy R. Burke has put down an amendment — the whole question of the relationship of Dublin Corporation to improvement schemes and so on is at issue. I was reading the provisions of the Second Schedule which are affected by the provisions of this section. I refer to paragraph 3 of the Second Schedule where it is said that, in preparing an improvement scheme the commission shall consult with Dublin Corporation and with the Dublin Transport Authority. I take it this is an improvement scheme being prepared, in consultation with Dublin Corporation, the corporation having objections to the scheme being submitted to the Minister by the commission. This section says that the Minister shall consider any objections made to the scheme by Dublin Corporation. He does not have to do anything but consider these objections. The section states he may modify the scheme if he likes having considered the corporation's objections. I take it that if the commission are consulting with the corporation in advance there will be negotiations and every effort will be made to have an agreed scheme.

Using the Minister's criteria we must understand the commission will consist of sensible, sane people. The Minister will have to accept also that Dublin Corporation will consist of sensible, sane people who are trying to do their best for the city of Dublin. The commission will prepare this improvement scheme in consultation with the corporation and every effort will be made to get agreement and have compromises on various issues so that at the end of the day the scheme will not have objections from the corporation. If the corporation cannot agree to something and have a definite objection to it when the scheme is submitted to the Minister it will not be an agreed scheme. The objections made by Dublin Corporation would be very serious objections. The improvement scheme will be prepared in consultation with the corporation so that in the normal course of events there should not be any objections. Deputy Burke's amendment is a very important one in that context. There are very serious issues at stake and if the corporation made objections then the Minister would have to do more than just consider them.

Deputy Burke's amendment suggests that the Minister modify the scheme in accordance with those objections, in other words, he should take the corporation's objections into account in approving the scheme. If the Minister approves the scheme over the heads of the corporation and in spite of their serious objections on which they are unable to compromise, then at the end of the three years when it is handed back to the corporation they will eventually want to modify it. Deputy Burke's amendment is an important one and the Minister should consider it.

Mr. R. Burke

The Minister makes the point again and again that this commission will be made up of reasonable men and that he is a reasonable man. He said that the views of the commission will probably not differ very much from the corporation's view of how the city should be improved and developed. If they are all so reasonable and agree with what the corporation are already doing in this area, why do we need a commission at all? In view of the fact that the corporation will be taking over from them in three years' time and in view of the Minister's attitude in regard to the question of modification, if these major differences have arisen surely that is a recipe for trouble in three years' time. The Minister should accept the amendment put forward by me.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand".

The Committee divided: Tá, 74; Níl, 65.

Tá

Allen, Bernard.
Barnes, Monica.
Bary, Myra.
Barry, Peter.
Begley, Michael
Bell, Michael.
Bermingham, Joe.
Boland, John.
Bruton, Joe.
Bruton, Richard
Burke, Liam.
Carey, Donal.
Clusky, Frank.
Collins, Edward.
Conlon, John F.
Connaughton, Paul.
Coogan, Fintan.
Cooney, Patric Mark.
Cosgrave, Liam T.
Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
Creed, Donal.
Crotty, Kieran.
Crowley, Frank.
D'Arcy, Michael.
Deasy, Martin Austin.
Desmond, Barry.
Desmond, Eileen.
Donnellan, John.
Dowling, Dick.
Doyl, Avril.
Doyle, Joe.
Dukes, Alen.
Durkan, Bernard J.
Enright, Thomas W.
Farrelly, John V.
Skelly, Liam.
Taylor, Mervyn.
Taylor-Quinn, Madelin.
Fennell, Nuala.
FitzGerald, Garret.
Flanherty, Mary.
Glenn, Alice.
Griffin, Brendan.
Griffin, Brendan.
Harte, Patric D.
Hagarty, Paddy.
Hussey, Gemma.
Kavanagh, Liam.
Kelly, John.
McGahon, Brendan.
McGinley, Dinny.
McLoughlin, Frank.
Manning, Maurice.
Mitchell, Gay.
Mitchell, Jim.
Molony, David.
Moynihan, Mitchael.
Naughten, Liam.
Nealon, Ted.
Noonan, Michael.
(Limerick East)
O'Brian, Fergus.
O'Brien, Willie.
O'Keeffe, Jim.
O'Leary, Michael.
O'Sullivan, Toddy.
O'Toole, Paddy.
Owen, Nora.
Pattison, Séamus.
Quinn, Ruairí.
Ryan, John.
Shatter, Alan.
Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
Timmins, Godfrey.
Yates, Ivan.

Níl

Ahern, Michael.
Andrews, David.
Aylward, Liam.
Barrett, Michael.
Brady, Gerard.
Brady, Vincent.
Brennan, Mattie.
Brennan, Paudge.
Browne, John.
Burke, Raphael P.
Byrne, Hugh.
Byrne, Seán.
Calleary, Seán.
Collins, GÉrard.
Conaghan, Hugh.
Connolly, Ger.
Cowen, Brian.
Daly, Brendan.
De Rossa, Proinsias.
Doherty, Seán.
Fahey, Francis.
Fahey, Jackie.
Faulkner, Pádraig.
Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
Flynn, Pádraig.
Foley, Denis.
Gallagher, Denis.
Gallagher, Pat Cope.
Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
Haughey, Charles J.
Hilliard, Colm.
Hyland, Liam.
Keating, Michael.
Kirk, Séamus.
Kitt, Michael.
Lenihan, Brian.
Leonard, Jimmy.
Leonard, Tom.
Leyden, Terry.
Lyons, Denis.
McCarthy, Seán.
McCreevy, Charlie.
McEllistrim, Tom.
Mac Giolla, Tomás.
Morley, P. J.
Moynihan, Donal.
Nolan, M. J.
Noonan, Michael J.
(Limerick West)
O'Connell, John.
O'Dea, William.
O'Hanlon, Rory.
O'Kennedy, Michael.
O'Leary, John.
Ormonde, Donal.
O'Rourke, Mary.
Power, Paddy.
Reynolds, Albert.
Treacy, Noel.
Tunney, Jim.
Wallace, Dan.
Walsh, Joe.
Walsh, Seán.
Wilson, John P.
Woods, Michael.
Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies F. O'Brien and Taylor ; Níl, Deputies Barrett(Dublin North- West) and V. Brady.

Amendment declared lost.

Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Boland

If it would be helpful we could discuss the Second Schedule with this section.

Mr. R. Burke

I am agreeable to that.

An Ceann Comhairle

We will discuss the Second Schedule with section 6 by agreement.

Mr. R. Burke

Could the Minister clarify what will happen under this section? The Commission will prepare an improvement scheme working on the basis of the Second Schedule which sets out such things as the types of buildings and so on. Does that improvement scheme supercede the development plan of the corporation after it has been confirmed by the Minister?

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Silence, please.

Mr. R. Burke

When the improvement scheme is approved by the Minister, if a person were applying for a planning permission, must he apply to the commission or to the corporation or to anybody? I ask the question because if the project fits into the scheme as approved by the Minister, it is exempted development and can proceed as an exempted development. If a property owner wanted to make an alteration, does he apply to the commission or the corporation and does he still have the right of appeal to An Bord Pleanála? If a property owner wants to develop a property and the development fits into the development scheme set out by the commission, does he still have to get by-law permission before any work can commence? If the projects fits into the corporation's development plan, which is different from the improvement scheme, but is turned down on the basis that it does not fit into the improvement scheme, can An Bord Pleanála overturn the improvement scheme?

Mr. Boland

When the commission prepare an improvement scheme any proposal which conforms to the improvement scheme could be regarded as an exempted development from the point of view of the Planning Act. On the other hand, if a requirement for building by-law approval would normally obtain, the property owner would still be obliged to seek building by-law approval from the by-law authority in the normal way. If a proposed development was not in accordance with the improvement scheme, or if an improvement scheme had not been drawn up for that area when the applicant applied the applicant would have to apply to Dublin Corporation for planning approval and would have the right of appeal to An Bord Pleanála. The Deputy will notice that the section provides for an improvement scheme or schemes. The most efficient way for the commission to go about their business, bearing in mind their limited life span, would be to prepare a number of improvement schemes. If they adopt that approach an applicant would be obliged to apply for permission in the normal way even if the area had not yet been addressed by the commission in the formal preparation of an improvement scheme for that area. If a scheme was not in place the applicant would have to apply for permission in the normal way.

Mr. R. Burke

It is a very complex problem. Let us say that the corporation have a development plan for the part of O'Connell Street in which Clery's is situated. The commission, we will say, have come up with a different improvement scheme for that portion of O'Connell Street as distinct from the development plan of the corporation. If Clery's want to do some extension work at the back of their premises, not on O'Connell Street, do they apply to Dublin Corporation for planning permission or to the commission for a certificate saying that it is an exempted development? How do they go about it?

Tomás Mac Giolla

The Dublin development programme is under review at the moment. Early next year there will be a new development plan. A number of things have to be considered, but at the moment the corporation are considering what to do about the oldest house in O'Connell Street, the O'Connell Hall, which was known as the Commercial Club but which is now vacant and in danger of becoming derelict. If the corporation decide that that house should be preserved although preserving it as it is might not fit into the streetscape and if the commission decide that the improvement scheme is totally out of scale because it ruins the appearance of the street, and that the building should be knocked down and replaced by a different building, what powers have the corporation to protect the building they wish to preserve? Who wins?

Mr. Boland

The improvements scheme would take precedence over the development plan. If, in the example the Deputy gave, the improvements scheme provided for the facade of the Commercial Club to be altered and the development plan provided for the preservation of the facade, the improvements scheme would take precedence. The Deputy's example is not very helpful because it is unlikely that an improvements scheme prepared by the commission would allow for the alteration or demolition of the facade of a building if the corporation had already decided it was of such significance that it should be preserved.

Mr. R. Burke

It has happened.

Mr. Boland

Deputies should remember the other sections which oblige the commission to consult the corporation and the transport authority in preparing an improvements scheme. When the scheme is sent to the Minister he can take into account observations made by the corporation regarding the provisions of the improvements scheme. In the examples which Deputy Mac Giolla has given, where two materially conflicting objectives were defined for a particular building, there would be an onus on the Minister to look very carefully at the plan. However, it is very unlikely to arise as the corporation are considering placing a preservation order on the building to which the Deputy referred and I would be very surprised if the commission did not look equally carefully at the building because it is the oldest in the street.

I do not know if Deputy Burke gave a good example because it relates to the rear of a premises which fronts on to another street which is not in the administrative area of the commission. The improvements scheme in relation to property will basically refer to facades——

Mr. R. Burke

It will be skin deep.

Mr. Boland

If the proposed development is in accordance with the objectives set out in the improvements scheme, the potential developer will not need to apply for permission. In the example the Deputy advanced, it is almost certain the property owner would have to apply for permission because it is unlikely that the commission would be dealing with the rear of premises in the improvements scheme, especially if the rear of the said premises is still within the administrative control of the corporation. The Deputy's example referred to a particularly large block of property but if we consider instead a property where the entire curtilage is within the commission's administrative area and the changes proposed by the property owner were in accordance with an adopted and agreed improvements scheme, the property owner would not need to seek planning permission but would need by-law approval if necessary.

Mr. R. Burke

Who decides that the development is exempt? What is the time-scale if a property owner wants to develop a property and it is designed in such a way as to fit in as far as possible with the scheme prepared by the commission and approved by the Minister? Will the property owner have to wait for the exempted development certificate? If one part of the premises is in the administrative area of the commission while the remainder comes under the corporation, who decides what goes ahead?

Mr. Boland

In relation to exempted development, the question of what is exempt is a matter of fact. If there is a dispute in relation to a person claiming that development is exempted, the provision of the Planning Act is that An Bord Pleanála will determine whether the proposed development is exempt. In relation to the earlier example which the Deputy gave, it is not very——

Mr. R. Burke

It is an awkward example.

Mr. Boland

The commercial premises to which he referred is a bad example because I was thinking about the rear of the premises and I said that it was outside the functional area of the commission. That premises is really another block of property opening on to another street at the rear.

Mr. R. Burke

There is a side street at the back.

Mr. Boland

It divides it. I understand that all the property fronting the commission zone is included in their administrative area. Unfortunately, the example which the Deputy gave involves another property behind that again which faces on to streets which will still be administered by the corporation. Perhaps the Deputy could give another example?

Mr. R. Burke

Very well. One of the principal aims of the Bill, as the public perceive it, is to close Burgerland and McDonald's, or at any rate to force them to remove glaring signs. Is the Minister saying that these places can remain if the facade is all right although the rear of the property may be used for something quite different from what the Minister would like? Will the commission merely prepare a scheme which will say that McDonald's will have a new front but that they can continue to operate from the back? Will the commission say that the use of property in O'Connell Street will be for insurance offices and that anyone involved in the takeaway business will have to close?

Mr. Boland

A back lane McDonald's is a new animal. Paragraph 3 of the First Schedule mentions that the areas to be covered by the activities of the commission are those thoroughfares or parts of thoroughfares specified together with the structures and other land fronting on to those thoroughfares or parts of thoroughfares. I did say that the commission when preparing an improvement scheme would devote the greatest attention to the facades of buildings which face on to the main spine of the area. That is self evident to anybody who thinks about it. It would be a matter for the commission to decide that in order to get totally compatable usage an improvement scheme should get into as much detail as possible with regard to specifying what the renovations should appear like or in what way they should be used. An improvement scheme prepared by the commission should relate much more to the facades of the properties as they face on to the street. The question of the particular type of usage would be of relevance. Fast food outlets are almost a necessary prerequisite of city centres and places where many people congregate.

Mr. R. Burke

I agree.

Mr. Boland

It would be pointless for me to say that I hope the activities of the commission would be to invite far more people to come into this area as pedestrians to use and enjoy it if I were equally to say that I hoped there would be a total elimination of fast food outlets. Fast food outlets can be provided without necessarily having the types of facades, the rather gaudy plastic facades, that most of them do have at present and which are one of the main areas of criticism from the general public and most interested people. I mentioned in the other House that a new restaurant has been opened in Westmoreland Street in recent weeks and because some attention was given by the restaurateur to the facade it is very acceptable within the streetscape. The restaurant is essentially a fish and chip shop but the facade is entirely in keeping with the general streetscape. I gather that the operation is extraordinarily successful.

Going back to the Deputy's example, I have seen in the centre of a large, very carefully preserved pedestrian area of Salzburg a McDonald's operating very successfully without any use of a neon or plastic facade. I have also seen photographs of a similar venture, operated under the same franchise, in Heidelberg which is entirely in the style of the old city. The legitimate needs of people for restaurants and places where they can get meals quickly and efficiently can be met without necessarily having to destroy the facade of the streetscape and the general appearance of city centre areas. It has been achieved in other cities and I hope it will be possible to see it achieved here also.

Mr. Barrett

(Dublin North-West): Can the Minister tell us whether the commission will be empowered to see that there will be no further development of fast food restaurants? While talking about a facelift for Dublin the Minister mentioned unsightly signs. I would like to know whether the Minister or the commission will be in a position to remove these so-called signs? Will anything be done to the buildings which are unsightly at present? Does the Minister mean that the buildings will be clean?

Tomás Mac Giolla

I am delighted to hear the Minister at last put the record straight. On Second Stage there were various speeches about O'Connell Street being destroyed by these fast food joints. I had to draw attention to the fact that before these fast food joints there were ice cream parlours which are not really any different. The only difference are the big signs. It is not a question of telling people that fast food joints are out and that, as Deputy Burke has said, we must have insurance companies or banks. That is not on, because all that one will get is whatever trade wants to establish in the place. When The Irish Press left the corner of Abbey Street and O'Connell Street Dublin Corporation wondered what kind of business they could attract to the area and the only business they could attract was Kentucky Fried Chicken. They have established themselves fairly reasonably in the area without any garish signs. When the British Home Stores eventually leave — apparently they are not doing as well as they thought they would — what is going to be attracted in their place? It may well be the biggest fast food joint of them all. No-one knows.

The Minister is getting down to brass tacks and it is a question of making the street look as good as possible. He will have no control over what businesses are there. It should be mainly an entertainment street where people would go for their food before or after their entertainment. There probably will be a few pubs there. There was a time when there was never a pub in O'Connell Street. "The 19" was the first pub in O'Connell Street. There is nothing wrong with pubs in O'Connell Street. Possibly there will be cabaret joints etc. The whole point is that the Minister is now beginning to see that it is a question of how the street looks.

The commission are the bosses. They do not require planning permission. They only have to have regard to the development plan made by Dublin Corporation. A development plan takes a long time to formulate as there have to be consultations with every tenant and residents' association, every local councillor and whoever has an input to make. An Taisce have also made a submission. This has been going on for more than a year and a draft plan has yet to be produced. That draft plan will have to go on public display in City Hall and citizens will be entitled to make criticisms or suggest additions. Eventually, a development plan will be produced for the city.

However, the commission of six do not have to take into consideration the views of the citizens of the city and that is what annoys those who are involved in local government. Those people know the wishes of those who make an input at community level, they know the views of residents' associations and tenants' organisations because they deal with proposals put forward by those groups. This section makes the commission the top dog in regard to any laws that are passed whether they deal with planning or local authorities. It worries me that the commission will be above those laws. It is unfortunate that the last amendment which dealt with the consideration of objections in the preparation of improvement schemes was thrown out. There is little we can do about this when the commission do not have to take into consideration planning laws or objections from the local authority. In fact the commission will be commissars, something the Minister said they would not be, with full power to do as they wish.

Mr. Boland

Deputy Barrett asked if the commission will be able to control the number of fast food outlets in a particular area. I should like to point out to him that, in the preparation of an improvement scheme, the commission may decide that there was sufficient of a particular usage in an area and indicate that they will not be prepared to see a proliferation of that type of usage in an improvement scheme. The important thing for the commission is to improve the appearance of the street and the facades of the buildings fronting on to the street but they need to do a little more. The commission need to look at the uses to which the property is being put and if they feel there is a sufficiency of one type of usage they may decide that they need to control that use or encourage other uses. Examples are dangerous but it is my view that one area that will prove most difficult for the commission, although it is of vital importance, is the area of Upper O'Connell Street which because of the proliferation of office type development has become much more dead than Lower O'Connell Street. The commission will have to consider how the type of features to be used on the central mall and that part of the street will encourage people to use that end of O'Connell Street. The commission may decide that there are sufficient financial institutions on the street——

Tomás Mac Giolla

The Minister should not forget that the birds at that end of O'Connell Street will be a problem.

Mr. R. Burke

There are a number of public toilets there also. I agree with the Minister that examples are dangerous.

Mr. Boland

I will discuss the control of birds with the Minister for Agriculture but I am not sure how far we can go in regard to something that can be regarded as an occupational hazard. In preparing an improvement scheme the commission will have to ensure that there is a balance of uses in any part of the central area so that people will use the area for different reasons. In the preparation of their improvement schemes the commission will have the power to address that problem.

Mr. R. Burke

This relates to the whole question of compensation. Will the commission refuse planning applications because there are too many businesses of a similar type but tell the applicants that if they put in a solid granite front with oak beams on a building at the other end of the street they would be given permission? The question of compensation is very dangerous.

The Bill amounts to no more than dealing with the dressing up of the front of buildings on O'Connell Street and Grafton Street. It is a tidying-up operation. The Minister has some exotic ideas of having a number of cafeteria on the centre mall — it will be interesting to get the view of the Gresham on the idea of a cafe on the centre mall directly opposite it — but the Bill does not have anything to do with what the Minister's party have been claiming, that all the takeaways will be removed and the street will be returned to good old Victorian standards. Mrs. Thatcher here we come again.

The facades of the buildings could be improved if the Minister gave sufficient funds to Dublin Corporation and allowed the planning section of that body to concentrate on O'Connell Street and Grafton Street. It is not necessary to establish a commission to do that work.

Paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule states:

(a) the buildings and facades in need of improvement,...

If a company with premises in Grafton Street, O'Connell Street or Westmoreland Street want to improve the facade of the building but must comply with the commission's scheme, what funding will they get to carry out that work? That company may be in financial difficulty and may not be able to adhere to the commission's scheme. Who will be responsible for redecorating or renewing advertisements, shop signs, hoardings and kiosks? Will the local authority be forced to provide the funds or will the Minister provide the money so that the local authority can undertake the work? If some of these signs are pre-1953, and some of them are, what will the Minister do about their removal? Will the repaving of footpaths and the removal of such signs be done by the corporation as agents for the commission or will the commission employ private enterprise to do the work? Who will liaise with the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and the ESB in respect of operations by their teams? The Schedule provides for replacement or renewal of street furniture. Who will be responsible?

Now we come to the upgrading of Upper O'Connell Street. That part of O'Connell Street does not have as many takeaways as Lower O'Connell Street, but the Minister wants it developed. What development does it need? We have the Gresham Hotel, the Royal Dublin Hotel, the headquarters of Dublin County Council, offices of some State Department, An Bord Telecom, the headquarters of Aer Lingus and other buildings in Upper O'Connell Street. According to the Minister, that part of O'Connell Street needs re-development whereas the other part does not, with its rows of restaurants of various sizes, shapes and nationalities. According to the Minister, that is the ideal part. Will the Minister clarify that?

I am interested in the traffic mall, the central mall. Will it be along the lines of the development of the old Covent Garden in London? The re-development included a number of little restaurants under cover. Would the Minister give us the benefit of his ideas on how he would have the development of O'Connell Street undertaken?

Mr. Boland

We are hoping to set up a commission, and though all this may be extremely interesting to the Deputy, it will be the responsibility of the commission.

Tomás Mac Giolla

Points were raised in relation to the provision in the Second Schedule for roadways, footpaths, other walkways, and traffic islands in need of resurfacing, repaving and renewal. There was reference to the occupants of buildings who would refuse to do what the commission would direct them to do in regard to advertisements, hoardings, etc. There is reference in the Schedule to street furniture in need of improvement, replacement or redecoration. There is provision in relation to roadways, footpaths, traffic islands. The Minister has not given a clear indication of what he intends to do in this respect. He will be taking over powers from the corporation in regard to road maintenance, footpaths, sewerage and so on. Will the commission become a sanitary authority, a road maintenance authority, a litter authority? Will they take over the care of trees and shrubs from the parks department of the corporation? Who will do all those things on the commission's behalf? Who will operate the sewerage service from Grafton Street to Cavendish Row? Who will look after surface flooding on behalf of the commission?

Mr. Boland

I explained that that will be a matter for the commission, who will come to an arrangement with other bodies, the commission's staff will be very small and I anticipate that they will come to an arrangement with other bodies to carry out these day to day duties.

Mr. R. Burke

So Dublin Corporation will be continuing to do the work in relation to sanitary services but they will not hold control because the commission will have private enterprise, including union members, as subcontractors. That brings me back to the powers the Minister retains for himself in section 6, subsection (4) of which states:

Where an improvement scheme is submitted to him by the Commission the Minister shall consider any objections made to the scheme by Dublin Corporation within one month of its submission to him and may modify the scheme in such manner and to such extent as he thinks proper and may approve the scheme or the schemes as so modified.

At the end of the commission's lifespan, can the Minister by order continue to employ the private sector in street cleaning, etc? The Minister has told us that improvement schemes will be a matter for the commission and that this has nothing to do with him. He has a function and a power in this section. I have cited subsection (4). The Minister thinks that Lower O'Connell Street is the ideal type of area for redevelopment and that Upper O'Connell street is less than ideal, that it is dead, in the Minister's words. At the upper end of O'Connell Street there are such buildings as the Ambassador Cinema and An Bord Telecom and on the far side Aer Lingus. Then you have the Dublin County Council office block and on the far side the Gresham Hotel. Further down you have Bord Fáilte on the same side as the Gresham Hotel and the Savoy Cinema and on the far side down from the Carlton Cinema you have the CIE premises.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 12 Nov 1986

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

Tá

Níl

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Nov 1986