Deputy McDowell was in possession and he has just a few minutes left.
Private Members' Business. - Implementation of Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission Act, 1986: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Boland on Tuesday, 24 March 1987:
That Dáil Éireann having approved and passed the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission Act, 1986, calls on the Government to implement the Act immediately.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To add to the motion the following words:—
"having full regard to the constraints imposed by the budgetary situation."
—(Minister for the Environment.)
The problem with the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission Act is capable of being remedied. The Act is deficient in two simple ways. It is limited in its effectiveness to a three year period and it involves a complex consultative process which by its nature would take up a considerable portion of those three years. Secondly, the commission as envisaged by the Act, and as established, have been given inadequate powers to really bring about the requisite degree of radical change in the manner in which Dublin city is planned and rebuilt, an urgent task which we must face over the next number of years.
The Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, as amended, is not by its nature sufficient to conserve and plan the rebuilding of an urban area. There are deficiencies in our planning system which is a fundamentally negative and permissive one and which is not apposite to urban conservation. Accordingly, no matter how the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission Act is implemented and no matter how it is financed and prosecuted by those who are a party to the Act in terms of their membership of the commission or in terms of their capacity to fund the commission's activities, the reality remains that the powers given to the commission were inadequate for the task set for the commission. The political tension which accompanied the birth of the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission Act, which was a tension between Dublin Corporation on the one hand and the Government of the day on the other as to the separation of powers between the commissioners and the corporation and as to the length and duration of the commissioners' powers, should not be allowed in the lifetime of the commission to take away from the capacity of the commission to do their work properly.
They are fundamentally a superficial body in terms of the powers now given to them because they deal with the outward appearance of a city, rather than the nuts and bolts of urban renewal and development. Many changes of a fundamental kind are required through our planning law. I fully support the resolution as proposed by Deputy O'Brien that the commission as a new and active agent for urban renewal should be supported but I do so subject to two caveats, that their powers be amended and their role extended and that this be done in a manner which gives the people of Ireland generally and the people of Dublin good value for money.
What is at issue here is not the re-opening of the debate on the merits or otherwise of the metropolitan streets commission. While some Members currently in the House were not here when that debate was going through, this House, in the sense of continuity, has the opportunity in this Dáil to look at what was decided and debated in the last Dáil. The reason the Labour Party will be supporting the Fine Gael resolution and opposing the amendment put down by the Government is because having done the work in the last Dáil we want to see it implemented without further delay. The movers of this motion were right to put it down in Private Members' time because it has flushed out the reservation which is clearly implicit in Government policy. I know that the Minister of State with responsibility for urban renewal wishes to contribute to the debate so I will not anticipate what he will say.
The wording of the amendment bears more of the hallmark of the Department of Finance than of the Custom House and the caveat "subject to available resources" is in total contrast to that overall assurance given by the Taoiseach in the House yesterday when he said that the abridged version of Estimates with respect to the forthcoming budget next week, will be the same as that prepared by the previous administration. The previous administration made provision for a sum of approximately £3.4 million to be made available for the implementation of the work of the commission in the first of their three years. While many in the House will have views as to what the commission should do and about the effectiveness of the legislation and so on. the point at issue this evening and the point of the vote this evening is confined specifically to the question of implementing without delay legislation which of its nature has a limited duration of only three years. The movers of the motion have done a service in that they have clearly signalled that this Government have reservations, if we are to interpret the wording of the amendment in a literal sense.
I will now put arguments to the Minister of State with responsibility for urban renewal which he might usefully use in trying to convince people in the Department of Finance to ensure that this money is released in the current year. I do not wish to go over the ground of this Bill or the merits of having the commission. The reality is that it has been established. The commission's establishment was delayed by the political poverty and miserly attitude of the Opposition of the day in June 1986, when they refused to take it, and the work of the commission was delayed over the summer, although not entirely because a consultant architect was provisionally hired, and he has prepared a very comprehensive proposal study for the area designated in the Schedules to the Act.
The architect in question is a man called Paddy Shaffrey who is perhaps one of the seminal influences in Irish urban design and thinking and who has written the definitive book entitled The Irish Town, published by the O'Brien Press about ten years ago, and who is recognised within the profession as being among the foremost authorities on the problems that confront urban Ireland today, problems which are not specific to Dublin but which can be found in every town. The commission were wise in getting his services. I know that this man has refined and developed his thinking over the period of the publication of that book, and with his wife he has participated in publishing some other work as well. I put it to the Minister of State that on a professional basis the commission have got a person whose professional competence is recognised by everybody who has a knowledge of the field, that work has been done to date and that that work should not be left lying in a filing cabinet for want of money.
The consultant in question and the commission have identified some of the problems in the areas covered by the remit of the Metropolitan Streets Commission. There are gaps in the implementation of the planning Acts which have allowed the erection of unsightly structures and signs. Their replacement with an improved standard cannot simply be implemented or brought about by the local authority using the existing 1963 planning legislation.
The role of the commission is not to replace Dublin Corporation. The argument articulated at great length in this House as regards this legislation was false. This commission are not in competition with the local authority. They are not trying to replace the authority in a moral or political sense. They are simply trying to augment the authority and to do what they cannot do. I believe the Government were right to bring in legislation which produced this specific instrument, because to amend the legislation for local authorities generally would be to extend the powers of the local authorities in respect of every square millimetre of urban Ireland when the problem is confined to designated areas which are calling out for action. While £10 million spent over three years in the thoroughfares covered by the designated areas of the legislation will have a very obvious impact, £10 million spent by all local authorities with responsibility for urban affairs would not be seen.
This was part of an overall Government strategy. For the first time the outgoing administration introduced urban policy measures, some of which required legislative effect that targeted both provisions and resources into urban areas in a manner which was specific and discriminatory and clearly said that problems in certain areas would benefit rather than the previous practice where every local authority was treated equally. Previously the manager of Leitrim County Council virtually had the same status in the Custom House as the manager for Dublin city and county, which was patent nonsense because one-third of the population live in Dublin city and county while there is a population of just under 27,000 in the entire county of Leitrim. Because both were statutory local authorities for the purposes of legislation and the related instruments governing their activities with the Custom House there was equality of treatment, although obviously the Custom House and the Department of the Environment were able to make a much more subtle distinction.
Clearly there is a need to get on with the job. The worry the Labour Party have is that a reticence is being expressed in the Government's amendment to the effect that while they will not do anything to the commission, they will simply starve them of funds and effectively let the commission wither away because the legislation provides that the commission must be wound up within three years. I believe that the self-determination provision is a good one because it sends a signal of urgency to the commission members, it sends a signal of finality to the Department of Finance that there is an end in sight to the work that has to be done by that body, and it sends a signal to the members of the local authority who feel their pride, authority or moral position as guardians of the city has somehow been usurped.
Let me now turn to another point I want to make by way of argument to persuade the Minister of State not to press his amendment or, alternatively, to argue with his colleagues in the Department of Finance. The Minister of State is a very senior parliamentarian. The new Government pledged throughout their campaign and for two years previously that tourism was one of the major areas in which real, economically based jobs could be found if we were to turn round the armies of the unemployed. Tourism was frequently identified by the Fianna Fáil Party when in Opposition as an area which could create many new jobs. There is nothing more directly related to permanent improvement of the tourism facilities of Dublin city than the work programme of the Metropolitan Streets Commission. The money to be spent will be extremely cost effective in terms of the impact it will make not only on the citizens of Dublin but on tourists. There is a need to generate what is known in the tourist trade as culture tourism, attracting people to urban areas like Dublin because of the cultural activities provided and the institutions available.
Tourism cannot be exclusively confined to the green pastures of rural Ireland because the entry points for air travellers are Shannon, Knock or Dublin. One of the problems Dublin has encountered in the past is that it has not been promoted as a tourist venue as vigorously as some European capitals. These cities are very conscious of the enormous market which exists for tourists — museums, theatres, concerts, or simply walking around the city. Many politicians who have the opportunity to visit other capitals enjoy such activities and talk about them on their return. We do not provide the same kind of facilities and in the past we have not attempted to make the same degree of investment in urban Dublin, in marked contrast to London, Amsterdam or Paris.
This commission are concerned about this as well. This must find an echo in the hearts and minds of Fianna Fáil now they are in office. I do not doubt the sincerity of their repeated assertions of their commitment to tourism, but with their specific responsibility for urban renewal they will recognise that they have a unique opportunity to put into effect that commitment to tourism by ensuring that this money is made available to the commission as soon as possible.
I do not doubt that there are budgetary constraints. I do not want to misinterpret what the Taoiseach said in reply to questions from my colleague, Deputy Barry Desmond, but might I respectfully suggest that if the farmers of Laois-Offaly were to pay their outstanding rates and if the farmers throughout the country paid the rates they owed, that additional revenue would enable the Department to comfortably fund the entire £10 million due to the commission in 1987 alone. It is not a question of cash but ultimately of political priorities as to how we obtain that cash. As the response to the lottery demonstrated yesterday, and the exodus to Cheltenham demonstrated last week, there does not seem to be a problem of cash in this country. There merely seems to be a problem as to how one gets one's hands on it, particularly if one is in Government.
I cannot accept that overall budgetary constraints must prevent the Department working within the framework of the abridged Estimates to provide the necessary money. The Department of the Environment have a budgetary Estimate of approximately £900 million, and I cannot believe a sum of £3.4 million would cause a serious monetary problem in 1987. No doubt with his experience in this House the Minister will have the wisdom not to suggest that, even if people have suggested on behalf of the officials of the Department of Finance that he must enforce this amendment by pushing it through the House in a division.
Many of us are now familiar with the problems of Dublin city and, indeed, there are people in this House who are currently members of Dublin City Council. In 1975 my own professional institute, the Institute of Architects of Ireland, produced a major study entitled "Dublin: A City in Crisis". Extensive reference was made to that publication by Senator Alexis Fitzgerald during the debate in the other House on this legislation last year. We have all been aware of the problems of Dublin city for some time. What has inhibited an effective response by way of providing a solution has been the legislative pattern of the past of having broad universally based legislation which was equally applicable in every part of urban Ireland. What is needed and what was clearly identified as being needed is targeted specific legislation. This commission was one part of that approach.
I remind the House that currently in situ are two other pieces of legislation, one fiscal and the other based on the urban renewal of the Custom House Docks site. This House in its wisdom decided to discriminate in favour of the redevelopment of the city centre by means of making special tax reliefs and discounts available. Their utilisation has been successfully adopted in other countries which have urban economies similar to our own. Those will not be successfully taken up, I put it to the House and specifically to the Minister with responsibility for urban renewal, if the general appearance of the downtown area, to use an American phrase, is not dramatically improved. Marketing is as much about packaging as it is about anything else and the marketing of an inner city urban redevelopment scheme which needs to attract finance and purchasers will depend very much on the physical appearance of the area into which a prospective purchaser is being asked to invest.
The Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission with their small provision of £3.4 million in 1987, the redevelopment of the Custom House Docks site and the special tax provisions for the quays and for an area which is pretty well coterminous with large sections of the area covered by the commission are integral parts of the overall urban renewal strategy which was part of the previous Government's urban policy in general terms. Therefore, this legislation should not be seen in isolation. It should be seen as an integral part of a balanced approach, albeit a modest one but modest because of the constraints of the market on the one hand and capital resources on the other.
Failure to implement the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission Act without delay and to give them funding will undermine seriously the effectiveness of the Custom House Docks site redevelopment board because any prospective foreign investor coming to this city to look at that site will have to come down O'Connell Street. The Minister can determine the impression that prospective investor will get if this commission either receive or do not receive money. Similarly, the pension funds people who are likely to underwrite redevelopment projects in the inner city areas with the very positive co-operation of Dublin Corporation will look at them with a jaundiced eye. They have a responsibility to secure the pension rights of their depositors and will be influenced as much as anything else by the physical appearance of what they see. This is a fact of urban economics which is clearly recognised. It is for that reason, among others, that the previous Minister for the Environment established this particular commission.
I will not comment on the merits of the legislation, the area it covers or some of the proposals which have emanated recently because I do not believe that is our task. We set up a task force comprised of experts to do the job. We should not starve them of the funds now that they have got to the edge of the runway. The Minister has a unique opportunity and his entire credibility as Minister with responsibility for urban renewal now depends on whether he can deliver to this commission the very small sum of £3.4 million. Otherwise, with all due respect, the Fianna Fáil administration will have to do what they have done on issues such as women's rights and abolish the title of Minister of State with responsibility for urban renewal. Quite frankly, this will be the acid test.
I apologise to the Minister. I did not observe him offering on an earlier occasion, especially as he had reported progress on the other matter. I thought perhaps he was taking a rest in the meantime.
A Cheann Comhairle, this is my first opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment. You bring great parliamentary experience to this post and I wish you well in the future.
At first, it seems a bit puzzling that this motion should come up for debate so soon after the election of the new Dáil. The Opposition spokesmen were obviously not in any way ill-informed about the current position in relation to the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission or about the operation of the Act generally. Neither was the purpose of the exercise to put forward any new or worthwhile suggestions for consideration. In the words of Deputy Boland, the motion was tabled as a test for the Government. The truth, of course, is that the motion is no more than a crude attempt to introduce red herrings and divert attention from the more immediate and critical issues which face the country.
As far as this Government are concerned, there is only one test and that is the economy. This is the test on which the previous Government failed so badly and so consistently. As we all know, especially the former incumbents of the offices of Minister and Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission are fully operational. During the past 48 hours or so the commission have received considerable media attention with the news bulletins and the newspapers full of their suggestion that a replica of Nelson's Pillar should be erected. I will refrain from making any judgment on that idea at this stage since it is likely to form part of any improvement scheme submitted by the commission to the Minister for the Environment for approval.
The Minister has already outlined in some detail the very wide and important range of functions which are, or will be, available to the commission. Central to all of these is the preparation of improvement schemes for the metropolitan central area. It is through the improvement schemes that the commission will have to show how it intends, as the Act says, to secure by every practicable means, an improvement in the level of civic amenity and in the standards of civic design. In setting about their task of preparing improvement schemes, the commission are obliged to consult with Dublin Corporation, the Dublin Transport Authority and to make arrangements for the submission of ideas, and so on, from interested persons. The commission are also obliged to have regard to the development plan prepared by Dublin Corporation. This whole process of consideration and consultation is vitally important to the commission's chances of success. Improvement schemes will detail the type of measures regarding buildings, advertisements, roads, paths, street furniture, trees and flora, and so on, which the commission consider will have to be undertaken. Since the commission have been appointed for at most a period of three years, and since most, if not all, of the members of the commission have no experience in the political arena, it will be vitally important for proper channels to be established to enable the ordinary citizens of Dublin to voice their opinion. I know that this is something of which the members of the commission are very conscious.
Before going on to comment further on aspects of the commission and the Act, as well as dealing with some of the points raised in the debate last night, I must emphasise once again the overriding importance of the state of the public finances and the constraints imposed by the budget. One thing which the Government are not short of at the present time is a list of projects and ideas on which additional expenditure could be incurred. For many of these, unfortunately, it is not a question of whether the particular project or idea is good or bad in itself, but rather whether the country can afford the necessary finance at this critical time. We all have to remember, and it cannot be emphasised enough, that in any area where more money is required, it can only be obtained in one of two ways, either by reducing expenditure in other areas or by further borrowing. If there is one thing on which there is now almost unanimous agreement it is that we have reached the limit of borrowing. No matter how compelling a project may seem the harsh reality is that an increased level of borrowing cannot be justified.
The last Government included a provision of £3.4 million direct from Exchequer funds to finance the streets commission this year. Over the three years of its operation, the Act envisages that the commission will receive up to £10 million in Exchequer funds. The question which the Government now have the unenviable task of answering is whether this kind of expenditure can be afforded and, if so, what other areas must suffer.
Tax the farmers.
The major priority facing this Government is to restore balance to the public finances and to set about the task of generating confidence and renewed growth in the economy. All available resources must be directed towards the achievement of these objectives. No area of public expenditure can escape critical and detailed examination. It is for these reasons that the Minister has tabled the amendment to the motion before the House and I too would urge the House to accept the motion as so amended.
What does it mean?
In addition to the powers, duties and functions which the commission already have, the Act provides for the transfer from Dublin Corporation and the Dublin Transport Authority of the following: the full range of powers of Dublin Corporation in relation to the construction, maintenance and improvement of public roads; the various traffic management functions of the Dublin Transport Authority in relation to taxis, bus-stops, control of pedestrians, traffic and parking, traffic signs and co-ordination of road openings; and the powers of Dublin Corporation in relation to the prevention and control of litter and the removal of house and trade refuse.
These additional powers are extensive and a vital issue now in relation to the operation of the Act is how these functions will be performed and discharged from 1 June next. Speaking as one who has 20 years experience in local government as an elected representative, I understand just what these functions entail. They are not simple and straightforward and I wonder whether the commission fully understand what is involved. I do not understand why the former Minister took the rash step of making an order bringing the sections of the Act into operation in advance of improvement schemes.
Like so many of my party colleagues, I am forced to the conclusion that this was Deputy Boland's final insult to the members and officials of Dublin Corporation. The sad fact of the matter is that the commission will require the active commitment and co-operation of Dublin Corporation if these functions are to be discharged satisfactorily from 1 June. Deputy Boland's action was hardly the way to go about securing that co-operation.
Did the previous Minister fully consider the implications of this decision to give the roads, traffic, litter and refuse collection functions to the commission on 1 June? What will happen if the corporation decide not to co-operate with the commission on 1 June 1987? And if they do co-operate and the work is carried out on an agency basis, then the question must be asked why was this transfer order made in the first place and, indeed, without even a draft plan prepared by the commission? This is an issue which must be looked at.
In proposing this motion Deputy Boland professed himself to be at a loss in trying to understand why my party and Dublin Corporation opposed the measure in the first place. Well, if there remains any lingering doubt, let me say now that our disagreement was not about the problems which Dublin is suffering — the traffic problems, the state of the roads and footpaths, the litter and dirt, the architectural vandalism, to use the Deputy's own words, the plastic signs and so on. We can all agree also that improvement and renewal are desirable and overdue. Where we disagreed was on the wisdom of establishing a body such as the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission to attempt to resolve the problems. We did not accept the rationale of separating this small area from the rest of the city to deal with it in isolation. We took the view that an integrated approach was necessary. We also had doubts about the need for some of the functions to be given to the commission. However, what we felt most strongly about was the manner in which the former Minister treated Dublin Corporation both as regards their role under the Act, which is very limited, and the way in which the measure was seen as a vote of no-confidence in Dublin Corporation.
The approach adopted in the Act is to isolate the metropolitan central area from the rest of Dublin city. It must be remembered that a city is a living thing; all the problems which have been identified and which were cited as the justification for bringing forward this measure cannot be dealt with in isolation from the remainder of the city. Neither can a lasting solution be achieved by the mere cosmetic injection of amenity improvements. The fact of the matter is that a city will only live and thrive if the necessary ingredients are present. One of the most important of these is that the business climate must be right. All the fancy presentation in the world will simply not work if business people do not believe that adequate returns can be achieved on their investment. And without a thriving business community, an area such as Dublin city centre cannot survive and prosper. My colleagues on Dublin Corporation can vouch for the fact that in the current economic climate businessmen are not prepared to invest money in their property. As a result many properties have been deteriorating.
It would not require a degree in planning to realise that this approach of isolating the metropolitan central area from the rest of the city will cause difficulty. The only way of mitigating this difficulty would be to ensure maximum co-operation with statutory bodies and, in particular, the members and officials of Dublin Corporation. For a body such as the commission to stand any chance of achieving its objectives, within the limited life allotted to it, close co-operation with other bodies and, in particular, the corporation would be essential. This is true even now while the commission's main task is to prepare improvement schemes for the area, but when the full range of traffic, roads, litter and refuse functions become the responsibility of the commission with effect from 1 June next, it will simply not be possible for the legislation to operate without the co-operation of Dublin Corporation. With the best will in the world, it seems to me that a body of seven individuals——
Including the city manager.
——many of whom are inexperienced in the practical administration of important and extensive public functions of this kind, could not be expected to perform the necessary duties adequately from 1 June without elaborate back-up and assistance from Dublin Corporation. The only ways in which the commission could discharge these functions from 1 June would be either a transfer of all necessary staff, premises, machinery, and so on, from Dublin Corporation, or alternatively, to convince Dublin Corporation to continue to carry out the functions, but on an agency basis. Realistically, I have to say that I am apprehensive about the continued smooth operation and discharge of these essential functions. In this connection I understand that the members of Dublin Corporation have shown some reluctance to nominate two of their number to be members of an advisory committee with a total of 20 members whose role will be to advise the commission generally in the performance of its functions.
Deputy MacDowell made an interesting and worthwhile contribution to the debate here last night. At this point I would like to extend my congratulations to the Deputy on his maiden speech in the House. The points he made were rather different to those of Deputy Boland in that he is opposed to the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission Act because the powers given to the commission are in his view inadequate in extent and duration. I have to say here that I detect an even more antidemocratic bias than I would have expected. The Deputy spoke at length about what he termed positive planning, the problem of dereliction and the powers, especially compulsory purchase powers, which he feels a body such as the commission should have for a very lengthy period, if not forever. In a nutshell, he seems to favour the abolition of Dublin Corporation at least in so far as the metropolitan central area is concerned and to put in place instead what would amount to a development corporation appointed solely by the Minister. Since he also suggested that something could be done to reduce the level of compensation payable under the planning Acts I am not at all sure that his proposals would receive an enthusiastic response from the business community. In any event I feel that many of the points raised by the Deputy are broader in scope than the terms of the motion before us.
Many other important points were made last year during the debate on the Bill which I could delve into again here tonight. However, for the purposes of the motion before the House the facts speak for themselves. The Act has been brought into operation. The commission are up and running and we must reject any suggestions that the Act requires further implementation. However, we cannot divorce ourselves from reality. We all accept that improvements are needed in the appearance of the city but in the current very difficult economic circumstances and at a time when everybody accepts the need for stringency, it is absolutely essential that all programmes be looked at carefully. There are many pressing and deserving cases, but the Government are faced with an extremely difficult budgetary situation and need to examine all claims very critically so that the tough decisions which are needed can be taken in a calm atmosphere and in a way which will ensure that all activities of Government and all expenditures are directed towards the major priorities of restoring balance to the public finances and generating confidence and growth in the economy.
In conclusion, therefore, I urge the House to acknowledge the critical budgetary constraints facing the Government and to accept the motion as amended. I wish to point out that every penny the Government have to spend on the Department of the Environment will be examined very carefully——
And then refused.
I did not interrupt Deputy Quinn when he was speaking and he should know better than to interrupt me. We will examine every project carefully and we will not burn the midnight oil in sending out notices of approval overnight. We will be fair to every section of the community and we will not single out any county. We would love to have the resources to fund all projects submitted to the Department but there are only two ways in which that could be done, by cutting expenditure in another area and by taxation. The people rejected those options and we respect their wishes.
I am now calling Deputy G. Mitchell. Ordinarily he could speak until 8.15 p.m. but I understand that with typical generosity and consideration he will allow Deputy Liam Lawlor to speak for five or six minutes.
I congratulate you on your election as Leas-Cheann Comhairle and wish you well in your job. I also wish to congratulate the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Flynn, and his Minister of State, Deputy Connolly, on their appointment. However, I very much regret that neither Deputy is from the metropolitan area. It does not take from their standing or experience in the House but I would be happier if the Department of the Environment had a direct input from a metropolitan Deputy.
The Minister for the Environment who introduced this Bill was a former chairman of the Dublin County Council, a former Lord Mayor of Dublin and chairman of Dublin City Council who had very good experience of the pressures and needs of the capital. The Metropolitan Streets Commission is not unique.
There was a Wide Streets Commission in the 18th and 19th centuries who were responsible for the design and layout of O'Connell Street which at one time was in the Guinness Book of Records described as one of the widest streets in the world and the widest in Europe at the time.
The work of the commission should be proceeded with because Dublin is a beautiful, well appointed city near the mountains and sea. However, the city centre has become a honky-tonk and it is a severe criticism against An Bord Pleanála that they have allowed it to be overrun by plastic fronted burger joints. Permission for these places was turned down by the city manager on the advice of Dublin City Council but that decision was overturned on appeal to An Bord Pleanála.
An Bord Pleanála should certainly be independent but we should not create organs of the State which are not accountable for their decisions; the board should be asked to account for the number of burger joints and other undesirable establishments they have permitted in Dublin city. Where two-thirds of the members of the city council or local authority wish to overrule An Bord Pleanála, consideration should be given to allowing local authorities to have that power. If two-thirds of a local authority require An Bord Pleanála to explain their decision, that should be the case. Everybody seems to feel that the only people who can be got at are politicians, especially Ministers. If a Minister or parliamentary secretary had given some of the permissions which have been approved in the major street of the capital city there would be an outcry, with all sorts of implications attached to them. I am not alleging any impropriety on the part of An Bord Pleanála but there has certainly been a lack of judgment which should be cause for a review of the legislation. There should be a procedure whereby An Bord Pleanála are held accountable for some of the decisions they made.
If you compare Dublin city with another Georgian city — Edinburgh — it is very disappointing to see what has happened in many of Dublin's main streets. Dublin was the second city of the Empire, Edinburgh was the third, and in the 19th century London, Dublin and Edinburgh were probably the great centres of trade. Those of us who visit Edinburgh for rugby internationals or other reasons observe that the Georgian influence has been maintained to a greater extent than in Dublin. The local authority or central Government by the appointment of An Bord Pleanála have allowed developments to take place in our city centre, mainly in O'Connell Street, which would not be allowed in any other city of the standing of Dublin and certainly not in a Georgian city like Edinburgh.
One problem we have is that our city councillors do not take their macro duties seriously. Councillors are very good at getting things done in their own electoral areas, and I should point out that I am the only member of Dublin City Council present — sorry, I look at the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and say I am one of two members of Dublin City Council here present. Councillors on Dublin City Council do a good job for their electorate. However, at a level of planning the long term lay-out and design of the city, councillors have failed mainly because too much politics has been introduced at City Hall level and not just in the current situation where Fianna Fáil have a majority. For many years past people have been seeing the city council as a mini Dáil and an opportunity to debate all sorts of issues. Really the city council and their standing committees, who do an excellent job in other areas, should concern themselves more directly with the policy and planning of what should be going on in our capital not just now but for the future.
Many things need to be done and we miss many touches which other cities have. For instance, the introduction of searchlights to highlight the Ha'penny Bridge was a welcome development. However, we could have water cascades on the Liffey and the canals, and more could be done particularly in Georgian Dublin. We do not use our imagination as do people in other cities.
At some stage the role of the Metropolitan Streets Commission might be enlarged or, alternately, they might goad the city council into having a look at the whole question of dereliction between the canals. One of the problems is the many plans for roadways which the corporation have had for some considerable time. Why do the Minister and the Department come along and recommend that we put that matter into the hands of the Metropolitan Streets Commission? Why does the Minister recommend putting the examination of many such issues into their hands or into the hands of a transport authority? It is because the councillors who are elected to make policy have not got the guts to implement that policy. I am one of them. I am not leaving anybody out or casting my net of criticism just on others. When we tried to introduce some sort of roadway to Clanbrassil Street there was a big problem. That proposal could be amended to meet local issues, but there was a hue and cry——
Because you were destroying half the city.
——which had to involve the Taoiseach of the day and the Leader of the Opposition of the day. The Deputy who has just made his maiden speech will know that he should not interrupt others particularly when he does not know what he is talking about. The city council simply could not get their act together and sit down and decide what they thought was best. Then we had the eastern bypass in Deputy's McDowell's constituency and at every step of the way, every single group, resident, individual and local organisation had to have a say. How are we to get things for the common good if every hundred yards we have to appease every single voter?
They all got grants during the election.
The Chair is asking Deputy Harney to keep quiet and not to interrupt.
I had nothing to do with promising anybody any grants during the election. The problem is that every hundred yards they are being pandered to by public representatives, be they councillors or TDs. Until we ourselves have the guts to set down the policy and hear the arguments for and against and, having heard the arguments for and against, make our minds up on what is the best policy rather than simply what policy suits the greatest number of voters, we will continue in situations where power is taken away from the representatives by ourselves under pressure and given to An Bord Pleanála, transport authorities, the Metropolitan Streets Commission and others. This is the difficulty we face. O'Connell Street was once frequented for window shopping on a Sunday night by engaged couples and all sorts of people who could go down O'Connell Street——
If the Deputy thinks that is what they were doing in the shop-ways he is wrong.
It was frequented on Sunday nights for window shopping by engaged couples and people who enjoyed walking through the city. Now the centre city is just a city of locked-up premises, or where they are not locked-up people stand in doorways carrying on precarious sort of businesses while youngsters move in and out of chip shops and one-armed bandit joints.
Some of the proposals which have been put forward, particularly the proposal to have mobile police groups with a facility on the main island of O'Connell Street where callers could come in, could be considered. The street could be made again a street where people could be happy to walk instead of as happens at present where visitors to the city are warned by a certain hotel not to wander out after 9.30 p.m. The main street of our city could be a fine thoroughfare where people would feel safe as they walk along it. Included in the proposals is a suggestion to put Garda kiosks where people could go for advice or to report matters and where gardaí would be present so that people would feel safe. That idea should not be dismissed. It could be very useful and beneficial and could give people a certain sense of security in the centre city.
O'Connell Street in particular is without doubt an architectural blot in that it lacks a monument on the lines of Nelson's Pillar. If you compare older photographs of the street with more recent ones it is apparent that something is missing from the streetscape. I hope the proposal to go ahead with some sort of monument on that site is pursued. That could be very beneficial.
How will we pay for all of these things? I think there will be a major influx of tourists into the city. The presence on the Metropolitan Streets Commission of people involved strongly in the tourism industry is an indication of the way they are thinking and of the sort of attractions that can be incorporated in the streets which would attract tourists. Revenue from such tourists would, in turn, make a major contribution towards the costs of such work.
Despite the presence in the House of a new party, the Progressive Democrats, I feel very strongly it is time we named more of our monuments after people who gave their lives to building up this city and this State. Would it be too much to consider naming the new construction the Cosgrave-de Valera Monument? Would that be too much to expect in our capital city? Such does not seem to be a problem in any other capital city in the world. Even in Paris where the people are notoriously republican, major buildings are named after even recent holders of political office. The two people I have named, now no longer with us, made a major contribution to the development of the State, and that should be borne in mind when we are thinking about the main street of our capital city.
I hope the Minister will find it possible to allow the Metropolitan Streets Commission to go ahead with their work. There is a huge job to be done. If we improve the environment in general in the main street of our city, we can help to clear out many of the shysters, drug pushers and others who hang about in doorways. The streets are not frequented by the sort of people who in times gone by frequented them. If the streets are made attractive again that practice will return. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will find it possible to allow the commission go ahead. I do not think that in essence it will cost as much money as the Minister might feel it will. I think that tourism will contribute to the cost. I hope the Minister will do everything in his power to ensure that the commission go about their work as a matter of urgency rather than putting in its way any obstacles.
I would like to thank Deputy Mitchell for giving me the opportunity to say a few words on the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission.
If I thought for one moment that the commission was going to achieve many of the very laudable aims to improve the visual quality of Dublin city I would embrace wholeheartedly their setting up but one has to question their potential and their capacity to achieve the aims that have been laid down. One has to question the role of the corporation, the dual role of the city manager who is also a member of the commission, the transferring of a principal officer from the parks department of Dublin County Council to the commission and not replacing him or making any funds available to carry on the excellent work that needs to be done in the county and the taking over of some of the functions of the Dublin Transport Authority before it even comes into operation. I ask the Minister to consider, now that the general guidelines of what is necessary to be achieved have been formulated, addressing the Dublin city council and outlining his priorities under the guidelines that everybody believes are necessary for the centre of Dublin. He should direct the corporation, in many cases by order under existing legislation, to proceed with what needs to be done. Unfortunately, I get the impression that we are setting up another layer of bureaucracy and another cost centre.
If the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission are to be responsible for such matters as refuse collection, road traffic signals, maintenance, repairs and technical functions, there will be an administrative arm to oversee that but I presume they will not have to acquire all the equipment and expertise that will entail, that they will parcel that work back to the corporation who supposedly have this responsibility at the moment and are capable of carrying out those functions. If it is really a question of pointing the finger at various inept planning decisions of the last 20 years one can endeavour to redress much of that without another great bureaucratic layer emerging in Dublin.
I know the problems of Dublin city council and of the county council, the dual managerial function and the great layers of overheads that exist there already. I am somewhat confused also about the capacity of this commission to function when the corporation are in the process of a review of their city development plan. Will there not be contradictions there and where will the commission interface with the city and county planner and his functions? The city council will make decisions and designate areas for certain zones and so on. We are having a great debate about putting more residential development into the centre of Dublin. While one arm of the system is doing that we are endeavouring to set up a commission that is to be abolished in three years' time. This commission would not seem to have the capacity to achieve the very laudable aims that have been laid down.
There is something very odd about the "funny" money that has been allocated in the form of £3.4 million as originally announced, without any budgetary considerations to its implementation and without telling us where this money will come from. Whatever percentage of it will go in administrative overheads will be a take-out of the moneys that could have been given to the corporation with a directive from the Minister to achieve what this commission are setting about achieving.
Deputy Ruairí Quinn spoke about Patrick Shaffrey, the planner, drawing up some excellent programmes of work to be done. There is no reason the corporation cannot embrace that report and implement its contents. The Minister should look at the position again and try to introduce many of the recommendations that are embodied in the proposals for the commission without setting up a commission which will supposedly self-destruct in three years' time.
First, I should like to congratulate the Minister on his appointment to a very good Department. I congratulate also his Minister of State and wish them both well. However, I would like to commiserate with the Minister of State in that in only his first days in office he is being spancelled. He is Minister of State with responsibility for work and renewal but the Government are going to strangle at birth this Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission. This is being done in a vindictive way just as our Bill was opposed in this House in a very vindictive way. We tried to get it through prior to the summer. We all realise how bad the situation is in Dublin city. The Opposition opposed it and we had to leave it until the autumn to pass the Bill.
The Minister of State asked what is the reason for putting down this motion. The answer to that is self-evident. We flushed the Government out. They have no intention of implementing this legislation. It is a fine piece of innovative legislation designed to bring some life back to our capital city but looking across the House one does not find much reason for hoping for innovation. There is no imagination there and very little else. One can well understand why Fianna Fáil oppose this legislation. Their attitude is regrettable because the legislation is in tandem with the Custom House Docks Authority and with the designated areas.
It does not. That is nonsense.
The Chair would ask the Minister not to encourage Deputy O'Brien to stray from the motion.
Minister, you are an expert on nonsense.
Deputy O'Brien should address the Chair.
I am glad he is being kept spancelled and quiet. I can well appreciate the Minister not understanding this legislation. He is probably not long enough in the Department or maybe he does not know our capital city well enough. There are proposals, as the Minister knows well, for a proposed trade centre and conference centre and for a major international hotel on the Custom House Docks site. To attract that kind of business to a city it is important that the rest of the city look well, something that we as citizens of the city and of the nation should be proud of. I invite the Minister, as I did myself one Saturday morning at eight o'clock, to walk from the top of Grafton Street through the town and to look at it when there is no traffic and very few people around.
Like the Deputy did last Friday morning.
The Minister would then realise the reason a commission is required. The corporation have been in control of these streets for a long number of years but there has been a gradual deterioration of our standards. When I was young O'Connell Street was a street that Dubliners and everybody else was proud of. It was the widest and the finest street in Europe and it had all the qualities we all liked but look at it now. Can anyone of us honestly say——
You cannot see it with litter.
That is precisely the point.
Clean it up.
It should be——
Deputy Andrews should allow Deputy O'Brien to continue.
I am glad Deputy Andrews has come in to support my motion.
The Chair will insist that the concluding remarks of Private Members' Time will not develop into a free-for-all. If that has been the habit in the unfortunate past, as far as I am concerned I am not going to let that happen from now on. Deputy O'Brien will make his case as best he can. The Members should take the points he makes and nobody should interrupt him. He is entitled in the 15 minutes to make what he regards as his best case. Deputy O'Brien without interruption.
I was helping him in that.
One has only to observe the condition of our streets and the way our city centre has deteriorated over the years. That happened when they were in the charge of the local authority. This Bill is not intended to remove the responsibility totally from the local authority. We realise that local authorities have a myriad of other jobs to do. From time to time we should look to commissions such as this to get work done and done quickly. In three years the city centre will be handed back in mint condition to the city authority, so the standards will be uplifted. I can see the Minister laughing. That augurs well for his attitude towards the inner city.
If the Deputy loved it so much, why did he not look after it in the last three years?
Dublin Corporation lost its way in developing this city. A planning authority over which members have no control——
The corporation could not find their way for the litter. This is all about litter.
Quite so.
It is the symbol of our national indiscipline.
Or the interruptions in the House.
Deputy Andrews has just arrived a few moments ago and he has made his presence felt. I ask him not to make it felt any more. Deputy O'Brien should proceed without interruption. He might not invite interruptions, either.
The city centre is being taken over only for the space of three years.
Without litter.
This is to get the work done. I weep at the concern on the far side of the House whose Members are saying that we are removing from the local authority their powers. In 1982 they were responsible for an Urban Renewal Bill which gave them the authority to set up a body and within that Bill to set up as many bodies as they wanted without reference back to the local authorities, or indeed to this House. When I was putting through the Urban Renewal Bill last year, Deputy Ray Burke wanted to introduce an amendment which would have allowed this to happen and I refused. If we want to set up a commission of any kind we should get the approval of this House. The Fianna Fáil Government in 1982 and while in Opposition last year proposed, at the signature of a Minister, that this be done. They now have the audacity to come in and lecture this side of the House as to what we are doing to this poor unfortunate local authority, depriving them of their powers and they themselves without reference back to this House were doing that. Let us cut out this type of sham. Let us be honest about it. The only reason they are opposing this legislation is that the Taoiseach and their leader did not himself bring it forward. That is the reason.
Shame.
That is why I spoke of vindictiveness. If the Taoiseach had brought it in, it would have been the best thing that ever happened for Mother Ireland. Because he did not do it, it is wrong. It is said to be ill-conceived and to be depriving the unfortunate local authority of their powers. The facts are at variance with that. The commission members are all eminent people. They are not political hacks; they are people who have made a contribution. The city manager is one of the members of this commission. He agreed to serve on it. There is no question of the local authority having no voice or say. They are part of the commission by way of their city and county manager.
I appeal to the Minister to make this money available. We are not, as is implied, looking for some sort of new contribution. Deputy Lawlor said it was funny money. That is a rather funny remark to make.
It is on occasion.
This is not a dialogue between yourself and Deputy Lawlor.
This money was included in the abridged Book of Estimates which was published on 20 January. An amount of £3.4 million was set out to allow this work to be done. Those Estimates were in line with the parameters of the budget. We are not asking the incoming Government to expend or find additional money outside the budget. Provision was made. I want to nail that lie down. Unlike when we were in Government, when week after week in Private Members' Time we were having demands made——
The Deputy knows that there is a certain sensitivity to the word "lie". He might make his case in a different way.
Did I say "lie"?
You said "lie".
The Deputy means it as in "lay". To lay down in litter.
I am assuming the Deputy is withdrawing the word "lie".
I am. They came in week after week with grandiose ideas and notions about expending further moneys. Now I notice the deathbed conversion and that they are trying to get the country's finances right. I am glad that the former Taoiseach and our new Leader have said that we on this side of the House will support the Government in this endeavour. I am glad that the Government are converted to some form of monetary stability. We are not asking for anything which was not in the current abridged Book of Estimates. We are not trying to find funny money.
The Opposition are fairly shaky.
I see the Taoiseach in the House here. He is a man who represents Dublin. I am not too sure where he was born, whether it was Castlebar, Derry or wherever.
The Deputy need be in no doubt about that.
He is a man who has a great interest in the city of Dublin. I appeal to him to look again at this matter with a view to restoring our capital city and giving it back heart so that its citizens and all the people can have a sense of pride in it.
The Minister, Deputy Connolly, talked about the business people. It is the business people who tend to keep our city alive. They have welcomed this commission and if it is not proceeded with, there will be no more disappointed people than they. They see this as their lifeline to expanding business, leading to a greater influx of people into the capital city, wanting to play a part in the real life there. What makes a city is the number of people that come to it. The general complaint is about shutters, about vandalism and all the problems that urban decay brings. People tend to go elsewhere. This commission will bring real life back into the central spine of our capital city, with the quays as a designated area, the Custom House Docks site a major international development. The Minister is well aware that plenty of interest is being shown in this site. We all welcome that interest but it does require that the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission would be favourably disposed to all of this. I appeal to the Government to make the necessary funding available to have this work continued. It is not a political issue. It is a development we believe will be good for the country as a whole, for our capital city, bringing business and a re-invigorated atmosphere to our capital city.
The question is: "That amendment No. 1 in the name of the Minister for the Environment be made".
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 90; Níl, 46.
Tá
- Abbott, Henry.
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Ray.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Colley, Anne.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Coughlan, Mary T.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, William Gerard.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Malley, Pat.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermott.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm Michael.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kennedy, Geraldine.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lynch, Michael.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCoy, John S.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDowell, Michael Alexander.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Mooney Mary.
- Morley. P.J.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Swift, Brian.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G.V.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Begley, Michael.
- Birmingham, George.
- Boland, John.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Donnellan, John.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Farrelly, John V.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan. P.J.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá Deputies V. Brady and Browne; Níl, Deputies O'Brien and Durkan.
Question declared carried.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.