This section deals with the definition of the Principal Act. I want to be clear that section 1 of my copy of the Bill corresponds with that of the Minister's. Sometimes the numbering gets lost between the publication of these documents and circulation stage. Am I correct in thinking that the Principal Act means the Urban Renewal Act, 1986?
Estimates, 1987. - Urban Renewal (Amendment) Bill, 1987: Committee and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That section I stand part of the Bill."
I cannot understand what the Deputy is about. That is what the Bill says.
Then I agree the section.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Here we have amendments in the names of Deputies Boland and Gay Mitchell. Amendment No. 1. I observe that amendment No. 3 is cognate. I suggest that we deal with amendments Nos. 1 and 3 together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 2, subsection (1) (a), line 14, to delete "centre" and substitute "southern boundary".
In the course of the Second Stage debate I indicated my intention to table an amendment to this effect. I believe that the southern boundary of the Custom House Docks Authority is a particularly important one, it being one of the few windows providing access and sight lines into the inner heart of the development area. One of the difficulties that will be encountered in the successful development of the centre is the fact that very many Dubliners and others have relatively little, or no knowledge whatever, of this area. It is a part of the city to which people do not go unless they have specific business to conduct in relation to the docks. Consequently, the western, south western and southern boundaries, the boundaries, relating to the river, are particularly important. They should be carefully and tastefully designed so as to attract attention and persuade the general public to come and use the Custom House Docks development area. It was the intention of the previous Government that, when the development had been completed, the area would form an integral and important part of the renaissance of the Dublin city centre. For that reason no opportunity should be lost to exploit the relatively few boundaries that abut onto areas used widely by the general public. The southern boundary, being the boundary of the river, offers a unique opportunity of spilling the development over onto the quays. In particular, because of the almost certain use of the inner dock for some marine development purposes it offers a unique opportunity to allow the marina or the usage of whatever sort is finally decided, to spill over into the river itself. It would thereby create a colourful picture attracting the attention of the general public to the development going on within the area.
In the planning of things possibly it would be a little restrictive at this stage to try to confine that spill-over into the river. I understand it is also the Minister's desire to allow the development spill over into just one half of the river. It would be a pity if, in the context of an overall development plan, the developers found they were restricted in extending the marina development into one half of the river only. The Minister suggested, when replying to Second Stage, that the reason for that was lest, at some time in the future, a similar development was attempted on the southern boundary and developers or owners of the land to the south of the river might want to have a corresponding development, as it were, in their section of the river.
There is some little confusion in that the Minister suggested that that might apply in relation to the Irish Life George's Quay development. My understanding is that that development is not exactly opposite the Custom House development, the frontage of which is comprised, to some extent at least, of City Quay church and the recently built Dublin Corporation housing. For that reason it is very unlikely if not impossible that, when the George's Quay development would go ahead, it could be related to that southern section of the river contiguous to the boundary which the Minister now wants to place on the extended area. It would be altogether cleaner if the entire width of the river was allowed into the order, regardless of whether ultimately it was felt necessary or beneficial for the development to include the entire width of the river.
These are non-controversial amendments. I hope the Minister will find it possible to accept them. I note that pedestrianisation is among the developments hoped for in that area and that that may include an overhang of the Liffey in some shape or form. However, in that case, access to and servicing of the area and its development as an environmental facility or amenity would be placed in jeopardy and considerable difficulty if the boundary was to extend simply to the centre of the river.
In considering the amendments the Minister might permit the maximum pedestrianisation of that area and how that might best be achieved. As in other cities, it may well be possible to have a pedestrian overhang of the Liffey. In any event the use of the River Liffey itself for leisure purposes should be envisaged. It would help if such aspiration could be brought within the provisions of the Bill.
I note from the Dublin draft development plan that the population of the inner city now stands at 82,000, approximately half of what it was in 1961, and that the area loses 3,000 people every year. Therefore, it is not merely a question of Dublin Corporation housing. It is a question of the need for mixed housing and private housing there. We need to ensure that there are other incentives to attract people into the area. Part of such incentives would be the enhancement of the area by allowing for an extension of the boundary in this way. It is fair to say that the city planners contend that imaginative incentives are needed now to encourage the private sector to become involved in building houses and flats in the area. The whole prospect of bringing pedestrians into the area and of providing leisure facilities there would be enhanced were the Minister to accept these technical amendments.
I note that trading operations or activities brought within the definition of "manufacture" for the purpose of the 10 per cent rate of corporation tax will not qualify under the provisions of the business expansion scheme in the case of the financial services centre to be located at the Custom House Docks site. There is an amendment in my name on Report Stage of the Finance Bill which will be discussed tomorrow but I urge the Minister for the Environment to consider the matter because it could easily be an amendment to this Bill. It is only included in the Finance Bill for technical purposes to keep all taxation measures together.
I ask the Minister to ask his colleague, the Minister for Finance, to include the financial services at the Custom House Docks site in the business expansion scheme for tax purposes, I do not think it would cost the State a lot of money but it would result in a greater investment in that area and we need all the incentives possible. I think the Minister will find that these two amendments enhance the Bill and would encourage the sort of incentive and investment and also the development which we all want to see.
I regret to say I do not find the implications of what is contained in section 2 or what is suggested by the amendment to be as non-controversial as the previous Deputy thought them to be. There is a very important principle to be discussed in the context of section 2 and that is the whole question of the erosion of democratic control in relation to a major portion of the city as now envisaged in the extended definition of the Custom House Docks site. I wonder if the Minister, when replying, would explain the need for the definition at the northern end and the southern end to have reference to the centre of the River Liffey. The proposed amendment suggests that the definition include the far side, the southern side, of the river. It is important that we appreciate why there is any need for the inclusion of the river in the proposed development of the land site. If one were to intrude onto the waters of the Liffey in the development of this site one should go the whole way to the far side and not leave the developers sitting halfway across. I cannot see how the proper development on land incorporating the river can be envisaged by leaving as the boundary the centre line of the river.
The concern is, and I address this to the Minister, that as opposed to the piecemeal development of the river as an amenity in the city, there is clearly a need for an overall plan for the river itself. It should be part of the brief of this Minister in Government to see that, in consultation with the local authority, Dublin Corporation, there is a proper plan implemented for that river. It would be very undesirable if, because of the hoped-for massive investment on the Custom House Docks site, we are left with a portion of the river front developed in the way Deputy Mitchell has suggested, perhaps with overhang walkways and the like on only one side alone or in only one portion alone as the amendment implies. I need your guidance, a Cheann Comhairle, as to whether we are now addressing merely the amendments or the section as a whole.
We should confine ourselves to the amendments at the moment. The section may be debated later if you so desire.
I ask the Minister, when replying, to explain the implications of including in part, or entirely if the amendment is accepted, piecemeal development of the river.
We support the concept of treating the river as a whole rather than drawing some kind of imaginary line down the centre of it. If it is ever envisaged, that the river should be included as part of any form of development, it is perfectly clear it would be more advantageous to give to the Minister the right to deal with it in its entirety rather than creating some kind of artificial line that might theoretically cause some obstruction or difficulty later. The point has been well made and, therefore, I do not intend to labour it. It seems to be perfectly reasonable that we should be able to treat the waterway and its potential development as one unit rather than some artificial creation based upon some outdated ward boundary lines or some other notion such as that. It is a reasonable suggestion and I commend it to the Minister.
I am pleased that Members recognise that the amendments are non-contentious and are purely a matter for discussion among ourselves to see if we can come to a consensus on the matter in that everybody is supportive of the legislation and of the thrust of the legislation. I am happy that all Members recognise the importance of the water in the overall plan. Perhaps Deputy McCartan does not quite see it that way but I will try to explain to him the reason I and the Authority feel this is necessary at this time. The other Deputies have recognised the importance of the water.
Deputy Boland is quite right when he says that it is to be expected — and it is very clearly outlined in the planning scheme as published — that the George's Dock and the inner dock will play a very big part in the design of the overall development. I hope they do because it is a significant and a unique feature attached to the whole area and one that has attracted very great notice by the designers and the people who have shown an interest in the site to date. I am quite positive the George's Dock and the inner dock will be part of the overall plan and will go a lot of the way towards what Deputy Mitchell sees as a great need in the area, to attract people in great numbers. That is what it is all about, creating jobs for people, developing the inner city and getting people back to live and to continue to inhabit that side of the city. The Deputy quite rightly said that the population of the inner city has dropped significantly over the years and this will go a long way to arrest that. That is the whole intention of the development apart from the economic benefits attached to it.
Deputy Boland seems to think there will most likely be a marina dimension attached to the overall design and so do I. I sincerely hope that when developers bring their overall package for development to be considered, the dock side and the water will form part and parcel of the overall design. The marina aspect has been a very significant part of similar type developments in other countries on both sides of the Atlantic. It was the real attraction to the developers in many instances. I would like to say to Deputy McCartan that is the fundamental reason the Authority wished to extend the development to the river at this time.
When developers come to prepare overall designs for an area such as the 27 acres on the docks site they have to be given a clear indication of exactly what the future holds for the overall area. If it did not include the proposed extension a lot of the development would be looking in towards George's Dock and the inner dock with no outward-looking vistas to the river. In other parts of the world where such development has been successfully carried out, and where there was an availability of water as an extension of a site, they always included the water. In fact, those designers, instead of having an inward looking design for the overall area, had a lot of the windows and vistas looking towards the water.
We have a unique opportunity of the inner dock, George's Dock and the Liffey — continuous running water — as the three elements making for the possibility of a great attraction. I understand, having discussed this with designers and architects who have shown an interest in it, that this is regarded as an absolute essential. They are pleased we took the initiative to get the extension.
Gandon, who designed the Custom House, had the most beautiful aspect of the building looking towards the river. The river was the focal point. We are trying to make the river the important feature of the whole area. One could go further up the quays, as far as the Four Courts, and one will see that that was what was intended hundreds of years ago. Something happened along the way and if we got back to that we would encourage people to return to use the river-side. The original planners many centuries ago were correct. There is a need to see the river as a central feature of that part of the city. That part of the river will be important for the city from now on.
Deputy Boland felt that if the new extended area crossed to the far side of the river it might help the marina development. I considered that suggestion carefully and discussed it with those involved but I must stand by my original proposal. It may be an old-fashioned principle to go to the middle of the road when carrying out road development or use the middle of a stream as a boundary even though it only amounts to a line drawn on a map, but that division is important today. I accept the view of Deputy Mitchell that the pedestrianisation of this and other areas of the city is important. Was he suggesting the provision of an over-hang that could go to the far side of the river?
No.
He may have been considering an over-hang over a part of the river and it is my view that that will be a feature of the development, that it will go from the existing dock site across the road and on to the marina. That should prove a major attraction and I am sure Deputy McCartan will agree that it will be a unique feature of the development. It will be an attraction towards the pedestrianisation of the area and should attract many visitors. If we were to go to the other side of the river the southern boundary would have to be extended to the wall of the river. I cannot see an advantage in extending the site to the other side of the river and then stop at the wall. What would be accomplished? It was for convenience that it was decided to go to the middle of the river. If in the future development is undertaken on the other side they will have the same facility to go to the middle of the river.
If we were to contemplate a pedestrian way from the proposed site over the river towards Westland Row it would be necessary to have a type of bridge. That would interfere with navigation on the river and it is not a runner at this time. All types of problems for navigation on the river would be created and it would involve the Port and Docks Board and others. I cannot see the rationale in going to the far side of the southern wall of the river unless we were to go further to the docks on that side. That would raise a lot of other issues and I do not think that extension is necessary. I put the point made by Deputy Boland to the authority and asked them if they felt it was necessary but they did not think so. They felt the extension was satisfactory and was the type of development that had been indicated to them by many of the developers who had viewed the site. I understand that some firms are working on designs for the area and all they required was an understanding that they could have in their design a view outward to the river.
Deputy McCartan has some difficulty with what he saw as the erosion of the democratic control over some parts of the inner city. I do not know what he intended by that statement but as far as we are concerned the development is being carried out in a democratic way. We are trying to develop and enhance the inner city in the best way we can. We are trying to entice as much investment as possible there to create a new image for the area and to bring back the population, as Deputy Mitchell suggested.
We will probe that further when we move to the next section.
That was the reason for the development in the first instance and the reason for the extension suggested in the amendment. If one extended the areas the full width of the river it could limit the possibility for redevelopment of property on the other side of the Liffey at some future date. City Quay or Sir John Rogerson's Quay would be squeezed a little by an extension beyond the middle of the river. There is no hard and fast rule about this boundary line but we decided on a line up the middle of the river to ease the legislation.
I have discussed this matter with those involved in the development and they do not think it necessary to go any further than we have suggested and, consequently, I recommend to Deputies Boland and Mitchell that they consider accepting my point of view.
In the planning scheme, on their 1.6 methodology the board make it clear that the authority would aspire in the medium term to the creation of a pedestrianised river front which it feels would consolidate the basis for an extended river front environment in Dublin's city centre. If they are to develop the pedestrianisation of the area and the river front in the centre it is obvious that the river, not half of the width of the river, plays an important and vital role in that regard. Surely it is not beyond the realms of innovation in Government Departments that the new Department of the Marine might have some use to put the width of the river to. That would give incentive to people not only to go to the area, which is important, but to work there, invest in it and live there. Could it be used for some form of sporting development which would have some element of private enterprise involved in which case the whole of the river could be used as an incentive? I think the Minister is making a mistake and that before Report Stage he should consider his attitude to this non-contentious proposal. If he sits back and looks at it carefully he will agree it is beneficial to this measure dealing with urban renewal.
With regard to the sections which we are proposing to amend, what are his plans and those of the Department and the Authority for the part of Sheriff Street adjacent to this site. Apparently the Minister wants to see this site developed at an early date. There are many corporation flats in the Sheriff Street area, some of them vacant. Proposals put forward here, in the planning scheme and by the tourist board would welcome more local authority and private development there. Can the Minister tell us if it is his plan to have that street demolished, and, if so, what consultation will there be with local people? This lack of knowledge is a disincentive to people who might want to develop the site. Many people are living in very poor conditions there. The Minister should tell us what is to be the future of those living in flats in Sheriff Street, what is to be the future use of that site, what are the precise plans, what type of consultation will there be with local people and what steps will be taken to ensure that the site will be made attractive for private dwellings.
If the Minister decides he cannot accept this amendment on Committee Stage, he should look at this proposal again in regard to the boundaries on the other side of the river and let us know on Report Stage. If we do not know then, we will have to press this later. We regard our proposal as a perfectly reasonable way to go about development there.
The more I heard the Minister and Deputy Mitchell pursue their points the more I came to the conclusion that the boundary mark should be at the northern side of the Liffey as opposed to the reverse. I want to be clear that I accept unreservedly that obviously the development of the water, and more particularly the integration of the water into the plan for development of the Custom House Docks, is crucial. One would have to be a fool to think otherwise considering the vast area of the inner portion that is covered by water, such as the inner dock and George's Docks. There is no need to hand over jurisdiction or ownership of any part of the river to the developers but that is what is envisaged in this part of the section.
If one looks at the Principal Act the definition of land includes any structure or any land covered with water. The proposal to have the boundary limit to include the centreline or the southern line suggested by the Fine Gael group envisages in time ownership to be handed over of portion or all of the section of the river to the developers. We can all appreciate the position of the Greater London Council in developing along the Thames. That seems to be the example we have most closely followed in our plans for this site. I would challenge the Minister to concede that no definition of the land in any part of the Thames scheme involved a definition of the centre line or indeed any portion of the river. I have visited many of the schemes along that river but none of them involved development of the inner docks. Such a development would offer no obstruction to a developer to encroach on the water, but when it came to the actual river line itself none of those developers was allowed to encroach onto the river, for the very good reason that the river is a vital lifeline of commerce to the city of London.
One has to concede that the Liffey does not enjoy the same great status at present in regard to commerce, though there is important commercial activity in the section of the river opposite the Custom House site. I would be concerned that if we were to pursue the definition of land as contained in the section or, more particularly, the boundary line as suggested by the Minister and Fine Gael, we would create major legal impediments for the future commercial development of the river, be it for the movement of stock or for leisure development. There does not appear to be a legislative basis in this Bill or in the Principal Act for the delimiting of responsibility for the corporation on the bankside or the Dublin Port and Docks Board when it applies to the water.
I come to the principle involved in this. If one were to begin the development of berths for private boating opposite the river site, who would have the responsibility? Who would be responsible for the maintenance of the berths and for the charge and regulation of any of the traffic on the river? I will come back to Deputy Mitchell's reference to the Sheriff Street site. This is extremely important because there is no reference at all to the eastern boundary. One wonders where it will end. When we get on to dry land we will have to discuss this and the delineation of responsibility between Dublin Corporation and the Authority for the proper development of the land included in the 27-acre site.
Coming back to the Thames, along that river the developers exploit the expanse of water. They look at and move towards the river but it does not involve ownership of any part of the river being handed over to the developers. The developers are not allowed to encroach onto the river but they can exploit the very logical advantages that can be gained from using the river as a reference point.
That is relevant to the Custom House Docks site and any other great development along the river here. Gandon exploited them in his time as land developers today will do, but Gandon never owned any portion of the river. The river then was a very important commercial mode of transport in the city and it was only sensible that those developers would look in that direction. The Minister should not suggest that anything I have said is an effort to thwart any of the good principles and ideas involved, but I am very concerned about the implications for the development of the river in the future and its legal status and ownership when one applies the definition in this section. That is one aspect.
We now come back to the other point I made. What is a river to look like if we have a very well developed over hanging, under hanging, or whatever kind of hanging walkway one wants to have at the river front servicing what seems to be a very grandiose plan for a very privileged section of the community? I am concerned about the overall effect of piecemeal development around the river front and I hope the Minister will see that what needs to be done is promotion through the local authority, Dublin Corporation, in conjunction with the Dublin Port and Docks Board, of a planned development of the river so that we will not have a piecemeal operation.
I can understand the reservations expressed by the Opposition about this legislation and this particular part of the Bill but as one who has a constituency on the other side of the river — unfortunately on the side that is not enjoying the proposed development——
We are trying to include the Deputy's area.
I heard every word of the debate so far and I will come to that point in a moment. I can understand that the Minister has difficulty in having parameters on the area which is about to be developed, but a degree of flexibility is needed. The Minister's hands cannot be tied because we cannot have a sharp line of definition as far as boundaries are concerned in an area where it might be needed to extend in varying directions. Those familiar with the development of the River Liffey — going back to the seventeenth century — will realise that areas have been reclaimed from time to time and that the wall of the river has been changed quite appreciably.
Rather than thinking in terms of another generation looking at the southern side of the river, I would like if the Minister could treat this area as urgent as the north side because there are vast areas lying waste, needing development.
On a section of the Finance Bill today I spoke about the need for a ministerial order to speed up the action and to make sure this development takes place very quickly because it will be a model for future development in Dublin. It is important that there is no delay with this development. That is why I believe it was necessary that the Minister should have the powers to take decisions and not be caught in the never ending bureaucratic tangles we find ourselves in, particularly with urban renewal.
If it were possible within the context of this Bill to extend the boundaries to the south side, I would ask the Minister to take this opportunity to do so. Perhaps it could be annexed in a codicil or phrased in such a way as to give the Minister the opportunity at some time in the future to extend the Custom House Docks site to the south side of the Liffey because there is a great need for development of that wasteland. This is needed as much as the development of the Custom House Docks site.
I welcome this part of the Bill because it is important that there be a degree of flexibility. I suppose there would be no question of difficulties for shipping as a result of the development of the Custom House Docks site. If anything, I believe it would enhance that part of the Liffey and would set a headline to other areas to speed up their developments.
When striking the boundaries I hope the Minister will treat this as an open space area which should be screened by archaeological excavation and development. I am not thinking of something which would delay development for a long period, but it is possible with modern techniques in archaeology to screen out an area very quickly and to satisfy informed people who are interested in it that the green light has been given to development and that future problems will not arise during the development by finding precious archaeological artefacts or buildings of any kind around that important, busy, trading and commercial area which Dublin has enjoyed for quite some time. That would satisfy many people who are concerned about archaeological finds.
I do not see much point in pursuing these amendments further. I can only reflect on how extraordinarily times have changed. The Minister for the Environment is apprehensive about taking unto himself powers which have been given to him by this House, that is, leave to extend the boundary of the Custom House Docks area by a marginal additional few yards in a southerly direction.
Without disclosing trade secrets, it was always traditional that the Department of Finance were cautious in defining the boundaries of any of these areas for special development purposes, for tax incentives or whatever, and the Department of the Environment were anxious to see the greatest amount of space which could realistically be included in any designated area, but the wheel has now turned full circle. The Minister for the Environment is not prepared to take on a small additional area which, it seems, the majority of the House is disposed to give him. Yet earlier today the Minister for Finance introduced a belated amendment to the Finance Bill giving himself the power to extend the Custom House Docks area by order, allowing for the rates incentives to be applied to the extended area. Because the tax incentives are defined in the 1986 Finance Act, they would not have been available in the extended area. Today the Minister for Finance brought in an amendment, the effect of which is that if the Minister for Finance chooses, after consultation with the Minister for the Environment, he may redefine the Custom House Docks area to include such area or areas described in the order which, but for the order, would not be included in that definition. That means that the Minister for Finance may, if he chooses for whatever extraordinary reason, to include Burtonport in the Custom House Docks area, he may do so.
In this Bill the boundaries of the possible extension are defined clearly, except as Deputy McCartan said for the eastern boundary for which there may be some merit, but the principle always was that the area would be extended to include areas which were contiguous to it. As I said, the wheel has turned full circle and the Department of Finance, which traditionally might have put the brake on these methods, seem to have released that brake in such a startling way that technically on foot of the amendment to the 1987 Finance Bill today the Minister for Finance will be allowed to designate any area, whether contiguous to the Custom House Development Authority area, as being part of that area. It is extraordinary that the Minister is so reluctant to accept the small suggested extension put forward in these two amendments. I do not see any point in wasting any more time of the House in view of the Ministers attitude.
Do I take it that Deputy Boland is not pressing the two amendments?
I do not see any point in pressing them but perhaps the Minister would explain the discrepancy to which I referred.
The Deputy's point should be raised during the debate on the Finance Bill. However, a few points deserve to be answered. I have an open mind on the question of the extension in the river. If the advice had been that it was the wise thing to do, that it was needed or that the Authority thought it was necessary there would have been no difficulty in conceding it. It was being done by consensus as far as I am concerned. The advice is that the Authority do not require it, the interested developers have not requested it or think that it is necessary and going as far as the southern boundary of the river would not enhance the development prospects of the site. The middle of the river, as the line defining the extension, would not hinder the pedestrianisation of the area or the development of the marine aspect in that it would be on the northern side of the quay anyway. It certainly would not hinder the possibility of leisure or sporting activities in the river to which Deputy McCartan referred. Obviously, we would not like to do anything which would impinge on the possibility of getting the best advantage from the development.
There was a question about the Sheriff Street area and how it might be developed. I am looking forward to giving a new lease of life to the area and, as I said on Second Stage, a working party of officials, including the corporation and the Authority, were established to decide the best way of dealing with the flat complex. The first meeting of that party took place yesterday and from my understanding of their brief they will consider all the proposals and options in so far as that area is concerned. They are considering it but nothing will happen in the immediate future for the simple reason that the extension eastwards of the site will not be undertaken until the first 27 acre site is developed and under way. That was put in to give developers the indication now that not just would it be extended to the middle of the river — and that will be made as soon as this Bill is passed in the other House and signed by the President——
If a person is interested in developing the site, would the plans have to be cleared at this stage?
The fact that it was to be incorporated in a future extension would need to be cleared, the Deputy is right——
We would want to know if the developer intended to include private development.
Even the existing planning scheme indicates that there will be decent housing accommodation in the area. It would not be wise to have a development which did not include residential accommodation because it would defeat the whole purpose of keeping the area live after 5 o'clock in the evening.
Will it be public or private housing?
I hope it will be mixed. That would be an essential part of the planning scheme because there is not much point in a nice new development which will be dead after 5 o'clock. We hope that as the area develops it will attract many visitors. It creates terrific opportunities for people living in Sheriff Street and I understand that they welcome it with open arms.
I should clear up the question Deputy McCartan raised about the ownership of the river because it seems to be causing a problem. Before I get to that, I should like to mention that the area consists of 27 acres, about seven will be included in the inner dock, there will be two and a half acres in St. George's Dock and about four and a half in the inner dock. We are talking about the development of 20 acres and seven acres of water. We hope that the extended area which will cross the road and go as far as the quay wall, will be approved by the House.
As far as the water area is concerned, the bed of the River Liffey is foreshore and, under the Constitution, is vested in the State. There will be little benefit attached to including it in the whole river area. However, a lease of the foreshore could be granted by the Minister for the Marine under the Foreshore Acts but the erection of any structure on the foreshore would require a licence from the Minister for the Marine under those Acts as "foreshore" includes tidal waters of any river estuary and that part of the Liffey would be regarded as tidal waters. Consequently, the Foreshore Acts would take precedence over anything that might be included in this legislation and would be subject to control. The Deputy seemed to be concerned that we might be handing it over to someone to do what they liked with it but that is not so. They would have to do it strictly in accordance with the planning scheme and whatever licensing would be required in so far as other, superior legislation would be involved.
Is the definition of land in the 1986 Act? Does it envisage what the Minister suggests?
We are talking about the Foreshore Acts in so far as they affect tidal waters of estuaries.
I am referring to the Bill as I do not have the Acts. Any structure or land covered with water——
I do not know the section to which the Deputy refers but we can be sure that the Foreshore Acts take precedence over any other legislation in that area in that they have a constitutional basis. For that reason, they cannot be breached by anything we might do here. The site would only be allowed to be developed under strict licence granted by the Minister for the Marine and, in normal circumstances, by licences granted under the Foreshore Acts. That is how any development built on the river bed in estuarial waters takes place. The Deputy need have no worry in that regard. I do not like the Deputy's reference to the development as a grandiose plan for privileged people. Deputy McCartan should not talk like that. We are hoping that it will be a super plan available for everybody.
Nothing is too good for the working classes.
Is that not one of the real reasons we should all be so happy that it is on the north side of the river and will provide facilities and attract people down there?
And jobs.
In a big way, I think. I was talking yesterday at a function — sorry for the chat——
The Chair must remind the House how much work remains to be done in the next hour.
I was talking yesterday to people who are involved in social work in that area. They conveyed to me that they were eagerly looking forward to the opportunities that this would bring, not just in the construction but in the possible jobs thereafter. It has really got a first class welcome. I take Deputy Brady's point very well about other areas that need to be developed on sides of the river. In due course, if this is the success we think it will be, obviously there will be other urban renewal amendment Bills.
I am hopeful once the eastwards direction comes to pass that we will have the extended developments. Happily I can report that there are interests showing up for the extended area before the original 27 acres are even under way. It is happy news all the way so far as this area is concerned. The need is, as Deputy Brady said, to speed up the whole process. That was the one reason I asked leave to introduce this amending legislation now before the House rises to accommodate the activity that will be going on in our city during the summer and the early autumn.
I suppose if the Leader can claim Castlebar, Castlebar can claim Dublin.
Despite what a lot of people think, the capital city belongs to us all. I take Deputy Brady's point about the screening for possible archaeological findings or artefacts which might be involved in that area. I shall bring that to the attention of the authority and if there is anything to be done in that regard it certainly will be accommodated.
The Minister can be very entertaining but he is not always strictly factual.
I am very factual.
I appreciate the Minister's and Deputy McCartan's concern about Gandon orienting the major vista of his building on to the river. What other way would one build a Custom House except to have the major vista face on to the river? Bearing in mind the minute attention that Gandon gave to that southern aspect of the Custom House one would be perplexed to know, as it often perplexed me, what was the particular architectural concept that the Board of Works architect had in the hoarding or scaffolding which he has designed on that vista and which has hung out of it now for three years and seems designed to be there for another 30 years.
No, it will not be there for another 30 years, I grant the Deputy that.
It would indeed help the general ambience of the area if the Minister could succeed in removing it from that side of the Custom House as I similarly got removed other pieces.
Thank you.
Anything we can do to help the Minister in that regard will certainly be done.
First, Deputy Boland and I had our office on the wrong side of Gandon's Custom House.
This is developing into reminiscences.
Secondly, the hoarding on the southern side should be removed at the earliest possible opportunity. The Deputy will be delighted to know that it was one of the first things that occurred to me on going down there and I have given suitable instructions for that to be removed at the very first available opportunity. The Custom House was built for a purpose with the river as its major frontage as to vista and it should be entered from that side. If this Custom House development area is properly done, the movement of the pedestrians will come down along the river, past the southern aspect of the building——
Around by the hoarding.
——and into the new dock area development. Then the town will begin to return to what it was formerly.
Despite the Minister's assurances there is evidence that the hoarding will succeed both of us.
The Chair must point out that these delightful asides are not relevant to amendments Nos. 1 or 3. The Chair has permission now to move on to amendment No. 2. There will be an opportunity later on, Deputy McCartan, to make comments on the section before we move from it.
I understood that we had abandoned amendments Nos. 1 and 3 and I thought for that purpose that we would be moving away from section 2 entirely.
We will still have amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 5 on the same section.
Then we will discuss the section after the amendment. That is the way it is done.
Some of the contributions had drifted far away from the amendments.
You made a contribution in that regard yourself, Deputy.
I am surprised to hear you say that, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle because you were not here when I made the contributions.
I was, Deputy and I was quite tolerant of your movement away.
You were chatting with the Ceann Comhaire.
I was here, yes, and I had my ear to the Deputy. You can be quite sure that I was tolerant, as I had been with others.
I was addressing myself at all stages to the two amendments, the question of the definition of the boundary of these sites, and I do take exception to the suggestion that I was talking off the point.
The Deputy is entitled to take exception.
I hope, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle that my remarks drifted no further than the possible inclusion of the southern section of the river.
Definitely not.
There was some clarification needed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 2, subsection (1) (a), line 15, to delete "or" and substitute "and, subsequently, in addition,".
This amendment is included for two purposes. The Minister indicated clearly to the House that it was his intention immediately to extend the boundary to take in the northern half of the river on the southern boundary of the development area and that subsequently at a later stage it would be his intention to include some of the sections to the east of the existing area. It seems that the section would better have been worded in the way in which the amendment suggests. It also seems that, from the point of view of drafting, the section as drafted appears to offer the Minister a choice either to extend the boundary in a southerly direction to take in the River Liffey south of the existing development area or to extend the boundary eastwards to take in the area which the Minister hopes to include at a subsequent stage. If he wants to do the latter, he seems to be prevented from doing that if he has already included the former.
This amendment is both unnecessary and unacceptable. The section as it stands expresses the intention of the proposals adequately and correctly. There is no element of exclusiveness implied here by the use of the word "or" and the section can be used from time to time to extend the Custom House Docks area in either a southerly or easterly direction or both within the limits set out in the section, of course.
The proposed amendment by contrast would, I am advised, create a section which would be impossible to construe in any logical way. For that reason it would make the meaning less logical or less possible to understand and I am advised it would render the section useless for the purposes intended. I would ask the Deputy to appreciate that.
I do not agree with that and ask the Minister to remember his undertaking that he would extend the boundary into the river initially and afterwards in the manner suggested in paragraph (b).
Yes.
It seems that the wording of the section is defective in the way to which I adverted. It also seems, if a landowner in the area to be covered by paragraph (b) were particularly aggrieved and wanted to contest the extension by order under section 2 (1) (b) he might well resort to the device that I have taken the trouble to point out to the House. I would hope that is not the case because if that subsequently does form the basis of a court action the Minister and I and the House would remember this.
Fair comment. I appreciate that the Deputy has given his concern. I would ask him to accept that we took advice in the matter. The thrust of the section is best served by leaving it this way and I recommend that to the House.
With all due respect the House and all those present know that legal advice is not always watertight.
As you know I am constricted by the advice.
I want to make a point in that respect. Sometimes the inclusion or deletion of a comma can have a material alteration to particular things and legal advisers will recall that.
As so often happened in the past.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 2, subsection (2), line 20, after "this Act" to insert "or the Finance Act, 1986,".
This amendment arises because the Minister came marching into the House last week with this Bill to allow him the power to extend the Custom House Docks area inside certain defined limits as set out in section 2. Were he to do that it would mean that, for instance, the concessions in relation to rates remissions and the rest would apply in that area. However, the tax concessions which form an integral part of the initial proposals for the development of the 27 acres of the Custom House Docks area are all contained in the schedule and one of the sections of last year's Finance Act is a very clear and watertight definition of the boundaries of the area.
I pointed out last week that it was strange that there was no attempt being made in this year's Finance Bill to bring in a similar provision to match the Minister's intention here. As late as this morning there arose an amendment to the Finance Bill in the name of the Minister for Finance which amended an earlier attempt of his which inter alia allows the Minister for Finance to designate any area in the country as a designated area for development purposes. This power should be used with care because if the areas designated are extended to such an extent that the urban renewal drive is dissipated across too many areas the entire impetus will be lost. The Minister for Finance amended his own amendment which would amend in turn section 26 of the Finance Bill. He included in amendment No. 49 a paragraph which says:
the definition of the "Custom House Docks Area" contained in the said section 41 shall, with effect from the date of such order, include such area or areas described in the order which, but for the order, would not have been included in that definition,
The Minister for the Environment has taken unto himself the trouble to make it clear that any extension he might make by order would have to be, logically enough, into an area contiguous to the existing designated area of the Custom House Docks site and that any future extensions would have to be in a southerly direction into the river.
I presume the Minister for Finance brought in his amendment today on foot of my pointing out last week that the tax provision would not apply in that area. He has extraordinarily granted to himself the authority to designate any area in the country as being an extension of the Custom House Docks area. One can only assume that that was not intentional. In either event if the power that has been given to the Minister for Finance today was to be used it would make an entire farce of the Custom House Docks concept.
I am particularly worried about this because the Dáil previously agreed — and the Minister will recall this — to give special tax concessions over and above those in the other designated areas to the Custom House Docks area. It appears likely that pressure will develop on the Administration to extend that Custom House Docks designation into other areas to give those concessions. This is dangerous in so far as it is apparently the intention to allow financial service trading houses to set up in other parts of Dublin under licence so long as they give an indication that they intend to move to the Custom House Docks area when the development there is ready to take them. I fear that pressure now develop to extend the Custom House Docks area to include the location, perhaps temporarily, of those financial services offices prior to their moving to the Custom House Docks area. This in turn will remove from them the urgency to make the transition to the docks area. I would have thought that amendment No. 4 — which I introduced prior to the Minister for Finance introducing his amendment to the Finance Bill — was a neater way of achieving the same objective while ensuring that the two orders which might be made by the Ministers would end up with the same Custom House Docks area.
I appreciate that there is a logical enough desire on the part of the Department of Finance to want to have all financial provisions and taxation matters contained in the various Finance Acts and for this reason I will not press the amendment. However, I will press the Minister to endeavour to clarify with his colleagues what appears to be some confusion in drafting which gives to the Minister for Finance far greater latitude as to what might be designated as the Custom House Docks area than this Bill will give to the Minister for the Environment if it is accepted by the House.
Rates remission is covered by the Urban Renewal Act, 1986, but capital allowances for commercial developments, the double rent allowance, the section 23 relief and matters of that kind are contained in the Finance Bill. Amendment No. 4 is reasonable and logical. I would like to hear from the Minister as to whether he views the extension of the business expansion scheme, as proposed by me in the Finance Act, to include the financial services at the Custom House Docks site which otherwise qualifies for the 10 per cent corporation tax rate as something which would add to the incentive for development on that site. The technical amendment proposed here would allow for reference to that in a tidier way.
I would also like the Minister to inform the House when he is replying to the section what the present state of the development is in the designated areas. The amendment to the Finance Bill proposed by the Minister for his colleague the Minister for Finance this morning appears not to extend designated areas but to extend specifically the Custom House Docks site. I want to ask the Minister what has happened to the designated areas. What development has taken place and what plans have been made? What headway has been made by the local authorities in Dublin, Waterford, Limerick and elsewhere? Have they made any progress. If there has been development, what is it? Is the Minister satisfied that they are up and running and that the local authorities are genuine, sincere and committed to trying to remove urban blight by promoting the designated areas in the first instance. I ask the Minister to refer to this in his reply.
I will refer to the Deputy's last point first. The question of designated areas has been raised under the 1986 Act. They are the five borough councils. Designated areas in Dublin are slow to move. However, development is taking place in the other designated areas. There is some activity in Cork and Waterford. A major development is about to start in Limerick and there is also a project in Galway. I cannot give the Deputy the exact names of the projects. Following the Deputy's intervention on Second Stage I made some inquiries and found that development has taken place in the designated areas as outlined in the 1986 Act. It is not as good as one would have expected or hoped for and Dublin is the worst of the designated areas. Perhaps there are reasons for that, but it is understood that under the urban renewal legislation other areas may be designated. The reason is that there are other old towns which are in need of urban renewal. I will not go through the whole list of them now. Deputies would agree, however, that there is a need to rejuvenate the city centre. It was with that in mind, seeing that we were dealing with urban renewal, that we included the possibility of taking on board some other areas in need of renewal. Deputy Boland was right in that, following the discussions we had here last week, we found it necessary to provide financial incentives to the extended area as well as the the 27 acres.
I will send my consultancy bill and you can retain 35 per cent withholding tax out of it.
In fairness, I told the Deputy that I would think about it. In consultations, it was agreed that it had to be done. If we gave certain incentives to the 27 acres of dockside and we extended the area across the road as far as the river, we had to give the same incentive to the extension of the site. That is the reason it is in the Finance Bill. My thanks to the Deputy for bringing the matter to my attention.
The amendment seeks to amend the Finance Act, 1986, and it is not appropriate to the Bill for that reason. The Deputy understands that, and the matter has already been catered for in the Finance Bill. That is the reason for giving the right to the Minister for the Environment, in consultation with the Minister for Finance, to add other areas where decay is setting in in the older towns. The list has been drawn up and Kilkenny occurred to me as being a suitable town for consideration.
As the Minister does not have the precise state of development in the designated areas, would he be good enough to send it on to me in writing?
From my recollection there is a development going on in Cork, something is about to start in Waterford, Galway has something going on and Limerick has something going and something about to start. Dublin is the worst of the five boroughs.
Will the Minister let me have a note of it?
Yes.
There is an irony in that the Minister for Finance has gone overboard, if I may return to the aquatic analogies, in the amendment which he introduced this morning and has given himself greater authority in the extension of the designated Custom House Docks area for taxation purposes than the Minister for the Environment is being given by the House in this measure. Last week I pointed out that the Minister for Finance was lagging behind, but this week I must point out that the Minister has taken a quantum leap ahead in the manner in which he can now designate any part of the country to be part of the Custom House Docks area.
No, no.
The definition of the Custom House Docks area contained in section 41 of that Bill says that, with effect from the date of such order, that site shall include such area or areas described in the order which but for the order would not be included in that definition. That is a much wider enabling power which section 2 would give to the Minister for the Environment. I made a point last week and the Minister took it up. I am merely suggesting now that the Minister compare the Finance Bill as amended in the committee today with section 2 of this Bill. It will become apparent to the Minister that his colleague has made an almighty leap. I hope he has not left the ball swimming somewhere in the water of the Liffey, as a result.
I do not think so.
Staying with the aquatic terms, I hope that we will not bring back the turbulence we had in connection with the Finance Bill today. Could we take amendment No. 4?
May I make a comment?
I have the list for Deputy Mitchell now. I will send it on to him.
Deputy Liam Lawlor.
There is a genuine need to ensure that inner city areas throughout the country are adequately dealt with. However, in the early seventies we embarked on creating three new satellite towns around Dublin and up to today none of the town centres has commenced. The Minister could do well by recognising the need to ensure that an initial financial incentive could be made available to Tallaght, Clondalkin, Blanchardstown and Lucan. Construction work valued at about £100 million is ready to commence in those towns, funded by the private sector and not requiring Government finance. There is urgent need to commence on this work.
Great play can be made of cases deserving of renewal. A lot of inner city renewal has been achieved in Dublin under consecutive Governments, and that is to be applauded, but there is a very great need in the satellite towns to provide town centres. The 70,000 people in Tallaght out-populate many of the major towns in this country, yet they have no centre, either derelict or otherwise. All they have is an illegal itinerant settlement site of about 40 or 50 acres. The Minister should not neglect those new towns. Let us finish the job on which we embarked in 1972. Deputy Boland played a key role in the initial development of these towns in his capacity as chairman of Dublin County Council. The Minister and the Department should recognise the job creation potential in that area if some financial incentive was given to those satellite towns, starting with Tallaght which has a population in excess of 70,000 people. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
The Minister, following consultation with the Minister for Finance, can designate areas other than the borough councils that have already been designated, but I had not up until now really considered the type of towns to which the Deputy has referred. I take the Deputy's point about the satellite towns of cities. They can be just as much in need of a financial injection as the older towns that have fallen into decay. When it comes to considering naming towns that will be designated to get the incentives, and which will hopefully get the development, I will consider the Deputy's point. I am taken with the amount of development that is in the list of developments. Deputy Mitchell will be getting those lists in the post and he will get a good indication of what designation can mean to a town. I would be happy if I thought that the kind of development that is taking place in some of the designated areas to date could be expanded upon and applied to other towns. There would be a number of happy Deputies around. If Deputy Lawlor's Tallaght and other satellite towns around the capital city can be included, I will certainly give it consideration.
The designation is a very good idea but the real question is getting the local authorities on their bikes.
Afterwards it is a question of getting suitable investment in order to do the job. I have talked to some people about this, and one reason behind getting this urban renewal legislation applied to areas other than the existing designated ones was that it had been brought to my attention that there are developers available and willing to become involved in pretty big investment in many of these town centres if they got the right package of incentives, and perhaps now is the time to do it. Certainly, if it comes to reforming matters of that kind, the present Minister will not be found wanting.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 2, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) Where an order is proposed to be made under subsection (2) of this section, a draft of the proposed order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.".
The Minister's concluding remarks confirm the view that I have had for some time that there is no bigger admirer in this House of the Minister for the Environment than the Minister for the Environment.
So it should be. I am working on the Deputy, too.
So far with relatively little impact.
The sharpness of his tone does not make for easy living tonight.
The Minister has made it clear that his intention is to extend the designated areas, apparently perhaps quite substantially. I gather from his remarks in relation to Deputy Lawlor's suggestion that the new town developments in the conurbations were not foremost in his mind. I suspect that it was probably in relation to various parts of the country, more the county seats that he intends to start with.
Not my own, funnily enough, but some others, yes.
I want to counsel seriously, as I did earlier, that the great danger in designation is that if an over large area or over large number of areas are designated simultaneously the potential pool for investment and effort can be dissipated to such an extent that the concept of intensive urban renewal taking place in centres at the one time, so that one development provokes another and all come in, in an integrated way, can easily be lost. There is a fine balance to be achieved in the amount that might be designated at one time.
That being so, it is well to remember that the designated areas were established by order and outlined to the House clearly in relation to the tax incentives in the Finance Act, 1986. The Minister for Finance, in the amendment he moved to the Finance Bill today, is allowing himself power to designate in areas other than in five county boroughs which were defined in the Schedule to the Finance Act. But recognising that the House designated and participated in the designation of the areas previously, he introduced subsection (2), which would allow the House to annul any order made by him within 21 days thereafter. Within section 2 here it does not appear as if the Minister had that intention. It appeared that as the Custom House Docks area was defined by legislation in 1986, its extension by ministerial order should, as a continuation of that concept, be agreed specifically by the House through the process of applying an affirmative order, which is the purpose of this amendment.
I do not want anyone to think that it is our intention to designate a green field. The Finance Act sets out clearly that this is in regard to urban renewal. Any extension will be studied very carefully on the merits of that urban renewal to consider what it can do to build up that area. I have no doubt that this House would like to see areas which need attention in urban or inner city areas being developed, and lest anyone think that that attention would be light — if that is the word to use — that is not so. It will be looked at very carefully for its potential value for money, job potential and so on. I think that is the aim of everybody here in the House. I want to make that clear because some people might be of the opinion, rightly or wrongly, that we would be doing this in a green field. That is not so. The situation is set out in the Finance Bill in regard to urban renewal. The Government, the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Finance will study the matter very carefully to see that all the details will apply in regard to all of this. Any decisions we make will be considered very carefully. I assure everybody here that that will be so.
Since the legislation sets out very specifically the boundaries of the Custom House Docks site, will the Minister explain to the House what objection he has to getting the approval of the House for any such extension or for at least laying the order before the House for 21 days, so that if there is any objection to the extension of the site Deputies and Senators will have the opportunity to make their views known on this? The legislation is specific. It is something like a company being created by statute rather than under the Companies Act. The statute here specifies precisely what refers to the Custom House Docks site in the area of urban renewal. Will the Minister not agree it is appropriate that, since specific legislation is the origin of this power in this matter, specific legislation should continue to circumvent the Minister in so far as he cannot widely declare all sorts of areas designated areas? Is it not perfectly reasonable to continue with the original source and at least have the approval of the Houses of the Oireachtas for 21 days on matters where the Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas may wish to express views on such extensions?
I join with Deputies Boland and Mitchell in their concern in pursuing this amendment, which is a useful one. It deserves support in the context that one end or boundary of this site is not sought to be delineated. That is the eastern boundary. It is not just a question of green fields because the Minister of State, no matter how hard he looks at this area, will find no green fields there. However, it is an area of great concern in its implications for the local authority. The Minister made reference to the very encouraging interest that was being shown by developers, even at this stage, outside the 27 acres currently reserved. It is no secret that the current 27 acres, as they stand, given the area under water and the area consumed by the two stacks that must be retained, will not have the great potential that one believes is there for developers unless there is more to the east to be consumed in the overall development. There the whole existence of a huge area of local authority houses comes under threat. I am concerned, not just as a Deputy of the city but as a councillor in the city, about how those plans progress.
I do not want anyone to take what I am saying as a reservation. The Workers' Party welcome whole-heartedly the plans as envisaged, but we recognise that there are major implications for a number of authorities in the area. We recognise there are major implications for a number of authorities in the area concerned with the land and the water that must be considered, as must the whole question of housing, traffic and other issues. In that context it is important that this House be given an opportunity — if and when any Minister intends to extend the area — to consider that and make our views known. The amendment adequately meets that requirement. It should not present any difficulty for the Minister because all Members of this House have the best interests of that area and of the city generally at heart. I would ask the Minister to take the amendment on board.
This amendment appears to be unnecessary and would complicate matters. I would rely on the Minister's judgment in this respect.
If there are any implications for any authority, other than the Custom House Docks Authority, and perhaps they also, I am quite sure Deputy McCartan will find a suitable platform to voice whatever problems he envisages arising.
As a Deputy I think that platform is here.
The Deputy is getting a chance to do that here now, too. I would regard the amendment as imposing an unreasonable requirement in relation to the extension of the Custom House Docks area and runs counter to the general provisions of the section.
The primary purpose of the section, and indeed of the Bill, is to enable the Custom House Docks area to be extended by Ministerial order, as may be required from time to time, without the need to refer to Dáil Éireann. That is what it is all about. I might point out that an extension of the area requires the formal consent of the Minister for Finance and that extensions are confined within the parameters set out in the section. Those restrictions appear to me to be quite adequate for the purpose of the section. I suggest that a proposal to extend the area within the limits laid down should not require the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas, as would the amendment if taken on board.
I might also point out, by way of pertinent comparison, that an order designating an area for urban renewal under section 6 of the Principal Act does not require the advance approval of either House of the Oireachtas, nor is it capable of annulment by either House.
We will know who is in Opposition then.
Deputy Boland would know that. I am doing no different from what he would and did himself. I am just suggesting that the Bill is consistent with the Principal Act in this respect. For that reason I do not think the Deputy was unduly happy with the Principal Act in so far as that activity was concerned.
I am afraid the Minister is wrong in that the provisions of section 2 seek to give the Minister power to extend the Custom House Docks area by order. In the Schedule to the Principal Act the exact boundaries of the Custom House Docks area were defined and the Minister was not given power to extend the area by order. Consequently, the exact boundaries of the area were enacted by statute and discussed specifically in this and the other House before that legislation was passed. The Custom House Docks area was treated specifically and differently from other urban designated areas. It was for that reason and from the point of view of consistency I suggested that the House should affirm any extension of the area as defined in the Schedule to the Principal Act.
The difficulty the Minister has was not displayed earlier today by the Minister for Finance who placed on himself the restriction, if he extends an area into either a designated area or the Custom House Docks area, to table the relevant order before the House and to allow an annulling order to be tabled within 21 days.
I should have thought that would have given the Deputy sufficient comfort.
Having recorded for the third time the inconsistency between the two Ministers today, in the interests of allowing the discussion to continue, I would seek permission to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
I want to raise the failure of the section to cite a definition of eastern boundary. The Minister has partly indicated the thinking of his Department in not delineating that boundary for the moment, perhaps seeking to do so by order as matters progress. It is a cause of concern to know to what extent this development will eventually extend. It is a very welcome one within its present confines. Many of us would countenance a reasonable development to accommodate a plan that would be attractive to a major developer. I accept the view of some developers that the present 20 acre site potential is probably not fully realised.
Once one goes beyond the immediate area of the Custom House one is immediately encroaching on a very important area of local authority housing. While it may not be the most attractive at present, nonetheless it is very strategically positioned. It would be unfortunate if the type of scheme envisaged in the Custom House Docks area development was allowed to extend to the detriment of a major area of local authority housing at this point. Perhaps the Minister would give some indication of the long-term thinking in his Department in respect of this site, for example, where he and his planners envisage the development will ultimately end. Dublin Corporation and other local authorities working there are anxious to know that so that they can get on with the very important task of developing and refurbishing the existing local authority housing there. We do not want them abolished or people sent out of the area altogether. Certainly we do not want to see a second Ballymun somewhere on the outskirts of the city to accommodate the exodus that would be involved in the dispersal of a large segment of local authority dwellers. Dublin Corporation are at present actively consulting with people in the Sheriff Street area with regard to the refurbishing of the flats there, and other houses in the area, to accommodate them.
The other concern with regard to the provision of section 2 is the effect of the development on traffic in the area. It is clear from what is now envisaged that Sheriff Street will itself constitute the major access route for traffic to and from the East Wall area, along the North Wall, moving up onto Amiens Street. From what has been said here, it would appear that the river front will be pedestrianised. I am anxious to know the full implications of the road development implicit in the new definition and the powers now vested in the Minister under this section with a view to extending the whole area of the Custom House Docks development site.
I will revert to the point I raised earlier about the implications for the relevant local authorities and the encroachment on their responsibilities. I would like the Minister at some stage of the discussion, not necessarily tonight but at a further stage in the Bill, to advise the House on issues such as who will maintain the roads in this extended site, who will have responsibility for the normal statutory duties currently vested in the local authorities, such as pollution by air, water and sea, malicious injury, dangerous buildings supervision and so on? That is not clear from the discussion to date and I would welcome some comment from the Minister in that regard.
I would like the Minister to refer to the definition of the extension of the whole area as the eastern boundary is still undefined. Because of the large area of local authority housing in that area, has the Minister anything to say with regard to the future role envisaged for Dublin Corporation in the development of housing? Is it envisaged that there will be joint venture housing schemes incorporated into the extended plan, will Dublin Corporation be invited and allowed to develop exclusively, or is this matter to be moved entirely into the hands of the developer? These are some of the points I wish to make on the section. I do not expect the Minister, if he does not wish to, to take them up at present, but I would welcome some observation on them as the debate develops through this and the next Stages.
I would not like the Deputy to think that a problem will arise with the development in so far as controls are concerned. He can rest assured that the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act, 1977, and other Acts concerning pollution will be just as applicable to that site as they would be to any other part of the metropolitan area. If the Deputy wishes me to expand on that point later, perhaps in the Seanad, I would be delighted to do so. I take the Deputy's point and I am sure it will be cleared up to his satisfaction.
The traffic arrangements to the site will have to be included in the whole planning of the scheme. I accept the Deputy's bona fides in that matter. It is very important that this is included so that there is a proper traffic flow, organised in such a way as not to cause any congestion. That is also included in the overall planning scheme. I do not know whether the Deputy has a copy of the planning scheme but, if not, I would be delighted to make one available to him. It gives a good broad outline of how flexibility is built into the planning scheme and how it is intended in the long term to see that all the matters the Deputy referred to are catered for adequately and in the public interest.
I would like to finalise this discussion by saying that the extension of the site in the eastern direction will be dictated by the show of interest and the level of demand. The Deputy admitted earlier that, as seven of the 27 acres were under water, it would probably stay that way and that 20 acres was a small amount of ground anyway.
I said the two stacks.
The Deputy said that 20 acreas is a small amount of ground particularly when there was some reference to some of the stacks having to be protected, not necessarily all of them. Some of them have an archaeological value and it is intended to preserve what is right and good down there. For that reason, as the Deputy will agree, the extension would be needed, hopefully, at an early date. Much of the property east of the existing site, and down as far as Spencer Dock is in public ownership — for example, property owned by B & I and CIE. Some of it is also in private ownership. The Deputy quite rightly said that the extension will have to be made by way of consultation, particularly in so far as the flats complex is concerned. There are powers under the legislation for the rest of the ground which is in public ownership to be acquired by order with compensation being duly paid. There is also room for compulsory purchase acquisition for a ground that is not readily available in the normal way. I would hope that, if it is necessary to make modifications in the compulsory purchase order regulations, it would be done as expeditiously as possible.
We are all agreed there is a need to allow for the extension in a southerly direction immediately and later in an easterly direction when the need demands it. This legislation gives power to the Minister, with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance to do that. I think it augurs well for inner city Dublin and I hope we will have good tidings as to the ongoing developments between now and the end of the year.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are cognate and I suggest we take them together.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 2, line 24, to delete "seven" and substitute "five".
When replying to Second Stage the Minister indicated that there might be a lack of expertise in some area within the present composition of the board. This amendment would allow the Minister to extend the size of the board by one, which presumably ought to allow him to introduce the expertise which he seems to feel is not there. It would be useful if the Minister could indicate whether he is prepared to accept that amendment.
The short answer is "No"——
In that case I withdraw the amendment and will speak on the section.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
This is the section of the Bill to which we are totally opposed. The Authority was established with a small board with the task of playing a real role in the development of the site. Its membership was chosen carefully. The Minister paid me a compliment to which I was not entitled. When I joined the Department of the Environment the then Minister of State, now Fine Gael Party Whip, had handled this matter for some years and introduced the Principal Bill, which is now the Principal Act, and steered it through. Any credit which is to be given should in fairness be given to him. He outlined to the House his views as to why there should be a small board with a full time chairman. The board consists of people of great calibre and with enormous experience in property development and in the world of financing, two of the areas which the Minister felt were lacking within the existing board.
I am sorry to have to say it is most unusual that an incoming administration is seeking to vary the size of a board established by a previous administration, apparently for no other reason but to introduce on to that board a heavy political input in so far as they had not got within their remit at the time the authority to make any of those appointments. It is wrong and regrettable that this board is being unnecessarily increased in size. The board will be politicised as a result of this extension. There seems to be no other justifiable reason for tampering with the size of the board at this stage. We can only reluctantly conclude that this board is being unnecessarily extended to give to the present Government the right to appoint political cronies. The difficulty in relation to this is this. I outlined an amendment which would allow the Minister to increase the board by one if there was a particular field of expertise which was not on the board. The Minister refused to accept that amendment and he insists he wants to increase the size of the board by three. That does not seem to us to be correct or necessary. It seems to be only an attempt to give political advantage to one party.
The amendment sought to facilitate the Minister in so far as any professional expertise was missing from the board in the Minister's view. The people who are in charge of the operations at the Custom House Docks, the board and the executive, are a small tightly knit, able and professional group and it would be a shame and a sham if the Minister was to politicise that body by adding party political hacks in the way that An Bord Pleanála was brought into disrepute by the addition to the board of people who were appointed for political reasons.
I resent that.
The Minister will have to find some way of continuing to operate this Authority as the professional Authority it was set up to be. Urban renewal will go out the window if this is to be a further method of recognising service to political parties by the appointment to boards of party political hacks. It will represent a serious downgrading of the Authority.
We take serious exception to this section and we will be opposing it. We will not in any way facilitate the appointment of political persons to such boards. It is a professional board and I should like to ask the Minister to ensure that it continues along those lines. The board is being increased to seven members.
This is very unfair. The Deputy is introducing an element of dispute which has not been heard throughout the debate. I do not know why he is doing it now.
We are prepared to facilitate the appointment of one extra person on the board.
The attitude we will adopt to the question being put will indicate our opposition to section 3 rather than to the general principle of the Bill. It was because of the time limitation that we were unable to call a vote on that section.
There are good justifiable reasons for extending the numbers I suggested and the Deputy is aware of that. He should be generous enough to recognise that this is an enormous development requiring considerable expertise which cannot be given by part-timers to the satisfaction we require.
Will the Minister give an assurance we will not have the political appointments the Fine Gael Party are complaining about?
The House can rest assured that anybody appointed to a board while I am in charge of the Department of the Environment will be suitably qualified and will be able to give full value to the board on which they serve.
That was curiously and carefully worded.
As it is now 11 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with the Order of the House today. Urban Renewal (Amendment) Bill, 1987. The question is: "That the Bill is hereby agreed to in Committee and is reported to the House without amendment, Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 77; Níl, 40.
Tá
- Abbott, Henry.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Matthew.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Ray.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Colley, Anne.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- 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.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermott.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gibbons, Martin Patrick.
- Hilliard, Colm Michael.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Lynch, Michael.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDowell, Michael.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Mooney Mary.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, William Gerard.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G.V.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Birmingham, George.
- Boland, John.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Browne; Níl, Deputies O'Brien and Flanagan.
Question declared carried.