Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 16 Oct 1986

Vol. 114 No. 6

Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission (No. 2) Bill, 1986: Second Stage.

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

I have been concerned for a long time about the need to improve the centre of Dublin which has so much cultural, historical and architectural significance. Anybody who has the interests of Dublin at heart must surely feel sad at the manner in which the main thoroughfares of the capital have declined in recent years. Insensitive development, tasteless advertising signs, litter and excessive traffic have all contributed to a degradation of the environment of O'Connell Street and the surrounding streets. I believe it is time for all concerned to take a hard look at what has been happening to the centre of our capital city.

The area should be a showpiece of architectural sensitivity and environmental awareness but instead we have created a soulless environment which is neither attractive nor pleasant. The present condition of the city centre leads to a general attitude of carelessness and lack of concern on the part of developers, commercial interests and the public generally and consequently a fall off in business in the area. I believe that enlightened thinking and imaginative decision making are badly needed to revive the heart of the metropolis and to make the surroundings in Dublin city centre area more pleasant for visitors and tourists, as well as for Dubliners themselves.

The Bill now before this House was first published last June and received at that time a very favourable response from the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, the Dublin City Centre Business Association, Bord Fáilte, various other bodies and from ordinary Dubliners. I had hoped to have the legislation enacted before the summer recess and the commission established and in operation long before now but this target was frustrated and, as a result, valuable time has been lost.

The Bill provides for the establishment of a Dublin metropolitan streets commission for a three year period. The general duty of this commission will be to secure an improvement in environmental conditions, in the level of civic amenity and in the standard of civic design in the metropolitan central area. This area is defined in the First Schedule to the Bill as that part of the centre of Dublin running from O'Connell Street through West-moreland Street, D'Olier Street and College Green to Grafton Street. It is an area which provides prime shopping facilities but should also be a suitable place for Dubliners and visitors to congregate for the simple purpose of enjoyment, as they did in years gone by. Occasional efforts by Dublin Corporation and other organisations to provide concerts, street carnival or lunchtime recitals in the area show how people can be attracted to come to the centre of the city and use its facilities, but we need to do far more than this to revive the area. In particular, we must restore the physical fabric of the area to a condition that befits its status.

For many people, O'Connell Street is synonomous with Dublin but this fine thoroughfare has declined sadly over the years. Some of its famous old landmarks have disappeared and the frontages of many of the buildings are, I am afraid, living proof that planning control does not always work. We have failed to make the best use of the enormous 150 foot width of O'Connell Street where the central median or island has enormous potential. The importance of this median was emphasised in 1981 in a policy statement issued by my party on Dublin which proposed the development of a magnificent pedestrian mall in the centre of O'Connell Street, running from the Parnell monument to the O'Connell monument, and adequately protected from traffic. This mall would be tastefully landscaped and planted and contain shopping kiosks and open air cafe facilities. There would be carefully designed street furnishings and special decorative lighting to encourage the night time use and enjoyment of this new leisure mall in Dublin's city centre. In addition, a fountain or other special feature was proposed as a focal point. All of this can be achieved, and within a reasonable time-scale, under the special provisions of the present Bill.

The Government's decision to set up the Dublin metropolitan streets commission is a recognition of the fact that urgent action and a concentration of resources is needed if the revitalisation of the city centre area is to be successfully achieved. The commission are being established for a three year period with a mandate to secure an improvement in the general appearance and condition of the metropolitan central area. Their functions will relate to pedestrianisation, traffic and car parking arrangements, road repair, streetscapes, building facades, advertising signs, street cleansing, litter, amenity facilities and street furniture generally. In effect, the commission will assume the litter prevention and road cleansing and repair functions of Dublin Corporation and the traffic management functions of the Dublin Transport Authority for the area.

The commission will have power to require property owners to remove or alter any structure, or any structure of a particular class, and to provide suitable replacements, if appropriate. They will also have power to require property owners, where this is in the interests of the amenity and general improvement of the area, to discontinue any use of and to remove, alter, repair or tidy any advertisement or advertisement structure. These powers will enable the commission, having assessed the quality of the architectural fabric in the area, to deal with buildings whose facades produce functional and visual conflicts which impinge on the appearance of the area or to tackle uses which are inappropriate in the area. These are important powers and while I would not expect that the commission will need to make extensive use of them, changes in some structures and uses seem inevitable in order to upgrade the area generally. I hope that many such changes will come about through a process of discussion and negotiation and that property owners will come to accept that it will be of direct benefit to them to co-operate in early implementation of the commission's improvement scheme. Compensation will be payable, where necessary, for loss suffered as a result of the removal or alteration of an authorised structure or the discontinuance of an authorised use.

The commission will have a duty to prepare an improvement scheme for the area outlining the measures needed to renew and improve the area. This scheme will reinforce and complement the planning system. All development in the area, whether carried out by the commission or by other persons, will be exempted development for the purposes of the planning Acts where it is certified to be consistent with an improvement scheme prepared and approved under section 6. In addition, Dublin Corporation or An Bord Pleanála, in determining a planning application relating to development in the area, must have regard to the provisions of an improvement scheme and permission for a proposed development may not be granted without the consent of the commission, if it would materially contravene the provisions of that scheme. The consent of the commission may also be required before permission is granted for development which is of a class specified in regulations made.

The commission will have up to seven members. It will receive up to £10 million from State funds over the three years of its life. It will also receive a contribution in lieu of expenses which would normally have been incurred by the corporation in the area, for example on litter prevention or street cleansing. After three years, the commission will be dissolved and its functions will transfer back to Dublin Corporation and the Dublin Transport Authority. It is the intention, however, that the area should retain a special status and with that in mind the provision in section 2 (3) of the Bill will remain as a permanent feature of the law. Under this section, Dublin Corporation, in the discharge of its functions, must have regard to the special importance, in the national interest, of the metropolitan central area and to the need in that interest to ensure a high environmental standard and a high standard of civic amenity and civic design in the area. In this way, the work of the commission will be preserved.

I am satisfied that the Bill does not present any threat to local democracy and would like to take the opportunity to allay any fears concerning the role of Dublin Corporation. The corporation carries a heavy burden in generally administering local service in the county borough as a whole. I believe that, given the varied responsibilities of the corporation, a new body is needed to give a once-off boost to the area and provide the necessary concentration of resources. This part of the city is a national asset and deserves immediate and special attention if progress is to be made towards the desired regeneration. The corporation will have a major part to play in assisting the commission in the implementation of its functions and specific arrangements can be made for co-operation between the two bodies. There is no question of a permanent erosion of powers: after three years, the powers assigned from the corporation to the commission will be automatically transferred back to the corporation.

I am pleased that the proposal to establish the commission has been welcomed by business representatives in the area, by tourist and environmental groups and by the public at large. I hope — and indeed feel confident — that these groups, particularly the business community, will co-operate fully with the commission. Their response will be a crucial factor in securing the objectives of the improvement scheme for the area.

A detailed explanatory memorandum has already been circulated with the Bill and I do not therefore propose to deal at this stage with all of the individual sections. It is appropriate, however, to draw attention to the main operative provisions in sections 6 to 12.

Section 6 provides that the commission shall prepare an improvement scheme or schemes for the area. The scheme or schemes will be the blueprint for action in the area and will require the approval of the Minister. All development that is carried out in the area by the commission itself and all other development which is certified by the commission to be consistent with an improvement scheme prepared and approved under the section will be exempted development for the purposes of the planning Acts. Other development in the area requiring planning permission must not materially contravene the provisions of a scheme made and approved under the section unless the commission consents. The section also provides that the Minister may prescribe certain types of development for which permission may not be granted without the consent of the commission.

Section 7 provides for the transfer from Dublin Corporation to the commission of all functions in relation to the construction, maintenance and improvement of public roads in the metropolitan central area. This will, for example, enable the commission to introduce pedestrianised areas, with special paving or better quality footpaths if they consider these to be needed. Section 8 provides for the transfer of a variety of traffic management functions in the metropolitan central area from the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána and the Dublin Transport Authority to the commission.

Section 9 will confer on the commission the powers available to local authorities in relation to refuse collection and litter prevention and control. This is an important provision as it is imperative that whatever measures are needed should be taken to counter the litter problem and to provide a refuse collection and removal service more appropriate to conditions in the area.

Section 11 will enable the commission to serve a notice requiring the removal or alteration of a structure, the discontinuance of a use, or the removal, alteration, repair or tidying of an advertisement structure or advertisement where this is provided for in an improvement scheme which has been made and approved under section 6. In the event of failure on the part of the owner to comply with a notice under the section, the commission may enter on the land and carry out the specified works itself and, where the structure is unauthorised, recover the cost from the owners. Continuance of a use in contravention of a notice will be an offence, the penalty for which, on summary conviction, will be a fine not exceeding £1,000. The provisions contained in section 11 in relation to compensation are based entirely on corresponding provisions in the 1963 Planning Act and are the minimum necessary having regard to the constitutional provisions relating to private property. Compensation will only be payable where a person who is an owner or occupier of a structure in the metropolitan central area is served with a notice under section 11 and suffers damage by compliance with the notice. Compensation will only be payable in the case of authorised structures or uses. There will be no payments in respect of premises outside the area. I do not expect that there will be great need for the use of section 11 as I expect there will be a good deal of co-operation from owners in improving premises at their own expense. I do not therefore, envisage that a significant proportion of the commission's resources will be absorbed by compensation payments. However, as a safeguard against the likelihood of large compensation claims, I will be using my powers under sections 10 (8) and 12 of the Bill to give a directive to the commission on the need, in operating section 11, to consider the possible consequences of their actions and the limited resources available to them.

Section 12 provides for the making of grants of up to £10 million to the commission, to cover the costs of improvement works in the area. In addition, the commission will, under section 12 (3), receive an agreed contribution from Dublin Corporation in lieu of expenses that would otherwise have been incurred by them in the metropolitan central area. This would be in respect of, for example, litter control or refuse collection activities in the area which would be carried out by the commission instead of the corporation. There is provision for the determination by the Minister of the amount involved in the event of any disagreement.

This is an important Bill and one which I believe should be passed into law as soon as possible. There is an urgent need to enhance the quality of the centre of the capital city and I am convinced that the establishment of the Dublin metropolitan streets commission is the best way to achieve this.

First, let me say that I am very disappointed with the presentation of this Bill. Listening to the Minister listing out the number of agencies that commended the Bill on its announcement a year ago I immediately noticed the absence of Dublin County Council and Dublin Corporation. While the idea may be a good one, the fact that Dublin Corporation have no input into the structures of the decision making of this commission is counter-productive, it is undemocratic to exclude from any development programme the elected representatives of the people involved. Added to that the commission will be assuming a number of powers at present vested in Dublin Corporation. If they make a mess of this the Bill says that any liabilities, including financial liabilities and court cases, will have to be taken up by Dublin Corporation. This is despite the fact that the Corporation have no input or direct involvement in the formulation of policies or agreements that might have brought about financial overruns or legal court cases. A new Corporation were elected in June of last year with members fresh from the election having been given a mandate from the people of Dublin city. Now the Minister has decided to take that power away from the corporation. The Minister's predecessor produced a document entitled The Reform of Local Government which advocated more power from central to local government. I quote paragraph 1.5 of that document which said:

...devolutions of functions and decision-making in relation to public services from the centre to local authorities, either directly or through agency arrangements.

In Building on Reality under the heading of Local Government Reforms paragraph 3.98 this was said:

The growth of community organisations reflecting a demand for wider public involvement in local affairs, will also be taken into account in reform of the system elsewhere in the country, as will the consequences of increasing population for local services and representation. Steps will be taken, for example, to remedy the situation on which outmoded town boundaries mean that many voters have no say in the election of their own town councils. It is the intention that the role and influence of the elected councils should be enhanced as much as possible. Existing central controls over local councils and procedure constraints are being examined with the aim of increasing local discretion and initiative.

In the same document on page 77 at paragraph 3.105 this is said:

Local authorities are an integral part of the system of representative government. Through their works programmes and services and employment which they provide, they play a major part in the social and economic life of the State. The Government are determined that the local reforms to which they are committed will ensure that local authorities are enabled to fulfil that role to the best effect.

I believe the introduction of this Bill constitutes an act of arrogance without any consideration being given to elected members of Dublin Corporation and it will not succeed without their co-operation. The termination of this commission will leave the corporation with a legacy of problems, legal and otherwise, and of unfinished work. No amount of effort will complete any programme of any size in three years. A survey of the vast range of implications of this development would take a period of three years or more. Therefore, I cannot see any effort being made to have this programme completed in three years. I foresee a legacy of unfinished work being handed over to a corporation who are now unfit to carry out their duties in the eyes of the Minister and are not a suitable elected body to do so. Such can be achieved only with the goodwill of the people and the co-operation of the officials. There is no provision for consultation with the people. When improvement plans are being formulated which affect people's lives and have inbuilt orders which may change the character of businesses, from, say, that of a florist to a restaurant, surely the people involved in these businesses, who have built them up over a number of years should be consulted about such changes.

There is no procedure for consultation or appeal. For example, a property in the process of being built, renovated, purchased, rented or its usage changed could be deemed not suitable under a decision by the commission. Its owners, staff or others may be unsuitable for a different type of business. If the commission decide that the business is not suitable the property owners may be asked to change. Failure to do so will result in the applicant being brought before the court for non co-operation. The commission are then in a position to deem that development unauthorised and are usurping the authority of the Dublin Corporation and An Bord Pleanála with no consultation with property owners or elected members.

Current applications to the planning board are in a limbo. No decisions will be taken by the planning authority pending implementation of this legislation as they may form part of the commission's proposals. Here I might quote section 6 (6) (a) of the Bill which says:

In the determination of an application for permission under Part IV of the Act of 1963 relating to development in the Metropolitan Central Area...a decision to grant such a permission shall not be made, except with the consent of the Commission...

As regards the £10 million earmarked to fund this commission, there is no clear indication, as yet — or indeed in the Minister's speech — as to the ratio of payment between the corporation and the central Exchequer. If £10 million is to be the total payment, one might well ask: how much of this will have to be contributed by the corporation? Will they have to include it in their annual estimates? Furthermore, in the event of a disagreement between the manager and members of the corporation and the new commission vis-à-vis the amount the manager decides to build into his estimates in any given financial year, the Minister and only the Minister has power to decide what amount the corporation should pay in that year.

Most local authorities are now seeking to have statutory commitments honoured by the national Exchequer, as are the Office of Public Works, ACOT, health boards, courthouses and so on. The Minister is adding a further burden to Dublin Corporation and taking away their decision-making function for a period of three years. At estimates time the manager will provide a figure for the commission. If the commission decide it is not enough and if Dublin Corporation are in agreement, the matter lands back onto the Minister's lap. This is what I would describe as budgeting in a vacuum.

The ratepayers of Dublin Corporation have no watchdog over what moneys are spent under this heading "Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission". Will the works proposed be carried out by the corporation officials and administered by their staff? Does the Minister see any union problems regarding the same duties? There are no staffing implications for Departments of State, State bodies or local authorities. The memorandum states that the commission will rely on other statutory bodies and on the engagement of consultants. Would the Minister tell us to what agency does he intend to give this major development work? What statutory bodies has he in mind?

The Minister is using this scheme to bolster his own power and his own status. Even in relation to finances, the Minister can according to section 12 (4):

...give to the Commission a general directive in writing specifying the manner in which the Commission shall conduct its financial affairs...

What does this mean? Section 12 (4) (b) says:

The Commission shall, in performing its functions, comply with any directive given to it under this section.

Again the Minister is really developing a kind of dictatorship which takes no account of the feelings of the people on the ground or of their elected representatives in the corporation in its desire to centralise authority and decision-making at a time when we should be devolving power back to the people. There is no right of appeal by residents of the area to be developed. To whom do they go to make a case and get information? Discussion seems to be out, and also consultation. If a person goes to a member of Dublin Corporation the first question he will be asked is what area he lives in. If he lives in the scheduled area he will be told his area is now under the commission. The member will say he has no powers to help and that the person involved should go to the commission. As I said, the residents have no right of appeal. I see this commission sitting behind closed doors, making decisions, hoping someone will take action. If the work is to be carried out by the corporation and their officers and members are not aware of this involvement, this will add to the chaos. The inheritance of an unfinished product started by a commission appointed by the Minister with no mandate from the electorate will no doubt get a very cool reception from the elected members of the corporation.

There is a tailpiece in section 9 (2) which refers to the possibility of by-laws being made by the commission. What does this mean? Are the commission assuming the legislative power of the corporation? I believe they are for a three year period. Have the commission the power to make by-laws for a three year period? Do they then cease to be by-laws after the termination of the commission?

The changing of taxi ranks and bus stops, the transfer of signmaking and pedestrian crossings will no doubt confuse the whole city and also security. It is pointless having a plan like this in isolation. We cannot develop one area in Dublin in isolation. We cannot develop the Custom House in isolation from the inner city, or the inner city in isolation from Grafton Street or the O'Connell Street area. In my view they must all be part of an overall integrated plan which will concern itself with the real development of Dublin. We cannot isolate one area as if it was an island or disconnect it from the other areas around it and the areas which also serve it.

Now I come to what is, in my view, the real weakness in this Bill. In section 3 the Minister has the sole right to appoint a chairman and six members. In the 1985 June election Dublin Corporation were elected and, as expected, my party did extremely well. Now Deputy Aherne is Lord Mayor and we have the controlling power. If the reverse were the case would we have a commission as suggested here today? I doubt it very much.

Yes, we would.

To take away power for a three year period with almost one-and-a-half years of the life of that corporation gone leaves that corporation with no power until the next election. It was unfair for the Minister to deny elected status to members of Fine Gael, Labour, The Workers' Party and the Independents. This is an insult to democracy and it is the first time it has been done in this country.

Will the Minister tell the House what qualifications the chairman and the six members will have, other than the fact that they support Fine Gael? Will they be businessmen, shop owners, consultants, architects, planners, contractors, civil servants, politicians? What type of people will be on the committee? Will there be any females? We have a right to know the constitution of this commission. Will the board consist of residents within the scheduled area to be developed? Will there be any finances for this commission? Is it pure window dressing? I do hope the Minister will be back to clarify some of these questions.

As I said at the outset, I believe we should have a detailed survey of this area. If the Minister appointed a study group to examine this commission in depth, set out their terms of reference and asked them to come back with a plan, I would agree wholeheartedly with that action. However, here you have a commission being set up to do a three-year job of development without the members of the commission being known yet or they themselves alerted. Will they be employed on a full-time or part-time basis?

The wrong attitude has been taken in the way this whole matter was approached. A study group should have been set up and a strategy should have been prepared by the Minister with the help of a top consultant. After subsequent examination of the matter by the Minister he should then deal with the elected members of Dublin Corporation who have the right and the mandate from the people to develop their own area and provide services within that catchment area. The worst aspect of the Bill is that it is denying them any right, consultation or any powers for a three-year period and is then asking them to take over whatever decisions the seven man commission have taken and whatever unfinished work they have in train. That is a very high-handed thing to do. The corporation do not know what moneys will be needed to service this commission. They are completely in the dark and will be in the dark until this commission gets off the ground.

The commission will not be a productive unit and the results of their work will not be seen on the ground. In the final analysis it will be up to the Dublin Corporation to carry out any positive structural development in this area. That is how it should be. I do not agree with any board being set up by the Minister to carry out the duties to develop Dublin city for which work local elected representatives got a mandate only a year ago. Under this Bill all their powers will be taken away and that is disgraceful.

Corporation members did not commend the Bill at the outset. How would any local council in rural Ireland like their duties to be taken away and a commission set up? The only right of the Minister responsible for local government to put in a commission to run a corporation is where a particular local authority fail to strike a rate and it is only in such a case that a Minister did this in the past. Never before have we had such suggestions for setting up a commission to take away the powers of the elected representatives and to change the whole face of Dublin city without even consultations with these representatives of the people. This is disgraceful and will not work. This proposal will be hijacked long before the commission get off the ground and the right of the members and the right of the people will be observed.

I am all for the development of Dublin city but the local representatives must have an input in that development. In the final analysis the city engineer, the manager and their officials are the people who will have to take up the tab for this. The only difference between setting up a review body and setting up this commission is that this gives them powers under by-laws which is not the line to take. They will have the right to enforce by-laws now and the right to refuse planning permission: indeed any application for planning permission may or may not be granted by them.

What about the technical people in the planning section of Dublin Corporation who are responsible for and who have a development plan for the city area? Will that plan be shelved for three years or will its implications be pursued? Will the commission take into consideration the city plan and go by its regulations? I should like the Minister to give us positive replies on that matter. I will speak further on this on Committee Stage. Many questions will have to be answered before I am satisfied and before this House is satisfied to hand over to a group of selected representatives on a commission the authority of Dublin Corporation for a three-year period. That is wrong. I regret the Minister has ignored the elected representatives in this regard. I hope that before the Bill is enacted some amendments will be made so that the elected representatives will have control and a say in the development of their own city.

My greatest regret in relation to the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission (No. 2) Bill, 1986, which was published four months ago is that that matter became such a political hot potato in late June and early July that steps were not taken to move towards enactment much earlier. We have lost four months since the Bill was published.

I was very interested in the contribution of Senator O'Toole. There are a few things that strike me immediately. In a sense I am more conversant with this part of the country, namely the centre of Dublin city, than probably any other Member of this House in that I am the only member of Dublin Corporation who is also a member of the Seanad. In reply to Senator O'Toole, I would like to say that we are not just dealing with the centre of Dublin city. We are dealing with the centre of the Dublin region, the capital street and the streets associated with O'Connell Street, the central part of the nation. There are over one million people living in the Dublin region out of a national population of three and a half million. It is a more of a national focal point than anywhere else.

It is not as if the Government were considering setting up commissions for every purpose in every part of the country as Senator O'Toole suggests, interfering with democracy in county boroughs and county councils. He may recall from the Dublin Central by-election, that if one were to round up all the people living in O'Connell Street, D'Olier Street, Westmoreland Street and Grafton Street they could quite happily be housed in half of the ante room of this Chamber. We do not have residents and community associations operating in the heart of the commercial centre of the city.

We have organisations such as the Dublin City Centre Business Association, Dublin Chamber of Commerce and others to look after the interests of the business community who in effect are the main bodies who concern themselves with this area. I do not say that with any relish because I would much prefer to see many more people living in the heart of the thriving retail centre of the city. The facts are, historically, that people have moved out of retail streets in cities and towns throughout the country. There are very few living in the retail centre of Dublin.

I was speaking a few minutes ago about the opposition to this Bill which arose shortly after it was published. I mentioned the fact that the Chamber of Commerce, Dublin City Centre Business Association and Bord Fáilte welcomed the Bill. An editorial which featured in The Irish Times on 18 June 1986 stated: “John Boland Gets it Right”. It goes on to say:

Every capital city has its own age of enlightenment. For London, it occurred in the late 17th century when Christopher Wren almost singlehandedly reconstructed the city after the Great Fire. In Paris, Baron Hausmann is chiefly remembered, even if there were military overtones to his creation of the grands boulevards. In Dublin, the zenith of town planning on a grand scale was reached, and never surpassed, during the all too brief reign of the Wide Street Commissioners in the late 18th century.

John Boland is a Minister who has attracted a great deal of criticism, most recently over his ill-advised decision to approve Dublin Corporation's plans to drive a dual carriageway plan through the Liberties. That decision has since been set aside — at the prompting of both the Taoiseach and the Leader of the Opposition — by the City Council, in what may yet prove the brightest ray of hope for Dublin in many years.

Now, just a week later, the Minister has come to the rescue of the city centre with his announcement that a Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission is to be set up to take charge of town planning in the city's most critical area — the spine running from Parnell Square on the north side to St. Stephen's Green on the south — with a brief to stop the rot and make Dublin once again a capital of which the country can be proud.

Mr. Boland is a Dubliner. So too is Mr. Fergus O'Brien, his Minister of State. Like the rest of us they remember what it was like in the good old days to take a stroll down O'Connell Street when the city's principal thoroughfare was full of life, with the Metropole on the one side and Clery's Ballroom on the other. The commission may not be able to restore these elements of a long-lost Dublin — or, Nelson Pillar, for so long the centrepiece of the street. But it may at least succeed in getting rid of so much of what has defaced it in recent years.

At the Dublin Crisis Conference in the Synod Hall last February, one of the conclusions was that the city is now poised at the most critical point in its history, the point at which it can either be saved or destroyed altogether. With the Government's package of tax incentives for inner city renewal and now this announcement of a commission to take charge of the city centre itself, there are real signs that the tide is turning in the right direction — at last.

A variety of bodies supported the introduction of this Bill, but one conspicuous body did not seem to welcome it as widely as others, one side of the house at City Hall represented by Senator Martin O'Toole's party. Their attitude to this Bill is incredible.

It is not entirely a surprise to me that they behaved in the way they did, delaying not alone the injection of £10 million into the heart of the centre of Dublin but in dealing with an area where there was a need to move in the direction of what this Bill contains by way of attempting to bring order to a situation that has become out of control over a long period. The party to which I refer are also familiar to the Leas-Chathaoirleach. They feel that since they did so well in the June local elections in 1975 they can virtually upstage everybody else and declare a unilateral declaration of independence. They regard the Government as an irrelevant body to the functioning of the State and consider that the old role of communication between Government and local authority should be abolished and that they should have full legislative powers in relation to what happens in the city. It is a little extension of their excitement with the numbers that were returned last year although I would not want Senator O'Toole to get that matter out of hand.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Not to mention what will happen over the next few weeks.

The majority is not quite as clear as it was. There will be interesting days ahead in that respect.

The Minister for the Environment wrote to Dublin Corporation some three of four months ago in relation to a revision of the housing programme. It is necessary for the city of Dublin to revise its housing programme. As my colleague Senator McMahon, who will be speaking in a few moments, knows, we have been housing in estates like Tallaght not just couples and single parent families but single people. The programme of the city in relation to public housing needs to be revised. We need to inject more money into inner city renewal and to get on with a much greater programme of sheltered housing for the elderly in areas where there is a necessity for us to face a change. That matter was the subject of correspondence with the Dublin City Council. It has taken three months for the corporation's housing committee to understand that not alone will they get money — they got a limited allocation this year so far — if they come up with the right schemes and revision of the programme but that the Minister is intent on seeing to it that moves in relation to the refurbishment of the housing stock will take place and that money will be available for that purpose.

Because they were so upset at a communication coming from the Minister for the Environment there was a delay of the order of three months, which, unfortunately, delayed the investment of money in useful housing renewal that could have been taking place and which I hope will be more a part of the housing programme in the foreseeable future.

I do not think the question of O'Connell Street and the central trading areas of the city can be all that much of a surprise to anybody who has seen them in recent times.

I should like to read a paragraph from Dublin a city in crisis published in 1975 by the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland, dealing with O'Connell Street. This is now 11 years ago. It states:

Another example is O'Connell Street where change of use and fabric has altered its character from a predominately residential street with small shops to a honky-tonk mix of large banks, department stores, seedy cafes and so on exhibiting a huge variety of scale and style. This is the main thoroughfare of our capital city. It has lost its character and style. The result is featureless. Insipid — even hideous.

Since that document was published gaming outfits have arrived and more and more gaudy fronts and unauthorised signs have been put up. This gives the impression, not just to the people of Ireland who come to the centre of the city, but also to those Dubliners who have a great pride in their city, that this is an area which has got out of control, which requires a new impetus and a new enlightened approach. I believe the enlightened approach is contained in this bill which will make a great difference to the future of the centre of the city. Opposition to this Bill emanates from no less a hot chair than that of Deputy Charles J. Haughey.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator should not mention TDs in this Chamber with regard to legislation.

We can talk about the Leader of the Opposition in the other House.

He is no longer a member of the corporation.

But he was for a short period. Senator O'Toole takes particular interest in environmental and urban matters and is Opposition spokesman in this House in this area. I do not know if he recalls — there were crazy days in 1981 and 1982 — that a previous Fianna Fáil Government published a Bill called the Urban Development Areas Bill in 1982. It was republished in 1986 when the Committee Stage of the Urban Renewal Bill was taken. That Bill attempted to set up a commission with a variety of functions. The variety of functions intended for the commission included: (a) power to acquire, hold and manage land for development either by itself or by others; (b) to prepare and secure the implementation of schemes for the development, redevelopment or renewal of land; (c) to carry out works of amenity development or environmental improvement works; (d) to assist by way of grants or loans persons or bodies concerned with the improvement of the area. We are talking about a Bill to set up a commission with an area larger in size than is intended by this Bill. In fact, the Opposition spokesman in the other House in the course of a debate not so long ago stressed that the Urban Renewal Bill should be amended in such a way as to give the Minister of the day the power to establish development authorities for any special urban area within the country where this spotlight treatment would be appropriate. He pointed out that the Urban Development Authority had very special planning powers, functions and controls which were not available to a local authority and because of that these powers should be used in very specific areas.

I do not know if it occurs to Senator O'Toole that there is a very large dichotomy between what he is saying today and what his party have been saying in relation to a larger slice of the city in this instance. Deputy Burke, the Opposition spokesman in the other House, advocated a larger area as well as stronger powers for the commission. Contained in his original Bill is the power to acquire, hold and manage land. Consequently, the effect of that commission would have been greater. He went on to say, as I said, that he foresaw these commissions being used within the country where this spotlight treatment would be appropriate. I do not know how Senator O'Toole this morning ignored the fact that not alone did his party in Government introduce a Bill but they republished it and sought to amend sections which came up no later than this year. There is a great necessity to deal with this area.

There are very important new powers given in this Bill. As those of us who are members of local authorities in different parts of the country are aware, there are great difficulties associated with handling development either by way of development which does not add to the character of a particular trading street such as a neon sign, a plastic shop fascia or a miserable allotment on a street that has been there for a long time and is not being attended to. There are difficulties with uses. This plan — and I say plan because the idea behind this Bill is to set up the commission which will produce a plan — will form the basis of a document which will be looked at by people intending to improve their property. There will be much more consultation on the plan than Senator O'Toole suggests.

However, if people do not intend to improve their property and if they bring down the whole visual appearance, appeal and design of an important trading street in the centre of the city or elsewhere, if commissions are thought fit for other purposes in the future, the commission will have powers under this Bill to compel property owners to remove or alter structures and remove advertising hoardings or neon signs. As the Minister said in his introductory speech, they will be strong powers which are not available in the ordinary way to a planning authority. In that way they will act very usefully. They will avail of the Bill to give the power that will be necessary to achieve results and give a whole new look to streets such as the ones we have been discussing here this morning.

Before I conclude I should like to refer to an aspect which I strongly believe should interest the Minister for the Environment in the foreseeable future. I do not suggest it is something he will need to look at in the immediate future in relation to the enactment of this legislation but to some extent it is part of the reason we are debating this legislation today. Dublin Corporation run some very fine services. I speak of the park development programme they run. The parks are a fabulous feature of the city's skyline. The extent of parklands now available to the citizens of this city is tremendous and is growing all the time.

Housing renewal in the centre of Dublin was a major achievement by Dublin Corporation in the past ten or 12 years. The extent to which housing renewal is taking place is very encouraging given the controlled budgetary situation. Whole areas have been given a new lease of life and people have been provided with the traditional house they want. It started off in the Coombe and has extended to Stoneybatter and Rings-end etc. That programme is a very costly one. One of my regrets is that it has not been followed up with sufficient investment by the private sector to try to do something about housing renewal or other forms of renewal which would complement what the State, through Dublin Corporation, have invested in these areas. Unfortunately, when we come to the maintenance of new housing and the appearance of this city, the old tag of "dirty Dublin" still lives on. It is regrettable that performance in this area has been less than adequate. I understand that we will see advances in the whole refurbishment programme of the housing stock. Hopefully, great progress will be made this year and I look forward to more progress in the foreseeable future. The Minister is encouraging the housing committee of the corporation to do more about housing renewal and improving the old housing stock and that is to be welcomed.

I have expressed my concern to the city manager, and colleagues, about the extent of demands that fall on the corporation responsible for as large a borough as Dublin, our capital city. The experience officials and members of Dublin Corporation will gain from the metropolitan streets commission will encourage them to look not just at the bureaucratic operation but also at ways of improving the style and effectiveness of the way we manage the city. I wish to make a point on the arrangement of functions by the assistant city managers in the city. The city manager is also the county manager and there are roughly six assistant managers who are responsible for a very wide range of functions. Some are responsible, for example, for the housing construction programme, the management of housing estates and other services such as parks, the encouragement of community development and so on. Others are responsible for engineering and planning services.

In a large urban environment like Dublin we need less specialisation by managers in dealing with housing, planning or engineering services and more of an attempt to make them responsible for a particular area of the city under the wings of the city manager. They should, with their team, be responsible for an area of the city which is of a size that will permit them to make an impact. At the moment managers are responsible for services from Balbriggan to Bray, including the estates in west county Dublin. Managers should be responsible for areas of a manageable size and asked to make an impact on them. Competition would then develop between the managers in the greater Dublin area. A move along those lines would help Senator O'Toole to understand the reasons for introducing the Bill. His party are on record as being interested in establishing commissions for special and necessary purposes. The move I have suggested would reduce the need to form commissions for special purposes in the future. If this does nothing else — I think it will do a great deal — at least it will enable the staff of the corporation, and the county council from county manager down, to try to find ways to improve the operation. I hope the suggestion I made in relation to the functions of assistant managers will be discussed by the Minister for the Environment and the city manager in the foreseeable future.

I intend to make a lengthier contribution on Committee Stage and my remarks now will be very general ones.

I note that it was intended to introduce the Bill in the other House earlier in the year but I am glad it has been introduced here. The Minister told us his target to introduce the Bill before the recess was lost and I would have liked him to develop that further because I am not aware of the reasons this arrangement was changed. I had not enough time to compare the changes in the two Bills and, therefore, I would like the Minister to develop that point further.

The Minister also stated that Fine Gael recognised this problem back in 1981 and, if that is so, why did it take so long to introduce the Bill, almost at the demise of the Government? That type of inconsistency reminds me of a situation in this House where the Labour Party have introduced a very important motion with regard to free access to the arts, in other words, that nobody because of financial reasons should be prevented from having training and education in the arts. However, the Government, of which the Labour Party are a part, have introduced charges into the treasury section of the National Museum. There is an inconsistency there. If something is seen as desirable I cannot understand why the Government cannot set out to achieve it.

The memorandum we received explains succinctly the purpose of the Bill and the reasoning behind it. The Bill provides for the establishment of the Dublin metropolitan streets commission and their general duty will be to secure an improvement in environmental conditions, in the level of civic amenity and in the standard of civic design in the metropolitan central area. Everybody will welcome a Bill with those objectives because the situation in our capital city is diabolical, deplorable and has got out of hand. I do not have to spend time giving details; they have been referred to already. Certainly, nobody could have pride in our capital city at present or for a long time past.

The commission will have a life of not more than three years and that may be unfortunate. To have left it open-ended would have been more desirable. While I hope the work of the commission will be completed within this timescale, nevertheless, experience shows that seldom, if ever, has a timescale been reached.

With regard to the amount of grants that may be paid, in terms of the work that has to be done £10 million may not be sufficient. That should be open-ended to some degree. I am not happy with the position in relation to staffing. It is most important that staff should be at some central location and to depend on other Government Departments is not good enough. Perhaps the Minister will look again at this area. When we dealt with the Urban Renewal Bill, 1986, I went into considerable detail regarding my views on design and development. At the time the Cathaoirleach felt that what I had to say was perhaps not altogether appropriate to Second Stage. Nevertheless, I think that in speaking on a Bill of this nature it is appropriate to deal with design in the abstract. My views are on the record of this House. They may not be views with which many people would concur but nevertheless I gave some of the broad parameters of my views and I am well capable of defending them.

The big question with regard to Dublin and to the country as a whole is, where did we go wrong? In the Minister's speech, with regard to planning in Dublin he stated:

Some of its famous old landmarks have disappeared and the frontages of many of the buildings are, I am afraid, living proof that planning control does not always work.

I would question that assumption. In broad terms design is really involved with the area of function and the aesthetic area. It is conceivable that on the functional side of a particular case the design and development may be acceptable but on the aesthetic side there may be a deficiency. This can be seen in a broader sense throughout the country with regard to housing where there is such criticism at present, and maybe rightly so. People may be living in a house which is functionally well designed but which for many reasons is not acceptable aesthetically. This should not be the case but perhaps it is better than an individual living in a house which aesthetically is acceptable but functionally, as regards size and planning, puts the people under considerable stress. We will have to marry those two situations and think of them as an entity.

The 1963 Planning Act is the most comprehensive statute that has been passed. The question that would spring to my mind with regard to this comprehensive legislation is, if it has failed would a shorter piece of legislation be better. That may be so. Perhaps the Act has not been implemented in many areas as it was intended and as it should be. I refer, for example, to the area of development plans prepared by local authorities. I have always felt that there is a weakness in this area. There is an obligation on local authorities and Dublin Corporation to prepare development plans at five-year intervals. The corporation and local authorities have no power to see that those development plans are implemented. Applications for planning permission made subsequently are compared to the development plan. If they seem to conform to the development plan they are presumably passed. This inherent weakness should be looked at again.

There is also provision in the Planning Act for research and education and for a contribution by local authorities. I wonder has this been done. If the 1963 Planning Act is examined to see what can be done, it would pre-empt having to introduce a Bill of this kind in the future. There are many areas that I could point to where amendments would be necessary. For example, local authorities do not have to apply for permission to build houses with the result that the first indication that people living in the areas have that local authority housing is being provided close to their dwellings is when the contractor arrives. There are many such areas. This should all be looked at. I disagree with the Minister that planning control is not sufficient and that it has failed. Planning control, if it is carried out in the proper manner, can ensure that a situation like this would never arise again.

I would like to refer to architects and architecture in Ireland. We have a great opportunity to see that the development is in accordance with the requirements of environmentalists. In Dublin Corporation an architect may not be appointed for long periods. In local authorities architects are not appointed. Since the foundation of the State architects were not availed of in the Land Commission. In many instances it was expensive for individuals to approach architects. The result is that mainstream domestic architecture has passed over the heads of the profession that should have shaped our rural environment. The same also applies to a large extent with regard to the urban environment. This should be looked into and redressed.

I will refer to the position in London as opposed to our capital city. Anybody who has walked through the streets of London, Shaftsbury Avenue, Oxford Street, the West End area or any part of London would be impressed by the architecture. Even the development seems to tone in with the environment. We hear talk about the city which many people would consider the cultural capital of the world. We can get experience from that. I do not think it is wrong to avail of that experience. In regard to the infilled housing in Dublin we have taken a headline from London. Some of the schemes are direct copies. While I accept that in the past when we used the position in the UK as a headline we had serious problems, in this area I think this headline could and should be used. I regret that Dublin Corporation is being pushed aside regarding this development. I am not sure that Dublin Corporation can be blamed for the situation but a Bill could be introduced which would give power to the corporation to deal with it. That would be the proper way. On the last occasion we spoke on the Urban Renewal Bill, Senator McMahon regretted that in that area the input from the corporation was reduced drastically, but that applies more so in this case which concerns the very centre of our capital city. It is deplorable that a means could not be found to give power and finance to Dublin Corporation to deal with it.

Where planning is concerned here there has not been sufficient consultation with the people. In sweden and other advanced countries, no matter what planning or development is intended, the local people are brought in at the initial stages. When the development plans are on the drawing board the people are given time to express their views. Those are the people who will be living there, and while the number of people who are living in the city centre area could be fitted into this Seanad ante-room, nevertheless, with a scheme of this kind which will bring life to the city I hope that people again will come to live there and that it will, as the Minister said in his introductory speech, be a place which will give pleasure to everybody.

With regard to consultation, my experience of housing schemes in many areas is that people whom one normally would not expect to make any meaningful input into these areas can come up with very helpful and original views. Indeed, in many instances in the past I have been saved by the individual worker with the spade and shovel who has a particular insight. In this Bill it is unfortunate that a greater role is not given to the individuals with regard to consultation. There was a time when the architecture of this city was regarded as a headline for the rest of the world. The flying buttress was part of that but in recent years the flying shore has taken over from the flying buttress.

The Minister's emphasis on authorised structures could be considered unfortunate, because some people may get the impression that it is easy to erect unauthorised buildings. That is not so. With all the bureaucracy and by-laws involved it is rather difficult to get planning permission and it is very difficult, particularly in the central part of our capital city, to construct unauthorised buildings. In any event, help should be given in every instance whether the buildings are authorised or not. I am not absolutely clear regarding the compensation that would be payable to owners or occupiers of premises where drastic changes are necessary, but I hope that in every instance the environment and the final outcome and ambience will be the determining factor rather than the cost.

Section 6 deals with the preparation of the improvements scheme, and the Minister told us that he will have final approval of the blueprint. I hope that this will be flexible. Nevertheless, it should also be comprehensive in the way that the development plan should be comprehensive. To the best of my knowledge in any of the development plans no consideration is given to elevations or the aesthetics of buildings. In all development plans, including this one, whoever is appointed to deal with the scheme should be experienced and capable of producing an acceptable scheme not only from the functional point of view with which plans have been concerned solely up to now but also with the aesthetic area. That is the reason that this Bill has been produced. We are dealing here simply with the environmental aspect and there will be no reference to the aesthetic area.

Section 9 deals with refuse collection. While the Minister has underlined the importance of refuse collection and providing a removal service, it would seem in a sense that this takes somewhat from the Bill, because the provision of a refuse collection is a very simple matter. I hope that the commission appointed under this Bill will spend more time on the consideration of the facades and the environmental than on such a matter as refuse collection.

The Minister will have power to give a directive to the commission. While I agree that this may be necessary, I hope that the Minister will not have to exercise that function.

There are some areas I hope to deal with in greater detail on Committee Stage. The metropolitan central area is set out in the First Schedule to the Bill. I would like to see that more flexible on an ongoing basis. I have already referred to the dissolution of the commission and I feel that three years is a very short time and that this should be more or less open-ended.

Finally, with everybody who is concerned about the deplorable state of this city, I welcome the Bill. It could have been drafted in a less ponderous way. It could be done through an arrangement with Dublin Corporation. To an extent it is belittling the corporation and pointing the finger at them. This is wrong; nevertheless particularly in relation to our capital city, I am hopeful that the Bill will be a total success.

In conclusion, there are other areas of the country, urban and rural, where some kind of drastic action is needed. Perhaps the Minister might consider bringing in legislation which would deal with all of those areas on an ongoing basis, and not await the outcome of this Bill. I hope the Bill will be a complete success.

While I support the idea behind the Bill, nevertheless, I would have considerable reservations about the spirit of the expression contained in it and also about the way in which it is intended to apply it. Therefore, I would have to start by endorsing something which Senator Fitzsimons has said, that in his opinion it has always been right and proper and most productive to involve the people who use the facilities, who work in the facilities and have an interest in them, to try to discover from them what they would envisage with regard to improvement of the matter in hand and also what they feel about the matter, what expertise they might bring to bear on it and what responsibility they would be prepared to take.

We have had a lot of plans enacted in Ireland. Many of them seem to have fallen by the wayside. Perhaps we should listen more acutely to what Senator Fitzsimons has said, and ask ourselves, if we have involved a sufficient number of people in discussion and exchange about what is being proposed so that we have their support, their enthusiasm, their ideas and are able to evolve something which is not only constructive but which will be enriching for the people of this generation and of the generations to come.

Do we have the structures in the polity of Ireland today to give the people access to decision making? Do we have the structures which allow them to have the self respect of being a fully participating citizen in the State to which they belong, in the province and in the county in which they live or in the city in which they work or live?

Undoubtedly this Bill is a start and it certainly highlights a need. I would have the reservations that have been expressed about the need to develop the idea of more organisation, more understanding of aesthetics, more understanding of basic needs of a citizen in a capital city by involving elected representatives. Nevertheless, I must ask — I remember asking at the time — what has happened to the Litter Bill. When the Litter Bill was debated here Senator Seamus Mallon and I felt we were straying a little from our brief in entering into discussion about the Litter Bill. But we did so deliberately, because we felt, and I should here speak for myself, that litter is symptomatic of lack of pride. One does not get pride back until you have participation, involvement, until one has the power to make that involvement effective and until one feels that one's participation is valued and is invited.

I would have to ask what has happened with regard to the Litter Bill in relation to the corporation and in relation to the Government and State? It is all very well passing high minded Bills here in the Oireachtas. But if those Bills are meaningless when it comes to their execution in the society of which we are part, and of which the majority of these two Houses represent, then it seems to have been a futile exercise. In debating the subject matter here, as in all other such matters, I would ask if we do not need to look at new ways of involving people at community level and where they work in making decisions which are attractive in relation to their lifestyle and to the general wellbeing of the environment and the organisation around them.

Senator Fitzsimons mentioned an important aspect of this, that so much of today's management is done by specialists in areas. We may have the person who is an expert in pipes from Wicklow to Dundalk, but he may have no real feeling for any specific locality between Wicklow and Dundalk. We may have somebody who is an expert in electricity and electrical communications in the same way. So it is that time and again we see the same hole being dug up and refilled, dug up and refilled, whereas if someone who had a feeling for the whole area, was in charge of the whole area, who is perhaps much less specialised and much more generalised, and had the management commitment to an area in the way in which it has been suggested — Senator Alexis FitzGerald also alluded to this — then we might begin to evolve a more organically healthy society.

Let us look at the area of Dublin concerned. Let us ask ourselves, who owns it and to whom should it belong. Let us also ask ourselves who else is interested in the health and wellbeing, the appearance and good running of this particular area. Straightaway, we have to be blatantly honest in saying that the interests of capital are paramount in the area of Dublin to which we allude — there is no gainsaying that. The school children who come from all over Ireland to visit their capital city have no say — they may write an essay when they return back to where they belong. The way in which they will relate to their capital city in the future is really of very little concern to those who presently own the buildings and are responsible for what goes on in this area.

Ecology groups, of which there are many in Ireland today, have not been involved. Then we hear about the depopulation of the city centre and how Senator Alexis FitzGerald deplored the lack of people living in the city centre and wished that that trend could be reversed. That trend may well be reversed if we start to grapple with the problem. But do not let us renege on our responsibility to involve the people by saying that because the people do not live there the only people to be considered are the owners of these buildings. Of course there are far more people. There are the people who work in them, the people who use them, the consumers who buy from them, the visitors who come to see what the centre of the capital city of Ireland is like. All of these people should be involved and their interests should be taken into account when we talk about the appearance and the good working of the centre of our capital city. I will return to how these interests might be better engaged in the dialogue which it is essential to inaugurate in order to raise the level of awareness, the calibre of the debate and in order to produce the really constructive dialogue needed for the future.

Before going further I would suggest that those who are interested, regardless of whether they be the appointed members of this commission, whether they be members of the Dublin Corporation or members of the Oireachtas, should consider taking a trip north of the Border that divides us and go to Belfast. Provided Belfast does not say "no" to the visit, they might consider a discussion with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and with the Belfast City Corporation to learn from the city of Belfast about the restructuring of the centre of that city in recent years albeit as a result of many unhappy incidents that took place earlier. There is no doubt that great strides have been made in the North of Ireland, particularly in many smaller towns where the centre was closed off for a number of years, where pedestrian precincts were developed and at long last when we started to engage the ordinary people of their towns in an appreciation of the floral decoration of gardens and the replanting of trees. It is a great tribute both to the planners and the people that when the environment was improved at the end of Oxford Street — just before one comes to the Albert Bridge, beside the central station—there was a row of trees planted there close to the markets of Belfast which over the years were the subject of much criticism and were part of a slum clearance area. Those trees are still standing many years on. As well as planning for a better environment there is a need to take aesthetics into account.

A point was made earlier by Senator O'Toole about taking away power from the representatives. I have already suggested that the representatives should examine how they applied that power in relation to the Litter Act, to cite just one example. We should all ask ourselves whether it is possible to clear Ireland of litter merely by enactments from on high rather than by involvement of or a liberation of the people, in a new participation at local community level which would give them pride in the community in which they live. That begs the question about the relevance of the over-centralised party political system to deal with matters of community importance. Do not let me diverge into that area. When we talk about the health of the inner city we are talking about a number of interrelated factors—pollution, noise, air, water, ecology, health, architecture, landscape and the general feeling of wellbeing when all of these are integrated constructively and aesthetically. If we are to go forward we need knowledge, awareness, participation. Above all else we need the power make that participation effective. Is it not time and does this not highlight the need — not only in the centre of Dublin but throughout Ireland when similar problems emerge — to have some community forum set up by statute whereby the people who live in, work in or use a particular area are invited or should be obliged to attend a forum to discuss openly matters of great significance to them, be it how they use their land, or matters such as the environment, congestion, the dirt, the litter and the appearance of the centre of Dublin.

I cannot see how the legacy of problems we have not been trying to deal with can possibly be dealt with in a three-year period. I do not think it is right or proper to impose this legislation on the people without a lot of prior consultation and expect that, in three years time, one can fold one's tents and hand it back to the corporation. It sounds as though already relationships with the corporation in relation to this Bill are not as healthy as they might be. Unless those relationships are particularly healthy and constructive, at the end of the three year period much of the work which undoubtedly will be done will be wasted. I would pose a question here loud and clear: is it not time that the people of this country knew the value of the buildings in the centre of their capital city? Should they not know who owns these buildings, who owns the land under those buildings? Or are we in Ireland still content to pay rents to these landlords just as the people of Castlebar until comparatively recently, and I hope no longer, had to pay rent to Lord Lucan, not only an absentee landlord but a disappeared one? Who owns the land under the buildings? Who owns the buildings and what is the value of these buildings? It is not good enough that the only people concerned in this debate are the owners of those buildings.

If we are to see a truly new Ireland emerge I hope that one day it will be said that the people of Ireland own the centre of Dublin and rent it out to the users. Then we will be talking about a new democracy, a new way of looking at our society, a new way forward that will give us all pride in the place to which we belong and in particular the capital in which the power is located. When we talk so glibly about power to the people we should ask ourselves: which people? Is it only those who hold capital, those who hold plenty of power already or is it also to be power that is handed back to users and workers as well as to the few who still live there?

With regard to ideas for the development of the centre of Dublin, Ireland today has an unprecendented level of unemployed people. It has a higher proportion of young people than ever before and we have a more extensively educated populace than before. Surely here there is a great opportunity to mobilise the extensively educated unemployed youth and engage them in ideas about the development of the centre of their town or city. Let us take schools for example. Is it possible that we could imaginatively throw out the idea of an essay on the improvement of central Dublin to all the schools of Ireland and present a prestigous prize for the winner?

Can our song writers not highlight the mess the country is in and stimulate imaginatively some ideas of what the future might be? How are we to highlight awareness of the problem and bring to bear on this and other problems, the expertise that exists and that is dying to find some form of expression?

We should invite contributions from all over Ireland to create an awareness among the people and encourage them to develop a pride in their city. To admit that this city is dirty, noisy, congested and unsafe would be a good starting point.

What about the Derry City Commission? If Senator McGonagle speaks I am sure he will have something to say about that. Derry city was taken over by a commission. Has anybody thought of going there to learn from what happened? The Diamond today is very attractive. The development of the Derry Community Workshop and the NorthWest Foundation for Human Development exemplifies almost all the things about which I have been talking; involvement of the people, a new sense of pride in the place, and a feeling that there is a future, rather than watching the past disintegrate before our eyes.

I have mentioned users, workers, consumers and owners but Dublin is more than that. Dublin is rich in the history of Ireland. Dublin is a place to which the Irish diaspora relates. The Irish World Citizens' Organisation, recently started by Paddy Duffy from Cookstown, are trying to engage the diaspora in a new sense of belonging to the Irish people wherever they are throughout the world. We just do not owe it to the capitalists who sit and work in central Dublin, or to the people of central Dublin. The country of Dublin sees Dublin as the county town. The province of Leinster sees this as a provincial capital. Ireland as a whole once thought of it as the capital. In the heyday of the British Empire it was thought to be the second city of the Empire. If we really believe in the building of a new Ireland Dublin could once again become a place symbolic of what we mean by the building of a new Ireland, but it will only become so if we involve the people not just of Dublin but of Ireland.

If we are to get all the pieces of the jigsaw into place and if, in its rather autocratic manner, this legislation is to be thrust at us to be passed at speed before there is any fundamental change in the Executive, we should ask ourselves: why a commission of seven, chosen by the Minister? Is it not time we started to think of Dublin as the property of the Irish diaspora, and of the Irish people at home? Let us have representations from Dublin city centre, from the rest of Dublin, from Dublin county, from the province of Leinster, from the other three provinces and the diaspora. Then we can start to bring back pride in the centre of the capital city and we can give it a new appearance with a new vigour to face the future for the new Ireland.

I am a little bit chastened to have heard so much chat about a new Ireland, which very often looks to me like the old with a bit of gloss put on it rather than something fundamentally new which, above all else, does not talk down to or at the people and involves them in their own development. I hope therefore that this area might in time become an area which personalises the relationship between the people and the nation with the capital.

I will not spend too much time on this legislation. In my view, this is legislation that should never have come before us. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the only reason this Bill is before us is because there is a Fianna Fáil majority on Dublin Corporation. Every word that has been spoken by Senator Robb will strike most people as being true. We have a city which has decayed, a city which seems to have lost its centre and to have lost its heart. There is no doubt but that the heart has to be brought back into Dublin city centre. The manner in which the Minister is attempting to do this is wrong. Power is being taken from the elected representatives and is being replaced by a group of seven people selected by the Minister. There is no indication whether these people will have the expertise to do the job which the Bill purports needs to be done.

Dublin Corporation have the will to rejuvenate Dublin, and there is nobody in this room or in the country who could say that major improvements have not been made in Dublin city centre over the past number of years. I come from Sandymount every day through Ringsend into Pearse street and it is obvious that a pride is again developing in the inner city areas. This can be seen, too, north of the river. Behind O'Connell Street, through Summerhill, redevelopment is bringing back pride into the centre city area and people are again beginning to live there. Once people are living in the centre of cities improvements take place because those people will ensure that the property is maintained, unlike what happened in the past when there were absentee landlords and it paid many landlords to leave their houses and let their properties become derelict.

I do not agree with Senator Robb when he says that people should not have the right to own property in the centre of Dublin city. I do not believe this property right should be taken from the owners but I do think we should put some constraints on the manner in which developments can take place.

There are many excellent city and urban planners in this country. Major changes have taken place all over the country during the past ten years. The emphasis and the impetus for these changes came from elected representatives in the main, with the help of local authority officials and town and city planners. Unfortunately, there have been blights on this process. There are certain areas on the outskirts of Dublin which were well planned at that time, but they did not take the needs of the people into account with the result that those plans went astray.

I said that the impetus for development and preservation came in the main from local authority members and I can see in Kilkenny city the major effect there because of the input of local authority members. I remember 16 years ago when the owner of a major shop in Kilkenny city decided to replace a very nice glass sign with a lighted plastic sign at a cost of £16,000, a lot of money at the time. At a corporation meeting one night Alderman Mick McGuinness got up and said the city was being ruined and that if the sign was taken down no business damage would be done to the shop. That was the start of the replacement of shop fronts in Kilkenny and thankfully there are only five shop fronts in Kilkenny at present that have plastic signs. Traditional crafts have been brought back. The traditional crafts of wood turning and signwriting are being used and this has meant that many crafts have been allowed to continue that otherwise would have died if the proliferation of plastic signs had been allowed to continue. The impetus came from the local authority members with the help of the officials and town planners. We will not be able to rejuvenate the centre of the city of Dublin unless the elected members, the officials and the people of Dublin are involved. With the co-operation of the people, officialdom and elected representatives things can happen in a very short time.

Senator Robb mentioned the input by artists, musicians and various people. One of the best schemes of rejuvenation that was presented to the Kilkenny Corporation some years ago was a study done by the College of Technology in Bolton Street, who took Kilkenny as a project. They presented a scheme some of which has been implemented and some of which has not been implemented. What Senator Robb says is true. The young people got involved and they produced a scheme which has had a major impact on the development of Kilkenny.

Mention has been made of litter. That broadens the scope of the discussion here today. Senator Robb suggests that the relevant Act has not been applied and because it has not been applied the problem has remained. Unfortunately in many cases we have legislation brought in but it is forgotten about because the Government do not provide the money afterwards to follow up and to check out that the legislation is being applied in the proper manner. A number of cases have taken place by private citizens under the Litter Act. The public will react if they see that the authorities are serious about complying with rules and regulations. People will be more careful about littering the streets if they know that somebody, whether it be a private citizen or a litter warden will take them to task.

People have said that Dublin city centre is unsafe at night and that the area we are talking about is an unsafe area at night. There is a remedy for that and it does not come within the ambit of this legislation. It would take very little to have that area better policed. There should be more gardaí on the beat if it is an area of high risk. It is an area that attracts tourists because people tend to go to the main street. A better Garda presence on the streets would solve many of the problems.

Again, the street lends itself to development. I do not think it needs a commission to develop it into a street that could be the pride of Ireland. There are two very wide thoroughfares with a good centre aisle going down the middle. The centre aisle could be used for street entertainment, as is the case in many major cities in the world at present. Without total pedestrianisation the centre of that street could be turned into a very fine area for entertainment and social intercourse.

The proposals in the Bill that business operating in the street and which are not suitable for the street can be closed down or changed are not something I would like to see implemented. Under the planning Acts there is every opportunity to regulate the businesses that are in a particular area but if in an area there is a business that has been operating successfully for a number of years and in a manner which is not to the detriment of other businesses, of the passers-by or of the residents, I cannot see how any commission should have the right to suggest that it be closed down or that it be changed over to some other type of business.

I presume the Minister is getting at the fact that there are a number of fast food outlets in O'Connell Street. Many people might prefer they were not there but they are a fact of life in every modern city in the world. Fast food seems to be the biggest growing industry at present. It was suggested in an article in The Economist recently that 10 per cent of workers will be working for or in fast food outlets within ten years and that includes the provision of services and foods to them. They are a fact of life. The provisions in this Bill will not be capable of closing down any business that is already in the O'Connell Street area. The planning Acts at present are strong enough to prevent the establishment of a business which would not be suitable. Therefore, I cannot see the reason for this Bill.

Elected representatives have a feel for what is right in a particular area. They see that there are problems in O'Connell Street and in many areas of this city. The job of regulating what happens in the city should be left to the elected members and the very good officials in the Dublin metropolitan area. As a member of two local authorities I have a lot of contact with local officials and I can say that in the main they have a better feel for their job than do many of the people who work in the Department of the Environment who are one step removed or more than one step removed from the problems at local level. That does not mean we cannot criticise them or that we do not criticise them. There are constraints on what officials can do in the planning area and there are constraints on what elected representatives can do. Unfortunately over the past number of years the major constraint on local authorities has been the fact that allocations to them have been cut and they have not been able to raise local taxes. In 90 per cent of cases people cannot afford any further local taxes, water rates, water charges, sewerage charges or whatever.

It is ludicrous to allocate £10 million to a commission of seven for a three year period. No matter when the legislation is passed it will take some time to set up a commission. It will equally take time before any action can be taken. If anybody can tell me that in three years seven people can rejuvenate and change the face of Dublin's city centre I would like to find them. They should not just be on the Dublin metropolitan streets commission; they should also run the Department of the Environment.

Unfortunately in taking power away from local authorities, as is the case in this instance, there is still a residual power vested in the local authority. You are taking the teeth away from them and leaving the gums because the local authority will still deal with planning applications and the administration of the city once this commission do their job. It is my party's contention that Dublin city can be very well run by Dublin Corporation. If the Government consider that there should be an extra emphasis on the rebuilding and the rejuvenation of O'Connell Street and the Dublin city centre area, they have the power and the money and they can give both to Dublin Corporation.

I am sure Dublin Corporation would produce a plan for that area which would be superior to that produced by a commission because when the commission have done their job they will be abolished. There is an onus on a local authority member to do a good job because, if he does not, when he goes up for election again he can be told in no uncertain terms what the people thought of his actions. The people have the right to kick him out and replace him. That is a necessary safeguard.

Too much power has been taken away from local authorities, for various reasons. This legislation is a blatant attempt by the Minister to control something which the public do not want him to control. The people have told the Government they want a corporation — with a majority of Fianna Fáil at present — to work for the development of Dublin. The Minister is blatantly taking power from the people in this instance but they will not thank him for it. We will oppose this Bill on every stage.

May I inquire what the Order of Business is? I understood we were to finish at 1 o'clock?

We are continuing through lunch hour.

It was agreed on the Order of Business today that if Second Stage had not been completed by 1 o'clock we would continue to complete it. If it goes on to 2 o'clock we will not have a luncheon break. It is a matter for the House but I propose that we continue the debate.

Before I start my contribution I should like to draw attention to section 2 (4) of the Bill which reads:

Every order made by the Minister under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution is passed by either House of the Oireachtas within the next seven days on which such House has sat after the order is laid before it annulling such order, such order shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under such order.

Seven days is totally inconsistent with the normal practice in a Bill and, if you refer to general legislation, it is a 21 day period. That is normal practice and I am not asking for anything else.

The Minister said anybody who had the interests of Dublin city centre at heart must surely feel sad at the manner in which the main thoroughfare of the capital has declined in recent years. He went on to talk about the destruction of the environment and so on. He did not refer specifically to one armed bandits etc., but by implication he included them.

As someone who was born and reared in the heart of Dublin I am seriously concerned about the city centre. I ran around the streets of Dublin in the twenties and thirties and I am qualified to speak about the deterioration of the city. My problem has nothing to do with an argument with the Minister of State or anyone else—it is a matter of principle which makes it difficult for me not to criticise. I will not vote against the Bill. We have had democratic argument about it and that is that but I reserve the right to put my criticisms on record.

I have very strong reservations about the question of handing over to a commission the powers given to properly elected representatives. The manager now has more power than the properly elected people. If we continue to erode their powers, local authorities will become consultative bodies.

In the light of the policy statements issued by the Minister for the Environment with regard to the devolution of power to local authorities, the Bill, however meritorious, is a contradiction of the intention of the devolution of power. On the one hand it appears that there is a policy of devolving power to local authorities. Recently Sligo County Council and the Institute of Public Administration set up a seminar on the question of the devolution of power at which I was privileged to be one of the speakers. If the local authorities accepted that power and devolved it, there would be an understanding between authority and authority but this is not the case. The manager is the person concerned and not the properly elected representatives. While the policy statement on the devolution of power may not be exceedingly radical, it means more power can be devolved to the local authorities and into the hands of the properly elected people if only they will grasp it. I am rather surprised that there was not much more about this in Dublin Corporation. All civilised countries have their systems of local government and the only distinction is the type of duties conferred on them. In Ireland we know what their duties are. We know the role and function of the city. While we may not have the funds to deal with it, it is not beyond our capabilities to deal with the city centre and its problems.

While central government give power to the local authorities — and this is a contradiction — they can also remove that power and put it into the hands of a commission or some other such body. When power is given to local authorities it has got to be within certain limits. That is understandable because it maintains the equilibrium. I accept that power can only be given within certain limits. Harmoney is needed. Duties are assigned to the local authorities while making sure that they have not got total power. Once power is given I do not think any useful purpose is served by talking about the devolution of power. The fact is that when something can usefully be done by the local authority somebody at central level can take that power away from the properly elected representatives and place it in the hands of people who are selected rather than elected.

I will not make the argument that the reforms in the past have been exceedingly radical. I will not make the argument that they were comprehensive or persuasive, but I can say that until recently the reforms have not been very effective. Following the publication of this policy statement we started to work on building up enthusiasm in the local authorities to start accepting their responsibilities. They have shown a great reluctance to raise their own capital. In the course of my presentation to them in Sligo on 9 October, I made the case that if they wanted power they would also have to make the awkward decisions. The consensus at that time was that they were ready and willing to accept this power. If my assessment is correct, this means that councillors in general throughout the country are prepared, on the principle of getting more power and the devolution of power to come together in a common bond sharing a common interest. They were open to all kinds of ideas and that is still the case. The policy document has not been fully discussed as yet.

Part of the local government reform has taken shape in the sense that some new councils have been formed and 80 extra people have been elected to councils throughout the country with voting rights. It is rather difficult for me to become the advocate of local government reforms one week and then a week later to have to sit in another chamber and listen to the deliberations on this Bill which gives power into the hands of a commission. This will abolish the planning committees of Dublin Corporation and may abolish the planning authority. I know that the commission can be dissolved after three years but can anyone give me a guarantee that this will be the situation in three years and that further power will not be taken away from the local authorities? This is what worries me.

I want to establish the point that my argument is not about the contents of the Bill or its intention to improve Dublin city. It is that the question of the devolution of power is being negatived by the introduction of this Bill. That is a sad departure having regard to the fact that we have already embarked on the whole concept of the devolution of power which is part of the Joint Programme for Government. When power was given to local authorities in the past a ratio was worked out between actual power and apparent power. The local authorities took unto themselves the apparent power mainly because they did not want to make the hard decisions that go with raising their own funds and so on. They opted by and large for the apparent power rather than the actual power. The present position seems to be that there is a mood amongst many councils to move away from that and give serious thought to this policy document on the devolution of power. Whilst there will be criticisms and everything contained in it will not be acceptable, they see it as an opportunity to take this power and come to terms with many of the aspects that would be nearer to their hearts.

The efforts to revitalise the local authorities will be hindered by this Bill. We are supposed to be encouraging local authorities to take more power. In the course of taking that power they should seek to reach their full potential not just in the areas of tourism and housing — where great credit is due to Dublin Corporation — but in the area of obtaining money by more imaginative means than charges on water or bin collections. The longer we deny them the opportunity to get into this area the worse the situation will become over the years. If we are not careful they will end up being consultative bodies.

We have to be honest and recognise that we will always have to devolve power to those bodies within certain limits. However, we do not have to say that in the main we will devolve power to them but whenever we feel like it we will remove some of that power and give it to a commission comprised of people who do not have a popular mandate to deal with the problem. That was never the case in Ireland before. It is the responsibility of people locally elected. If they are given the responsibility, and follow the concept of the policy document on devolution of power, they will find ways of raising their own finance. The ball has been kicked off in Sligo but this could be an impediment to that.

I have nothing against chief executives, some of them are very good, they do a great job and are of great assistance to councillors and so on but they are not the popularly elected people. It is those people who are getting the power. If we want the popularly elected councillors to use this extended power we intend to give them, the power which is written into the policy statements, and make the power more actual than apparent, we will have to come to terms with the fact that we cannot start indulging in piecemeal ameliorative reforms, giving something away and calling it devolution of power, while at the same time we retain the power to take away something that rightly belongs to local authorities.

I do not suggest that anything should be done to upset the equilibrium between the central authority and local government. However, if I were a member of a local authority I would certainly look askance at this Bill. I commend what the Bill seeks to realise and, as a Dubliner, I will be proud if the city can be put right. However, I believe that the people to put it right are the popularly elected representatives. They can do it. If a lot of money is to be given to people who are selected to do a job there is no reason why that money could not be given to Dublin Corporation to do the job themselves. The will and the power is there.

Dublin Corporation have demonstrated their capacity for handling public affairs down through the years. Other local authorities like the idea of involvement from the parish back to the centre. If they were given this power they would have the ability to delegate some of their authority to another authority with whom they would be working in harmony. I do not want this to be taken out of context nor do I want the Minister to take it up wrong. It is hard to create a system free of intricacy if one takes power away from people one wants to give it to in the broadest sense and then be selective about some part of it and take that power away. If the intention is to give them a system of local independence, subject only to the control necessary to preserve central unity, this is not the way to do it. It is bad enough at the moment when one thinks about the illogical divisions we have in local government, where there is overlapping between personal services, where the tiers of the system are not correct, where there is duplication, particularly in the area of planning and recreation and when county councils and corporations are remote from the people they are supposed to serve. Overall we should push with the policy document on the devolution of power, encourage more seminars like that held on 8, 9 and 10 October in Sligo and from there put it up to local councillors to take on this power. The response I got last week was good but I do not think we can help that response towards attaining a better environment run by local authorities if we start taking powers away from them by any other means.

Local authorities can have a very important effect on society. They can get into the business of fighting against the shallow acquisite goals they are in at the moment such as one fellow scratching the other fellow's back to get certain favours done. They are prepared to get down to dealing with cases and have a look at the values they have at present and help to change them. They will talk about matters that are relevant and attainable and will go for a more democratic alternative than we have at the moment provided, of course, that we stick to the concept of devolving power to them and do not try to take it away from them by other means.

I will not go any further into the subject except to say that local authorities can be made powerful. They can be effective in the war on waste and in the area of natural recycling. They can be used to monitor advertising of potentially harmful products and so on. They can be used in many different areas but the more limited the reforms we put to them while at the same time taking some of the powers away, the less chance we have of getting the bond of the common interest working. That is a pity because we are all concerned with developing a better living environment. We are all interested in pollution control, providing better leisure facilities and in the general revitalisation of the environment. I will finish with those words to facilitate other Senators wishing to contribute. I feel very strongly about this. I am certainly not going to vote against the Bill because I went through the democratic process of having an argument about the matter. I do not disagree with the contents of the Bill but I certainly object to the power being taken from the popularly elected representatives. I do not think the power should reside in the manager or the chief executive of a county council or corporation. I regret having to say this as I have met some very fine chief executives and county managers and I recognise the great work they have done and the assistance they have given to me. If somebody started to take power from me or from anybody else we would object fairly quickly. It surprises me that Dublin Corporation did not put a little more thought into the question of where the power lies. I am not saying that they did not go into the whole question of the environment. They may not have gone into the question of the ramifications of the devolution of power and what it means if, on the one hand, we take on more powers and at the same time let powers slip away.

I take this opportunity of adding my word of welcome to this Bill, however belated. I thought that I would have had an opportunity to do so before the recess. However, the Minister said that his efforts to bring forward the Bill before we went on our summer holidays were frustrated for reasons we need not go into here. The city of Dublin and the country at large have awaited the bringing forward of the Bill, as was announced earlier this year by the Minister. Indeed, it could be fairly said that many people, not only in Dublin but throughout the land and from beyond our shores, were wondering what was happening to this dear city of ours. I have met people who visited the city from time to time—I am not talking about foreigners but mainly country people — who were anxious to know what in God's name was happening as they were reading about the sprawling suburbs of Dublin city and about the centre of the city being allowed to rot. Some may say they are harsh words but they are not in any way too harsh for the situation that exists in the city today and that we have been witnessing over the years.

This Bill, when announced and published by the Minister some months ago, was welcomed by all sections of business life in the city and, indeed, by all parties on Dublin Corporation. There seems to have been a change of mind almost overnight by the Opposition party as to the welcome they might give the Bill. However, I am sure that was for political rather than other reasons and, of course, they are entitled to that. The business associations in the city centre, the chamber of commerce and Dubliners generally had much praise for the Minister's proposals.

I have one or two reservations about the Bill. First, is the three year period long enough for a commission to make worthwhile progress? However, I am sure the Minister has considered this and we can only wait and see. Certainly whatever they can do in the three years will be a welcome step in the right direction. I would have preferred to see a five year period because I know how hard it is to make progress in planning an area such as the city centre. If one had green sods with no traffic one could, perhaps, make far greater progress. They will have to contend with the traffic in the city centre and heaven only knows what other disruption might take place in those years. I hope there will be no real disruption but to have a timescale of three years to carry out what is in the Bill is expecting too much. However, we can leave that for another day. We will have another look at it towards the end of the three year period.

The other reservation I have is that the Minister said that it is an area which provides prime shopping facilities but it should also be a suitable place for Dubliners and visitors to congregate for the simple purpose of enjoyment. Occasional efforts by Dublin Corporation and other organisations to provide concerts, street carnivals and lunchtime recitals in the area show that people can be attracted to come to the centre of the city and to use its facilities.

I am disappointed that the Minister has not included a residential area so that people would come to live in the city centre. I do not mean a residential area such as half of O'Connell Street or a section of O'Connell Street or Grafton Street, but to mix in residents above or behind the business premises already there. It is no secret that the Government of 1969 to 1973 discussed the depopulation of the entire city centre area. Thank heavens that has not happened, but it was only by a hair's breadth that it did not happen. If there had not been a change of Government in 1973 it would have happened. Even with that change of Government, if we had not heard the voice of the people deploring what was happening in the city centre area and just outside the city centre, it would have happened.

I urge the Minister to see if he can ensure that, when this commission's job is over, there will be more people living in the centre of this designated area than there are at present. Somebody said this morning that if a Dubliner was to approach his public representative one of the first questions that representative would ask him would be where he lived. If he lived in the designated area the representative would disclaim all responsibility for the activities of that area and would send that person, with his representations, to the commissioners. Another Senator pointed out that there are so few people now living in this designated area that it is most unlikely that many, if any, of them will be approaching their public representatives. That is to be regretted. I appeal to the Minister to have another look at the instructions he is giving to the commissioners to see if he can ensure that the population of the designated area will increase in the time of the commission.

Our city has been decaying during the past couple of decades. It appeared to many that nobody seemed to care. For a city that has been spared the ravages of war, Dublin must be the most dilapidated capital city in Europe. In 1945 practically every capital city across the Continent of Europe was ravaged at the hands of the forces of destruction. This gave them an opportunity to plan and rebuild their cities. We were not prevented from doing the same thing. We would not have had the same reasons for doing it.

It is generally accepted that many of the buildings in the centre city area had come to the end of their lifetime. Any planning applications in recent times would indicate that when a developer moved in he discovered that not only could he not easily change the use of a building but in most cases buildings had to be demolished and rebuilt from the ground. Many of us have seen how buildings have come to the end of their lifetime. We had a golden opportunity when developers were making planning applications to rebuild our city in such a way that it would have been admired by not only the local people but all who would visit it.

The neglect started in the city in the sixties and over the last 20 years Dublin Corporation have concentrated on developing large housing estates in Dublin county while hundreds of acres lay derelict in the city centre. In some instances these sites have been for 20 years in an unsightly and disgraceful condition. I am surprised that Dubliners have been so patient with the lack of activity in the capital city. On my visit to the recent concert in College Green — one of those concerts that the Minister spoke about today — I noticed the great numbers of people who had long distances to travel to fill those streets. They were coming from Blanchardstown, Swords, Tallaght and away out: so few of them were within easy walking distance of that concert. That should not be allowed to continue. While I welcome the setting up of this commission to carry out the development outlined in the Bill, I will regret it very much if the centre of the city has fewer people when the commission's job is done than it has today. I think I speak for the vast majority of Irish people when I say that I want to see Dublin city a living city at week-ends as well as during the week. It should not take a concert with massive advertising to get the streets of Dublin packed with people. We have a beautiful city here, well located, geographically, adjacent to the seaside and seaside resorts and to mountains. About 20 minutes in a car takes you to where you would think you were somewhere deep in the west if you travel in a southerly direction to the Dublin mountains or on towards Wicklow. We have all those beautiful parks. We have a massive park in the Phoenix Park in which we all take pride and many other open spaces and parks. What we lack most is people in the centre of the city area.

Much play has been made here today about taking away from the local authorities the power which they are supposed to have and giving it to this commission. Listening to Senator after Senator referring to this, I was wondering what power is going to this commission that managers do not have already and that elected representatives have not had. What power is going to them that elected representatives have had? In regard to planning applications the elected representatives have an input but they do not have the power of decision; it is an executive function. I do not know why all the play is being made that the power is being taken away from the local authorities. Whatever power is supposed to be taken away, if that power has been with the local authority over the last 20 years they have failed to use it. We have sat by and watched the city decay into a state where very many people who were regular visitors to the city prefer to go elsewhere. There is no encouragement to take people into the city after the shops close. There is no encouragement to take sightseers into the centre city area. People who know the city avoid it now. That is a terrible thing to have to say.

I would hope that there will be no more frustrations with regard to the passage of this Bill. I would like to see it being dealt with quickly in the Seanad. I do not know if it is intended to complete all Stages today, but if not I am sure we will deal with it next week. I would like to see the Minister take it to the Dáil and to get it through the Oireachtas as quickly as possible because valuable time has been lost since this Bill was published. However patient the people have been over the years in seeing the city decay, their patience may not last much longer. If the Minister is prepared to get this through both Houses in a week or two then there is no reason that the commission could not be in operation before Christmas. The sooner the commission are in operation, the sooner we will see an improvement in the centre of our capital city.

I do not know whom the Minister is going to appoint to this commission but I have great confidence that all the experts and expertise that were spoken about by previous speakers to this debate will be covered when the Minister is selecting his team of seven. One would think that the views of the various bodies and organisations, those who have been interested and those who have been outspoken about their interest over the last few years, were going to be swept aside. I have no doubt that the commission and any commission appointed by any Minister to do this job will take into consideration all the views put forward in the Dublin crisis conference of last year and all the other fora where there has been expression of dissatisfaction with the way things are in the centre of Dublin city. It is a worthwhile experiment and the Minister is right in bringing it forward. I only regret that we did not have a Dublin Minister for the Environment over the last few years to do this. I am sorry that it has taken so long to come to the floor of the House. I am not talking about the delay this year but about the delay over the years. I mean no disrespect to any other part of the country but it is important that we should have a Minister for the Environment who knows Dublin. As I travel around the country I can find no more neglected area than Dublin city.

Why the corporation have concentrated so much on housing people in the country I do not know. I could see the purpose of doing it ten or 15 years ago to get started on the terrible housing list which they had at the time. But as they cleared certain city centre areas, I cannot answer people who ask me why the corporation have not redeveloped these areas. It probably is not all the fault of the corporation. It takes a dual effort by the local authority and the central authority to get a job like this done. I would be critical of successive Governments who have given the corporation a free hand and have sanctioned their applications for massive housing developments in the county area while the city was suffering this neglect over the years.

I wish the Minister well with the Bill. I wish it a speedy passage through the House and I think you have the assurance of this House that it will not be delayed here. I hope it will pass quickly through this House and similarly through the other House.

I will not delay the House but I would like to add a few points. I certainly welcome the Bill. Unfortunately we have a Minister who is speaking about an imaginary situation. Thankfully some months ago the Minister visited Cork. He looked at the city generally and we are certainly aware that he is quite imaginative. Imagination is the most important thing for Dublin. It is needed because Dublin is deteriorating rapidly. I have not seen any other city deteriorate so quickly. One wonders why the city council allowed it to happen but the fact is that over the last 20 years, Dublin has become a very good place to be from a capitalist point of view. In the inner cities there are no votes and if there are no votes one has no interest. That is the problem. Until such time as we say people must go back into our inner cities, we are going to lose them. Dublin people have a charm of their own. When I came to Dublin in the past for All-Irelands or other matches I always got the impression listening to people from the inner city that they had a certain character. What a pity it would be to lose this. It is a moral crime to think that we let it go, and we did let it go. At last the Minister is asking: "where is the imagination gone to?" He is giving £10 million, that is not enough. There are other ways of getting more money. It is not enough, but that is another argument for another day.

When one looks at other countries one is prompted to say it is a shame that the commission are now being set up. The blame must be on the planning that has made a PVC centre out of the inner city. Why was not some incentive given to do better than that? We are talking about designated areas now and about the tax benefits in particular and we are saying that it is a great scheme. Certain areas are now designated areas as regards tax benefits.

The commission are to receive £10 million over a period of three years. I do not agree that £10 million is enough to make improvements and so on. Every square foot in this area costs so much that this will not do a great amount. I hope the Minister will have the right to add more moneys if the commission are doing the right thing. One must ask why people who are elected do not have the right to decide what is to be done with the money. Indeed, the commission have the right to take the authority from them. That is inevitable but it is unfortunate. I recognise what the Minister is trying to do.

We should look at urban renewal in other cities, such as Dusseldorf. Every evening in Dusseldorf the lights are on over the business premises, the curtains are open and plant pots are hanging in the windows. When are we going to bring about a situation where people will come back into the city? At present people are grabbing at the £5,000 grant, the £2,000 first time buyer grant and the £2,500 grant the Minister is providing to move out of the city. When will we give people an incentive to come back to the city? For example, if one were to take £1 million out of that £10 million and to give it to 100 families prepared to live in these areas, would it not be a better idea?

Let me give an example. Does one see people moving out of the St. Stephen's Green area? One does not because the improvements are already there. Does one see people moving out of the Ballsbridge area? I do not know Dublin very well but I am very much aware of its lovely parks. I readily admit that when one goes into certain areas there is a rapid deterioration. The planners have allowed this to happen. Now the commission are being set up. I know the Minister has the right to do this. They are taking four streets and trying to improve them. The improvement must be made because this is our capital city. Senator Robb really hit the nail on the head when he said that the people of Ireland love talking about their capital city, but over the past ten or 15 years it has deteriorated to a very great extent.

Last Sunday I read a headline in the Sunday Press“Drugs Pushers in the Middle of O'Connell Street”. People who are on drugs are standing in O'Connell Street, the main street of our capital city and we are allowing that to happen. They are standing in the middle of O'Connell Street waiting for a pusher to come along. What a cheek. However the Minister appears to recognise these implications. We will not eliminate this undesirable position until such time as there are people looking out of windows, standing up over their little patches saying: this is my street, this is where I live and this is what I want going on here. That is exactly what I observe to be the position in most other European countries where accommodation over the businesses and shops is alive with people. We must get people back living in streets like Henry Street and Moore Street. I stay in one hotel in O'Connell Street. I will readily admit that there are times when I would not want to walk up O'Connell Street. That is a fact of life. The condition of O'Connell Street and streets leading off it is atrocious, remaining unclean, unwashed while a small amount of money would cover the necessary task involved. With regard to the city centre more money should be allocated to local authorities, or the proposed commission, to keep such buildings clean 24 hours a day. If they take the initiative and show an example matters will improve from there on.

I have seen that happens in areas in Cork city. Certainly the city of Cork is in a better condition than Dublin. For example, we developed local plans there, such as the Lutz plan. We derived great benefits over the years under various Governments because we had initially a proper development plan to which we added. I should say, in fairness to the Minister of State present, he recognised that fact. For instance, proper pedestrianisation of the city centre is most important. Henry Street is a beautiful street but has not been properly pedestrianised. People do not live above premises in Henry Street. Given the present position, there is no incentive to people to live there or, say, in Moore Street. Planning permissions given for new buildings in the city centre did not allow for the provision of living accommodation there. To take another example, there is no reason why there should not be living accommodation provided on the second or top floor of car parks. Just two years ago we built 29 houses in the middle of Cork city when we had 220 applicants. That aptly demonstrates that people are prepared to come back and live in city centres.

There are beautiful churches and schools lying idle in the middle of Dublin. There is every facility available but they are not being used, while we spend millions of pounds building new churches and schools in the suburbs. The imagination behind the introduction of the Bill is excellent. However, some of the provisions of the Bill invite the question as to whether the commission will have the right to say to the same people: there are facilities here, here is £10,000 to take over perhaps 800, 900 or 1,000 square feet in which to provide living accommodation. I wonder if the commission can do that in order to get people back living in the city centre.

There have been local plans, such as the Shandon and others implemented in Cork city, which meant that people were responsible for their own areas. However, in Dublin the situation that has evolved has meant that nobody recognises the centre except for business interests. We must not allow business people the freedom of saying: we will be here from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. and then we will leave. We must not give them the right to use massive buildings and not have anybody living in them over week-ends. That is not fair. However, people at present living in the suburbs, with parks and other facilities will not leave them because the same facilities are not available in the city centre. I can think of one street off O'Connell Street, at the back of a hotel, where one gets the impression that one is in a different area altogether. There is a lovely tree there but no lights around it, total darkness, a rat hole. Why cannot some money be spent for that purpose. One hundred thousand pounds would go a long way towards the provision of lamps to brighten up that street, giving the impression that people might want to live there. One would not dare walk in Marlborough Street at night because there are no lights and nobody living there. I am talking about the area just alongside the Pro-Cathedral. That is an area on which I would hope this new commission would concentrate. I would hope, too, that the commission would be comprised of people with the right kind of thinking with regard to streets and their buildings, not PVC or capitalist-type thinking. It is my opinion that the £10 million will not be sufficient. We must ask ourselves whethere we will bring about a situation in which people will say to themselves: I will make money out of this. We should remember that we are talking about a three year period.

I want this commission to show an example to Dublin but £10 million will not be nearly sufficient bearing in mind the cost of property in that area. It should be recognised that local authorities in other parts of the country may well question the provision by the new commission of £10 million for Dublin where the relevant local authority did not carry out their work properly while others who undertake the task properly are unable to get any funds. That would not be fair. In my area the Minister saw that we were undertaking the right type of work and was prepared to give us the money. For example, he recognised that if there were insufficient funds for extra pedestrian ways in the inner city of Cork the money should be provided for that purpose. At the time of the budget preceding the last one we in Cork did not have a city park. We brought this fact to the attention of the Government who gave us £300,000 for the purpose. They emphasised strongly that they wanted that city part to have proper character and cultural aspects with certain funds being spent on those specific aspects. They emphasised that proper facilities need to be available, thereby ensuring a spread. That decision has been proven to be correct. That city park is approximately 25 yards wide by 75 yards long. The thinking and imagination of Cork people is unbelievable. I made no apologies to anybody for saying so.

Can the commission say they are prepared to take away a whole square and put in a park? Are they prepared to say that they are going to knock out a whole square and put in a green area or are they going to say it will be a concrete square only? If that happens we will not get people back into the city centre. That is very important. Over the years the characters of Dublin were moved out to Ballyfermot, Tallaght, Blanchardstown and other places. These characters should be asked to come back and they should be given every incentive to do so.

I welcome the Bill. This Minister has imagination. Senator McMahon is probably right when he says we are lucky to have a Minister of the calibre of Deputy Boland taking an interest in the city of Dublin. The question is: are there votes in it? That is politics at the end of the day. That is what happened to Dublin. The inner city of Dublin was lost because there were no votes there and nobody took an interest. Maybe the people living on the outskirts should decide, by voting, how the inner city should be kept alive. That will develop political interest because the people will vote for those interested in keeping the inner city alive, but I do not know if that can be done. If people in a particular ward say they want a certain amount of money for work in that area, it will be the job of the elected representatives to make sure that is done. We did that with local parishes in Cork. We broke up every local parish and local ward — the marsh area, the Shandon area, St. Luke's area, the south parish area — and it resulted in massive improvements. We were only spending pennies, not millions of pounds. If I got 1 per cent of this £10 million — that is £100,000 — I would do a lot of work in Cork with it and I am sure other Senators could say the same. I will be pushing for it now.

I do not say that Dublin should not get this money; I say that Dublin should get a lot more, but please make sure everything is done right and that particular groups take advantage of it. All the people of Dublin must get involved. We should say to the people of Dublin that a particular body or ward is being set up and that the people must vote for the person they think will keep the inner city alive. This representative should be democratically elected. I am not saying this because I am a local councillor or a Senator looking for votes. This should happen because the people know their city is falling apart and they want it revitalised. At the end of the day it is the people who will decide.

I welcome the Bill and I congratulate the Minister on his imagination. I want to make it quite clear that I do not want an ongoing argument between the local authority, corporation planners and the commission as to whether something should or should not be done. I know the fast food business is growing rapidly — I am in it myself — but shame on us when we will put PVC right down the middle of O'Connell Street. This is happening a little in Cork, but we brought in regulations and we have not allowed any more fast food areas. We do not want our buildings destroyed. We even gave incentives and told prospective builders how we would like them to build rather than set up PVC buildings. I walked with the Minister through Patrick Street and we saw one of our oldest buildings, about one-third of which was covered with PVC. We did not like it and the planner was informed the following Monday morning. Why should we allow it? It should not be allowed. We should be giving incentives and demanding that we improve our old buildings because they have character. In my view, if Dublin was improved it would be the next best city to Paris. It is a pleasure to walk around Paris. There are millions of people living in the centre of that city. It is a pleasure to walk around Paris and it should be a pleasure to walk around Dublin but it is a shame to say that this is not so.

I thank Senators for their contributions. The establishment of the Dublin metropolitan streets commission is a very worthy venture. I am convinced it will do enormous good and will repay the investment of £10 million in years to come. I am convinced this move will give tourism a boost but much more important, we will make this area more accessible and desirable, and it will be for the use and enjoyment of the citizens of Ireland, and in particular for the citizens of Dublin. In times of economic difficulties arguments can be put forward that there are more pressing cases, but I do not believe that we can any longer continue to overlook our heritage. We are talking about the centre of our capital city. This is an area of national importance. The fact that Senators living outside Dublin have spoken in this debate is evidence of their concern for this area and their desire to see something done about it.

It is my intention that every facility will be made available to the commission to enable them to successfully implement the improvements scheme. I give the House an assurance that I will appoint the commission as soon as this legislation is enacted. I believe that in three years time those who have been critical of this Bill and the manner in which we have set about achieving this objective will be well and truly silenced because of the revitalisation of the area. By that stage, the commission will have done justice to the importance which we as a Government attach to the status we wanted to give to that part of the capital city.

I am very pleased at the positive response of the business community, Bord Fáilte, various interested and environmental groups and most especially from the general public to the announcement of this Bill and its intentions. This morning Senators levelled some very critical remarks at this legislation but some of those remarks were ill-founded. I am confident that in time the work of the commission will appease those who were critical of the proposals in this Bill and that they will realise their criticism was not well based and that there was no reason for their apprehensions.

I was particularly interested in Senator Cregan's remarks, especially as he comes from a city which in its own way sometimes projects, if not jealously, a certain amount of friendly rivalry between it and Dublin. Yet he displayed a very positive interest in this proposal. His knowledge of the Dublin city centre area is an indication that people throughout the country regard this area as synonymous with Dublin, but it is also synonymous with Ireland. Consequently there is an obligation on us to see that that area is kept in the best possible condition since it is identified as something special. This area is given a special status and the street furnishings, the services, the activities in that street and the way the area is presented should be at a higher level than any other area. Without denigrating or discriminating against any other area, it must be said that this is a special area and should be recognised as such.

Senator Cregan suggests that £10 million may not be enough. That may be so. As the work proceeds the programme will evolve and the work of the commission will begin to establish the extent of the programme. I think it will be agreed that the £10 million to be spent on the confined area is a generous allocation in times of financial difficulty and is a recognition by the Government of the importance of having something done in this area.

Senators spoke of the problem of security in the central area and also the matter of street cleansing. Those questions will be central to the activities of the commission. It is my hope and expectation that street cleansing, not merely the removal of litter, will take place in this area on a 24-hour basis. Standards in this matter must be maintained at the highest level.

Senators may have read in the national newspapers in the past few days of discussions that have taken place between the Garda and the city centre business associations concerning the possibility of establishing Garda kiosks at various locations throughout the city centre area. In effect, the kiosks would be Garda substations. If they were provided they would greatly enhance the feeling of security throughout the area and would satisfy the need of people to feel happy and secure. That is of paramount importance. Unfortunately, it must be said that has not been the attitude of the general public towards much of this area, especially at night. As Senator Cregan said, he has apprehensions, and I am afraid many of us have, of using that centre area at night time.

When I was a boy Dubliners and those visiting Dublin went in family groups to visit this area in the evenings, not perhaps always particularly to spend money and perhaps it was in less sophisticated times. Part of the normal outing for Dubliners and for those visiting the city was that they would go in family groups to walk through this area in the evenings. That does not happen now and it is to the shame of all of us that it does not. I would like to think when all of the work of the commission is completed that once again it will become a normal part of the activities of those who want to use our capital city.

Perhaps in that example I can try to explain to the Seanad the objective of the Bill. A variety of different things have to happen, from litter control or street cleansing to security and to presentation, to tasteful choice and use and maintenance of street furniture, to providing the sort of street furniture which is in character with the architecture of the street itself and of the area and which recognises the particular style and the period during which most of the central area was constructed. There can be, and unfortunately from time to time there has been, expensive street furniture provided in a number of urban locations. They are expensive but are totally out of character in style with the area in which they are located, from that point of view they are I think much to be regretted.

Senator Cregan spoke again about my visit to Cork some months ago. I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the Cork Corporation on the pedestrianisation programme they have adopted and are pursuing. As he said, Cork is smaller and, consequently, it is easier to adopt that programme. That does not at the same time mean that there are not considerable difficulties in having to embark on a programme like that. They have done it with particular imagination and commitment. Perhaps one of the most important things is that there should be a commitment on the part of the elected members and officials because if there is not, results will not be forthcoming.

Even having said that, I think the Senators and those who know Cork will agree that in certain locations there are particular pieces of street furniture which are not in character or in the architectural style of the particular locations. The people in Cork realise that what needs to be done in a centre such as this is experimentation. The important thing is that it is being done.

I agree, too, with the suggestion that the encouragement of an additional residential content in central areas will very much lend to or add to the success of any venture such as this. The fact of the matter is that for a variety of reasons not many people now live in city centre areas and that is something that applies virtually universally. I think that attitude is changing and that it is being encouraged to change through initiatives similar to the one which we are discussing here today, that there is a recognition on the part of elected representatives and officials that in order to provide a blend and to regenerate life in city centres there is a need to encourage people to come back and to live within the city centre. To do that you must create the ambience that will make people not only want to use the city centre but want to live in it. A whole range of things must be done, and I hope the work of the commission will help to bring about an interest on the part of people in living in this area.

Some Senators were perhaps a little disappointed at the limited physical area that is to be covered by the activities of the commission. Essentially it will run from the top of Grafton Street to the bottom of O'Connell Street and include some of the streets that abut on to that central thoroughfare for a distance of 50 or 75 yards on either side. I considered the idea of making the area larger but I thought it was extremely important that the central area, the central core, was taken and uplifted, upgraded and treated in a very special way. All of the resources available to the commission should be concentrated on ensuring that that area is made 100 per cent as perfect as man, as the Irish, as our inventiveness and our imagination are capable of doing. I suspect that, if the commission are as successful as I hope they will be, at the end of their three year period when the area automatically reverts to Dublin Corporation it may well be that a demand will evolve and that the commission or their successor might move on and begin to treat similarly another area of particular merit in need of attention. Having said that, I think it is also important to remember that the area being treated by the commission is also joined by the areas covered in the case of Dublin by the Urban Renewal Act. The area immediately east of O'Connell Street, running down to the quays and joining the Custom House site is covered by attractive taxation and other financial incentives outlined in the urban renewal scheme.

The areas off the quays about which Senator Cregan spoke are covered also by the urban renewal scheme and one would hope that the activities of the Dublin metropolitan streets commission through bringing a style into the central area will in their own way help to generate the activities and redevelopment in the adjoining areas covered under the urban renewal proposals.

The question was raised as to whether a three year period for the commission is long enough, perhaps it is not. Earlier a Senator wondered why provisions were made for having orders laid before the House in seven days rather than the normal 21 provided for in legislation. I have grave misgivings about setting up a body with an open ended mandate because that does not give those appointed the impetus to get down to the task immediately. I have somewhat less, but at the same time much misgiving, about appointing a body to carry out work and allowing enough time for them to feel that in their initial years they can proceed at a leisurely pace. The establishment of a three year time phase is reasonable for the sort of work we want done. Those appointed and those whom they employ must have the drive, enthusiasm and the imagination to see it done within the three years. The setting of realistic time frames and a completion date is important and perhaps should be applied to more public bodies and their activities.

The inclusion of a 21 day requirement in legislation generally is an anachronism and is not suitable to modern circumstances or to normal parliamentary sessions. It does not adequately reflect the need from time to time for schemes to be brought into effect within a reasonable timescale, bearing in mind the adjournments and recesses of the Houses. Speaking personally I would amend all the 21 day provisions to either five or seven days but there may be a difference of opinion on that. It all depends on whether you want to get things done, or whether you want to talk about them forever. I prefer to get things done.

Senator McMahon worried about the amount of dereliction in Dublin city centre. It is considerable and a cause of great adverse comment from people who use the city and live in it and from those who visit it. It is a problem that exists in other urban areas also, although perhaps not to such an extent. I am pleased to tell the House that the Government recently agreed proposals in relation to the question of screening and dealing with derelict sites in urban areas, owned by public authorities or private interests. However, much of the responsibility in relation to dereliction must rest with various public authorities. Legislation is being prepared at present and I hope that I will have an opportunity to present it to the Houses of the Oireachtas within the coming session.

Senator O'Toole was critical of the proposals contained in the Bill and seemed to feel they were undemocratic or diminished the responsibility of Dublin Corporation. I reject that suggestion. As I explained to the House, the commission will have a limited time span. Its work and responsibilities will revert automatically after three years to Dublin Corporation but the special status of the area will remain and be enshrined in law. Dublin Corporation will, consequently, be obliged to keep the area to the much higher level to which the commission will have lifted it after that time. The concept is not new nor different.

It is worthwhile pursuing in other contexts also that a single purpose, single function authority should be appointed for a set time to carry out the job which is its sole responsibility and that that task be taken for a short time from a multi-functional authority such as Dublin Corporation, the biggest local authority in the country, with all their problems, activities and responsibilities. However, from time to time a task should be removed from the authority and done by a specialist group and the result of the work should be returned to the authority for continuing care and maintenance thereafter. It is not new and is a concept that has been supported by the Senator's party on a number of occasions in the past, no more lately than when the Urban Renewal Bill was in the Dáil. The Senator's party spokesman tabled amendments to the Urban Renewal Bill which would have given me far wider powers than those in this Bill.

I chose to take the course of coming to the Houses and explaining specifically and precisely what was intended, the period for which it was intended and the functions, authority and responsibility the commission would have. If we accepted the amendments suggested by the Fianna Fáil spokesman in the Dáil I would have had the authority by order to have established authorities for whatever purpose I wanted in whatever local authority areas I decided at any time. I thought instead it would be better that if single function authorities were to be established it should be by virtue of specific legislation which would enable the Members of the Houses to have the opportunity to debate the purpose for them in full.

I am also disappointed to hear the suggestion that this course is being taken because the majority of the members of Dublin Corporation are of a particular political allegiance. That is not true. In my opening remarks I took the opportunity to remind the House that the embryo for this idea was first published in a policy document of my party in 1981. I regret the fact that the move Senator McMahon suggested was not taken earlier and I assure the House that irrespective of who or what group controlled Dublin Corporation this proposal would still have been put forward by me at the first available opportunity I had on becoming Minister for the Environment.

If the corporation had been controlled by an esoteric group I would still have adopted that course. I assure the Opposition Senators that there is no party political intention in the proposals of this Bill. This area is more important than endeavouring to do something to achieve a party political advantage in the context of the Government and Dublin Corporation. If I wanted to try to make party political points relating to the activity of any party in relation to their local authority areas, I would not consider it appropriate for me to do so as Minister for the Environment.

I take this opportunity to remind the Opposition that both the national representative groups representing local authorities at municipal level and at county council level are, if you want to look at the matter on that basis, similarly controlled by the Opposition. I have had — I think they agree — a number of very useful and fruitful discussions with those groups. I have endeavoured to promote the status of the General Council of County Councils and the Association of Administrative Authorities as the representative bodies and to give them more official muscle to be able to speak on behalf of the authorities generally and to be able to deal with my Department and with the institutions of State. I do not think that it can be put forward in relation to my dealings generally with the local authorities that I was a Minister who was attempting to adopt a party political profile in relation to local authorities which for some apparent reason had decided not to allow my party or the Government parties to control them.

In that context, I resent the suggestion that this proposal would have been put forward for that simple reason. On reflection, on the party political end of it, I believe that the correct line has been taken and that the commission when they have achieved their purpose will have earned and will get the undying thanks and gratitude of thousands of Dubliners and Irish people. The commission will deserve it if they succeed. I believe that they will succeed because of the way the Bill is framed, because of its intention and because of the extraordinary evidence of goodwill and support shown already by the business community in the area, by representative groups and by the general public. If it is a success, it will be because the idea was right. If it is a failure, the Seanad can blame me.

Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 21; Níl, 12.

  • Belton, Luke.
  • Browne, John.
  • Cregan, Denis (Dino).
  • Daly, Jack.
  • Dooge, James C.I.
  • Durcan, Patrick.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • FitzGerald, Alexis J.G.
  • Fleming, Brian.
  • Harte, John.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Hourigan, Richard V.
  • Howard, Michael.
  • Kelleher, Peter.
  • Kennedy, Patrick.
  • Kirwan, Chris.
  • Lennon, Joseph.
  • McGonagle, Stephen.
  • McMahon, Larry.
  • Quealy, Michael A.
  • Ross, Shane P.N.

Níl

  • de Brún, Séamus.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fitzsimons, Jack.
  • Hanafin, Des.
  • Honan, Tras.
  • Lynch, Michael.
  • Mullooly, Brian.
  • O'Toole, Martin J.
  • Ryan, Eoin.
  • Ryan, William.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Belton and Harte; Níl, Senators W. Ryan and Séamus de Brún.
Question declared carried.

When is it proposed to take the next Stage?

It is proposed to take Committee Stage on Wednesday, 22 October, 1986.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 22 October 1986.
Top
Share