Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Jul 1987

Vol. 116 No. 13

Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission: Motion.

I move:

That Seanad Éireann condemns the decision of the Government to abolish the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission and calls upon the Government to restore power and full funding to the Commission.

It is very timely, though very sad, that we are debating this motion tonight concerning the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission on the very day an order made by the Minister known as the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission dissolution order came into effect.

The purpose of the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission Bill was to establish a single function authority for a lifetime of three years which would assume all the powers and responsibilities of the local authority, Dublin Corporation, and of the Dublin Transport Authority as well as a number of the responsibilities of the Garda Síochána. They were to address in a co-ordinated way the variety of problems of the central core of Dublin. They were assigned responsibility for an area running from the top of Grafton Street through Westmoreland Street to Parnell Monument at the end of O'Connell Street together with a number of smaller streets converging on the central spine. The commission were established because for many years various bodies, organisations and individuals bemoaned the continuous rundown nature of the centre of our capital city.

Yesterday, on a beautiful day, I walked slowly down Grafton Street and through that beautiful area between the Bank of Ireland and Trinity College, into Westmoreland Street, through O'Connell Street and up to the Parnell Monument and I could envisage quite clearly what benefits the commission would have brought to this area if they were allowed to continue.

One of the most annoying features to me is the number of plastic signs adorning the frontage of many otherwise architecturally pleasing buildings. This has happened to such an extent that one can only reflect on the degree of architectural vandalism which was allowed to take place over a succession of years which has blighted the centre of our capital city. The commission were charged to ensure that advertising not in keeping with the general character of a street — and which is often put in place without planning permission — could be removed. In cases where such permission had been granted and where the commission felt that the displays were not in keeping with the area over which they had authority, they had power to remove these signs on foot of compensation.

Some months ago I attended a seminar on the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission addressed by Mr. Patrick Shaffrey, consultant architect to the commission. He stated that if the commission had to pay one penny of compensation, they would have been a failure. Mr. Shaffrey explained that the commission would have a three pronged brief: (1) to encourage owners and occupiers to improve their premises; (2) to improve actual streets and footpaths and in some cases make them suitable for pedestrian traffic; and (3) to encourage people back into the city to live. There is no doubt that the streets commission had generated great public goodwill not only in Dublin but throughout the entire country in all sections of the population. Setting up the commission demonstrated that Dublin city belongs to everyone and that Dublin must be held in trust for the rest of the nation. Many people from all parts of the country see Dublin as the flagship of the nation. The concept involved a partnership between the public and private sectors. The amount of public investment was really quite small in comparison to the amount of goodwill they would generate and the additional private investment they would stimulate. Ten million pounds would not go very far on a new road scheme which might benefit only a few motorists perhaps at the expense of the environment. We have the example of Clanbrassil Street which is a very important issue before Dublin Corporation at present. I have no doubt that the public, in particular users and property owners, would have been closely involved in the improvement plans and this would have generated a new sense of pride in our city. Improvements have already taken place in an ad hoc fashion since the announcement of the setting up of the commission, for example, Eason's clock and some new shop fronts. The potential for improvement is there.

The second part of the three pronged brief which Mr. Shaffrey saw the commission having was to improve streets and footpaths and in some cases make them suitable for pedestrian traffic, very high levels of through traffic are directed through O'Connell Street, that single most important artery, with virtually no consideration given to the needs of pedestrians. The commission were to consider widening the footpaths in O'Connell Street and giving pedestrians an advantage over traffic. This was also to apply to Grafton Street on a 24-hour, seven day week basis instead of the stop-start position which exists at present and has been the case for many years.

The commission had very exciting proposals for that beautiful area which I have referred to in our city which goes almost unnoticed, the area between College Green and the Bank of Ireland. Any capital city in the world with such a square available to it would take full advantage of it, and I regret that has not happened in Dublin, although I pay tribute to the Bank of Ireland for the extensive work they have carried out in restoring the facade of that historic and beautiful building. It is a great credit to them. Many Dubliners and visitors to the capital city took great pleasure in seeing that building restored.

The improvement in street furniture was also an essential matter for the commission's attention. The street furniture in the centre of our city is very shabby and in need of restoring. They were to carry out extensive planting of shrubs and flowers in different areas on the pedestrian ways. I have noticed in recent weeks the initiative taken by some private individual or individuals in this regard on Wicklow Street. There are now a number of small trees in tub boxes there and they have transformed the street and given it beauty and dignity. If the inner part of our city were treated in the same way it would have a tremendous uplift.

The commission were to encourage the concept of security for pedestrians in the centre area by having an increased Garda presence and a number of Garda kiosks. While I very much favoured the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission, I think this was one of the best ideas they put forward. For a long time now there has been a certain amount of insecurity in O'Connell Street and the necessary Garda presence is not always there. If we had kiosks or mini Garda stations at a number of points in O'Connell Street and Grafton Street, I feel that citizens walking the streets would feel far more secure and Dublin would become a living city even after 6 p.m.

I am sure a Garda presence in the form I have referred to would be welcomed by shop owners on the principal streets because security problems have arisen in a number of years past. We have now become accustomed to seeing steel shutter after steel shutter on every shop window from Grafton Street right up into O'Connell Street. If a Garda presence existed there would not be the same need for these steel shutters and shop owners would be able to leave their windows free for the public to do window shopping which was a custom I remember well as a young person living in Dublin. It is sad that this custom has almost disappeared. Indeed, a measure such as this should be introduced during the tourist season to encourage this because it is very important for tourists to be able to walk around freely and to window shop. I do not enjoy it much myself but many people take great pleasure in window shopping.

I must say in passing that Dublin Corporation have carried out a very interesting programme of street pedestrianisation. Unfortunately, due to financial restrictions this has been carried out in a very limited way. Nevertheless, there is a prospect now of a pedestrian link between Grafton Street and Liffey Street. Unfortunately, the city manager, reporting at the estimates meeting this year, said there was no further funding for pedestrianisation of our streets. I tell the Minister this is serious because it is due principally to the cutback in the support grant rate.

Dublin city centre, despite all the bad publicity, contains streets, squares and buildings of great potential and character. The amount of dereliction in the commission's area was quite small. What was needed was an overall co-ordinating body such as the commission who would make decisions quickly and engender confidence in all who use the city centre. For some reason or other this confidence has been lost in recent years. The present Government may contribute to this continued loss of confidence by not allowing the streets commission to continue to function properly. History may treat the Minister harshly in this matter.

The commission also had valuable human resources, mainly the chairman, Mr. McNulty of Dublin Tourism, who has demonstrated his capacity for positive thinking and determined action on several fronts, and Mr. Patrick Shaffrey whom I mentioned earlier, a consultant architect and town planner, whose dedication to architectural conservation is more than adequately demonstrated by his beautiful books on buildings in Irish towns and in the Irish countryside. His work in the city of Kilkenny is a glimpse of what potential Dublin had if the work of the commission under his directorship had been allowed to continue.

One positive aspect of the now defunct commission is that the members of the commission themselves were preparing a planning scheme for the main streets in the city centre, and this will be ready next month. The consultant architect has agreed to stay on working for the commission even after the money to pay his fees has run out and I understand a number of other architects and town planners have also offered to help on a voluntary basis. I understand also that private companies have offered to sponsor the publication and exhibition of the commission's plan when it is published, and the commission deserve at least to have it published before they are dissolved. I can understand why the Minister has done that on this very day knowing that this plan would be available. When the plan becomes available and is put on public display I have no doubt that it will engender public support and demand.

I do not want to hark back on the long debate which took place in both Houses on the setting up of the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission but I have great difficulty in understanding the total opposition to it from the present Government from day one. It is difficult to fathom, the attitude of the Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, who is a Dubliner himself and who has, at least in recent years, proclaimed more than anyone his devotion to the progress and prosperity of the city. Now, instead of running with the idea that would have transformed the centre of Dublin, even if it was his own, he is quite prepared to kill it stone dead.

The role of the commission was not to replace Dublin Corporation. The argument articulated at great length in both Houses regarding this legislation was false. As a member of Dublin Corporation, I welcomed the commission. I did not see the commission in competition with Dublin Corporation; I saw the commission working hand-in-hand with Dublin Corporation to improve the environment of the centre of our city.

What is needed in Dublin today is some money, together with a great deal of imagination and hard work and the backing of traders and business interests. It was clear the streets commission had the potential and capacity necessary for the job. If the Minister felt that money was a problem then he should have reconstructed the commission. What he did in dissolving them ensures that at this critical time the City of Dublin is back to square one. During the last year of the previous Government significant legislation was put in place to implement the major development of an improvement programme of the Dublin city centre area. This included the Urban Renewal Act, 1986, which provided for designated areas to encourage development, especially along the quays and other derelict areas in Dublin City and elsewhere, the redevelopment of the Custom House Docks site and the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission. These were all interrelated measures and the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission were the unifying factor in joining all three together.

The inner city and the centre areas are dead and will remain dead until something is done to revitalise the city centre. I suspect that when our potential clients for the financial centre at the 27 acre dock site come here to familiarise themselves with the area, they will be somewhat disappointed when they see O'Connell Street which must be the most depressed principal street in any city in Europe. Similarly, the pension fund people who are likely to underwrite development projects in the inner city area, with the very positive co-operation of Dublin Corporation, will look at them with a jaundiced eye. They have responsibility to secure the pension rights of the depositors and will be influenced as much as anything else by the physical appearance of what they see.

The Government have made a very serious mistake in dissolving the Dublin Metropolitan Commission. I know they have a commitment to the 27-acre site and to the financial centre there but I do not believe you can develop one part of the city and leave the rest of it unattended. That is the reason I say that the dissolution of the commission is a mistake. The commission were not a major budgetary item that would be critical to any strategy the Government were following. They were not a continuing body; they had a budget of only £10 million for three years which is less than half the amount that has been spent on the Royal Hospital, an expenditure the public have welcomed because it has meant the restoration of one of the finest public buildings in our city. How much more would the public welcome the revitalisation of the city centre for half that expenditure?

At times we misunderstood the feelings of people in this area. We all like to decorate our houses and keep them in nice order. We like to have our gardens well looked after and we take personal satisfaction from that. We also take pride when visitors to our houses acknowledge our efforts in this regard. The same applies to places of worship. People like to see the place where they worship well kept. In that area it is very hard to raise funds nowadays but my experience over a long number of years has been that if the money sought was to be spent in redecorating the place of worship it was freely available because people take a pride in and like other people to see their place of worship as one of the finest kept places in the city or country. The same applies to the capital city and to Dubliners who live here. I am proud to be a Dubliner. People from the rest of the country take great pride in Dublin. It is the capital of the nation, everyone's capital city. The feelings of people in this regard have been overlooked.

When one considers all of these issues one is inevitably drawn to the conclusion that, for reasons which I will leave to this House and to the public to deduce for themselves, this Government have chosen to drive a stake in the heart of Dublin, in a most unconsidered way, on the eve of its thousandth anniversary. The Minister has decided to forsake Dublin once again. The city is to be let down. If he believes that the city does not warrant special attention then he is looking at it through rose tinted glasses. The city, after a thousand years, should get a better deal. It is a very old and proud city. I call on this House to condemn the Minister's ill-considered action and to ask him to look again at what can and should be done. What can be done is contained in the motion. If the Minister were to reconsider his decision in this matter it would not be considered a U-turn. It would be considered as a very brave and courageous decision and would be acknowledged by all the citizens of the nation.

I have a vested interest in this matter, as has Senator Doyle, in that we are members of Dublin City Council. However, I have always regarded the establishment of the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission as a method of diminishing the power of Dublin Corporation and indeed as an attack on local democracy. The Minister for the Environment has now made an order dissolving the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission with effect from today. We on this side of the House fully support the Minister in this regard.

Everyone is surely in agreement that the centre of Dublin and its main streets have problems. O'Connell Street in particular is a typical example. It would be fair to say that this street has been subjected to severe architectural vandalism and bad planning. A multiplicity of hamburger joints fronted with plastic signs and neon lights have contributed to the destruction of the premier street of our capital. In addition, there is the problem of dirt and litter and recently I have observed that even the famous Daniel O'Connell monument is now not just covered with dirt and slime but with other substances as well, and I will leave that to the imagination.

O'Connell Street presents the tourist with a view that Dublin is, in fact, a honky tonk town. There are many other problems including the severe traffic congestion and the poor state of the roads and footpaths. Quite frankly this part of our capital city is run down, tardy and, in places blighted with urban decay. Action is needed but the problem can be tackled without the establishment of this commission.

Its main task was to design a number of improvement schemes for these areas. The commission had a number of powers which would be the envy of any local authority, particularly the powers which could compel property owners to undertake certain action. The powers of Dublin Corporation and the Dublin Transport Authority were to be given to this new commission to produce a more co-ordinated approach to the problems of the area. Nevertheless, there is another side to the story regarding the history of the establishment of the commission. The Government at that time were engaged in a process of systematically reducing the powers of local authorities throughout the country. Indeed the Minister for the Environment at the time and other members of that Government, with increasing regularity, criticised and insulted Dublin Corporation, their role, their functions and even their members. Many saw the establishment of the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission as a further insult by the Minister to the members of Dublin City Council. It could also be said that the issue of rejuvenating Dublin city would prove to be a vote-catching issue.

Any Government providing £10 million in the run up to a general election for the improvement of the capital city would have a realistic expectation of increasing their popularity. Given that the commission were set up prior to the general election, one must reasonably question whether in fact this whole exercise was merely an election gimmick. However, the commission were set up but are now being dissolved.

The Government had no choice but to act in this responsible manner. When this Government came to power a short time ago they were confronted with a situation whereby there was absolute chaos in the public finances. So far as the public finances were concerned the eleventh hour had been reached and the Government had no choice but to tackle the situation head-on. The country is overtaxed and now has a national debt of over £24 billion. Given this situation, every item of public expenditure had to be examined with a view to reducing it. The many expenditure commitments given by the previous Government in the run up to the general election have to be examined now in this light. If confidence and growth are to be brought back into the economy the public finances must be brought under control and interest rates pushed downwards.

This new confidence which has been generated in recent months will be shattered if the Government accept this motion and suddenly decide to squander more of the taxpayers' money. I find it difficult to believe that Fine Gael are suggesting that we should now spend £10 million without any provision for it whatsoever. The question had to be asked as to whether the taxpayer could afford £10 million in the first place at a time when local authorities throughout the country, including Dublin Corporation, were implementing severe but necessary cutbacks. Could the spending of £10 million on another subsidiary bureaucracy be justified? That is the situation that confronted the Government and I am convinced that they have taken the right decision.

A number of other criticisms could be made regarding the establishment of the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission, apart from the question of finance. When the commission were established I made it abundantly clear at various meetings of Dublin Corporation that I believed this body to be an attack on local democracy.

The Act establishing the commission provides for consultation with Dublin Corporation, the Dublin Transport Authority and other interested bodies. Mere consultation, however, is not enough and it has to be asked would the members of the commission have the will or the capacity to consult with these bodies? Indeed, would these bodies cooperate with the commission at all? Certainly, many members of Dublin City Council — I exclude Senator Doyle — were totally opposed to the establishment of the commission in the first place, including the Lord Mayor of the day. Without meaning to be disrespectful to the membership of the commission, these were people who had little or no political experience, being thrown into a huge political arena. It was a recipe for disaster and had proved to be such.

For example, the leaking of suggestions to the media, regarding the reconstruction of Nelson's Pillar was a bad mistake. A public controversy arose before the commission even commenced their work. Incidentally, during the public controversy I was one of those people who supported the suggestion that one of the founding fathers of our State and great statesman of our time, Eamon de Valera, should have had his statue placed on the newly constructed tower outside the GPO. However, the point I am making is that it was a mistake to give a political role to non-political people. In addition, I was also opposed to the establishment of the commission because I felt that a separation of a small area of the city from the city as a whole with respect to planning and administration was a serious mistake. An integrated approach to planning is needed if it is to be successful. At that time a draft development plan was currently being drawn up and yet here was a section of the city which was excluded from these plans. To isolate one section of the city from the whole and to put people who had little practical experience in administration in charge of this section would be a mistake.

As I said initially, the job of rejuvenating the inner city is a job which should be done by the local authority, which in this case is Dublin Corporation. A new, young, vibrant city council was elected in the local elections of 1983. Many of the newly elected councillors are extremely concerned about the conservation of our city and there is now a predominant wish to ensure that once again life is brought back to the inner city. Dublin Corporation are now doing a reasonable job in relation to these objectives. We have already seen the pedestrianisation of some of our major streets, including Moore Street and Mary Street. This was done with the co-operation of the business community of the city who provided some of the much needed finance for these projects. The lighting of many of our famous public buildings is now being carried out. It is now a firm objective of Dublin Corporation to bring people back into the inner city and the draft development plan currently under discussion sees this as a major priority.

In recent years the corporation have been renowned for the high quality of the inner city local authority housing they are providing. Last year also there were several successful attempts made to bring life into the area and to make it a living city where people could enjoy themselves. We had the James Last concert, for example. Annual events now include the Dublin City Carnival and the People's Art Exhibition. Dublin Corporation have the capacity and the will to bring about much needed improvements. They are the experts. There are, however, a number of critics of Dublin Corporation and many of their criticisms are justified. Dublin Corporation have made serious mistakes. There are a few big mistakes at Fishamble Street, for example. However, we do not need the establishment of another bureaucracy to iron out the many existing problems. Dublin Corporation can be reformed, and I call on the Minister for the Environment to consider ways of imposing on Dublin Corporation reforms which would ensure that the centre city is revitalised. When the financial climate is right further funding can be given to Dublin Corporation to make further improvements.

An Bord Pleanála have also played their role in destroying our city. As Deputy Gay Mitchell mentioned when this matter was being discussed in the Dáil, many of the hamburger joints in O'Connell Street, for example, were turned down by the planning department of Dublin Corporation but were granted planning permission by An Bord Pleanála on appeal. Here, too, reforms are necessary, and perhaps An Bord Pleanála should be made more accountable for the decisions they take. These are future issues which the Government can confront.

Next year, 1988, Dublin celebrates its millennium. Already many centre city businesses have plans to improve their facade and clean up the city. Many department stores have plans to erect window boxes and to plant flowers around their buildings. Much can be done without the need for public funding. What the Dublin millennium must do is to encourage pride in our city. In today's economic climate it is easy for Dublin citizens to become demoralised. However, we must once again encourage pride in our city and everything it stands for. Last weekend over 100,000 people converged on north Dublin to welcome home the greatest rock band in the world, U2 and despite the large number of young people involved very little trouble occurred. By and large, good humour and good crack prevailed. At the concert the lead singer said he was proud to be Irish and proud to be a Dubliner. This group clearly demonstrates what we can achieve, that if we have pride in ourselves we can succeed. If we encourage this pride by Dubliners in their city it will do a lot more than the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission could ever have hoped to achieve. We all hope the Dublin millennium celebrations will be a tremendous success and we wish Dublin city a very happy 1000th birthday.

It is regrettable Senator Haughey saw fit to introduce a party political issue at the commencement of his speech in that he saw some kind of conspiracy on the part of the Coalition Government to overpower local authorities. It is particularly regrettable and distressing that he sees this when we are talking about an issue of such sensitivity and great importance as Dublin city and the degradation and awful condition of the Dublin we know today. We are talking about our environment, our culture and our lifestyle. Whether we come from Dublin or outside, we should all be deeply concerned about the state of Dublin today.

Like Senator Doyle, I am absolutely appalled and terribly distressed that today marks the ending of the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission. It is not relevant to talk about an investment, to talk about money all the time. This investment have yielded a three-fold return. I do not think anybody could doubt that. More spending would have resulted because people would have come into the city to carry out business and there would have been increased tourism. I want to correct Senator Haughey and tell him that £3 million that had been provided in the Estimates. I am very regretful and sad about the demise of this commission, both as a politician of the party which had the imagination and the initiative to set it up and as a Dubliner. This commission was well thought out and was a very well meant response to a virtual crescendo of criticism and frustration of Dublin people, Dublin organisations, and business houses, to what has happened to our capital city in the past three decades.

The Government who addressed themselves to the quite awful problems of the disintegration of inner Dublin did so with the purpose of establishing a single function authority, for a period of three years which would assume the powers and responsibilities of the local authority, Dublin Corporation, and the responsibilities for the Dublin Transport Authority, as well as a number of responsibilities of the Garda Síochána. The proposal was eminently suitable and in the short space of time since the setting up of the commission it captured the imagination and the support of a wide range of interest groups and lobbies.

I believe the expectations expressed for the work of that commission would have been fulfilled. They were to address in a co-ordinated way the many problems of the central core of Dublin. It is not as if the commission were going to take over entirely Dublin city and county, although from some of the outrage expressed in some debates, one would think Dublin Corporation were being made redundant. That is not the case, and was not to be the case. The commission were assigned responsibility for the area running from the top of Grafton Street, through Westmoreland Street to the Parnell Monument at the end of O'Connell Street, together with a number of smaller streets converging on that central spine. The budget allocated to the commission was £10 million over the three year period, as well as expenditure from Dublin Corporation representing the spending the corporation themselves would otherwise have had to make on maintenance in the area.

The Government's actions on the matter smack of pique because it was not their idea in the first place. They would have preferred a commission such as this body, if they were to be effective — and I am convinced they would have been effective — to be the brainchild of the Fianna Fáil Party. I have no doubt that this type of a senseless see-sawing of legislation on a change of Government, for no valid reason, is not lost on the electorate; it is one of the features of politics that leads to cynicism among the electorate.

I regret the need for this commission to deal with the crippling problems of this city but there is a need for a small, powerful and highly motivated group which can effectively identify the problems and the work which needs to be done and to set about getting the improvements under way because, over the years, this city has been allowed to disintegrate. Whoever was responsible— I am not here to apportion blame to any particular person — did not do the job that should have been done. Perhaps the blame lies in administration, with councillors or corporation officials. All who live in or around Dublin, particularly those who were born and grew up in Dublin, love it. Each one has some special feature of the city that appeals more than any other. Any thinking person must grieve deeply when they walk down the Quays or O'Connell Street at 10 o'clock on a Friday or Saturday night or, in the worst of all circumstances, see the madness of our main shopping areas during the peak shopping hours of Fridays and Saturdays. Gone is the Dublin of Brendan Behan. Gone is the Dublin of Edna O'Brien who wrote so wonderfully of the country girls from the offices who stayed in town for dances on Friday and Saturday nights because Dublin was a beautiful place. Does this happen now? Anyone who sees the packed buses leaving several centres around the city on a Friday evening can judge for themselves what has happened to their capital city over the past 25 years. We have gone beyond trying to defend the city. Only an idiot or a liar would try to say that Dublin in its present state is a lovely place.

Two years ago I attended a seminar in France. During the course of an evening meal with 15 other participants from around the world, someone asked us where we were from. When I said I was from Dublin an Austrian woman threw her hands in the air and cried out in consolation to me: "Oh, how unfortunate for you; how dreadful; it is such a terrible city". I was not the only one in that group to feel embarrassed by her remarks but in the face of candid truths like that it is none too easy to present a positive image. One wants to, but it is very difficult.

One ironic factor about Dublin is that during the years it has been going into decline, whether through atrocious planning, derelict buildings, lack of landscaping or pollution, there has been a vast improvement in most European cities, many of which were devastated during the war years. Indeed, a lesson closer to home can be learned if we look at what has been done to Belfast and Newry which suffered such destruction in more recent times. I deeply and bitterly regret that the Government reversed the worthwhile initiative of the Coalition Government because it signals a victory for bureaucracy once again. In Dublin, bureaucracy has got in the way of effective and speedy action in areas where it is necessary.

What exactly is wrong with Dublin? First and foremost, it is the awful planning that has been allowed to develop in O'Connell Street which could more appropriately be called Las Vegas Way with its proliferation of fast food outlets, amusement arcades and advertising hoardings in the worst taste. Secondly, there seems to be no harmonising between the traffic flow, the needs of shoppers and business houses. Development and planning in the city centre have been higgledy-piggledy and unco-ordinated. The commission were charged with a number of very important tasks while maximising the areas which could be pedestrianised in a permanent way. They were to encourage the restoration and cleaning of facades of buildings, to encourage above all a feeling of security for pedestrians in the centre of the city by having an increased Garda presence and Garda telephone. Dublin must rate as one of the most dangerous cities in the evening, particularly for women. I have visited Hong Kong, Scandinavia, Toronto and various American cities and Dublin comes closest to New York for muggings and violence.

The commission were charged with a number of important tasks such as maximising the areas which could be pedestrianised permanently. The objectives of the commission was to restore to the centre of the city some of its beauty and charm which I remember from my own school days when I travelled from Eccles Street to Dundrum. The arguments in favour of immediate and effective remedial measures to improve the amenities of Dublin city are not just for the people who live in and around Dublin. I ask the Minister to appreciate that Dublin is the political and administrative capital of the country and has a role to play in the lives of all our citizens. I very much doubt that people from outside Dublin find much pleasure coming here nowadays except for a football match or a pop concert, to visit a doctor or for a day's shopping. A trip to Dublin should be enjoyable, not an endurance test. Our aim ought to be to make this city a tourist attraction in the same way as London, Edinburgh, Rome or Paris are. We will have a year of celebrations in 1988 but it will take far more than coloured flags, potted plants, balloons and bunting — this is the only facelift I can see possible in the time available and because of the lack of funds — if we are genuine about expressing our pride in our city.

I should like to congratulate the new Lord Mayor of whom I have great hopes. I am very happy that we have an Independent Lord Mayor, Alderman Carmencita Hederman, and that she has chosen Alice Glenn as her Deputy Lord Mayor. Certainly the fact that we have two women in these important positions will help to redress the imbalance of having had only two women mayors in the past 800 years.

I support the Government's emphasis on proposals to invest in improving the tourist industry. They must consider the condition of this city in the context of tourist traffic and its impact on tourists. The foreign tourist — I am glad there are more of them this year — in Dublin is a sad, hunted looking specimen. They have been told by tour operators about the risks of either getting killed by the traffic at an inter-section, having their bags snatched or being mugged. For the length of time they stay in the city they move from Trinity College very cautiously across the road to the Kilkenny Design Centre, from where they are usually brought by coach to the safety of their hotels on the outskirts of the city. Then they high tail it out of the city down south or to the west as quickly as possible. Who can blame them?

Let us ponder the incredible possible potential tourist resource because we have attractions as good as and, in many instances, better than other cities. We have museums, the National Gallery, our old churches, the Phoenix Park and the Zoo but we cannot exploit them as long as the city environment is such a hostile one. The Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission would have been the spur to radical change and would have given the lead not only in the limited area for which they have responsibility but in other communities outside and around the city. They would have given the lead in a very dramatic way to a better environment and a better life in Dublin City. We have to accept that Dublin is in a terrible mess and that legislators and the Minister have a special responsibility. I challenge the Minister to put his proposals up front now. He has the responsibility and the power. He has squeezed out a very worth-while initiative. It is not good enough to abandon one million people who live in and around Dublin and the very many people in Dublin who in the past have taken pride in their capital city.

The Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission was established on 1 February this year in the dying days of the previous Government. The first meeting took place on 10 February. I was appointed Minister for the Environment just one month later. The Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission Act had been passed into law a number of months earlier in 1986.

On assuming office the first task to be undertaken by this Government was the review of the public finances and the preparation of a budget so that practical and workable policies could be introduced and the pattern of economic decline halted and removed. It was in the context of that review that the Government decided to suspend the allocation of £3.4 million announced by the previous Government for the activities of the commission in 1987. As an interim measure and to allow the situation to be reviewed fully and at a more leisurely pace, the Government decided to limit the commission's allocation this year to £50,000 to meet liabilities alrady incurred. In the weeks following that Government decision I considered the position of the commission very carefully. I viewed the options open to me and I engaged in consultations and discussions with members of the commission, Dublin Corporation and various other persons concerned. In the end various factors, including the fact that I could not guarantee the future funding of the commission, impelled me to the conclusion that the proper course of action to adopt was to dissolve the commission.

Before going on to elaborate on some of the detail of this, I invite Senators to consider this motion against the background, first of the overriding importance which the Government attach to the economic situation facing the country, the critical need to restore order and balance to the public finances and, secondly, to consider it against the background of the Government's record on the broader question of urban renewal. When looked at in this way, I am sure Senators will agree that the proper course of action was taken and the Government have done what is right for the city and the country. I would urge Senators therefore, in the strongest possible terms, to reject this motion out of hand.

The Government's first task on taking office was, as I have said, to review all aspects of the public finances to ensure that the resources available to the country would be used to best advantage and that confidence and growth in the economy would be restored. The financial implications of the establishment of the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission were carefully considered as part of this review. The Estimates published by the previous Government included a provision of £3.4 million from Exchequer funds for the operation of the commission in 1987. This was roughly one-third of the £10 million earmarked in the Act for the operation of the commission over its life. The issue which had to be decided, therefore, was whether taxpayers could afford expenditure of that order in the current financial situation.

Having spent so much time already in debating the Finance Bill, 1987, I know there is no need for me to spell out in any detail to Senators the current state of the public finances. One thing I am sure we can all agree on is that there is simply no scope for further taxation. That being the case, the only way of achieving the objective of restoring order to the public finances is through restrictions in the growth of expenditure even by cuts in expenditure, unpalatable though they may be.

It gave me no great pleasure, as one of my first actions as Minister, to have to withdraw allocations made by my predecessor. Unfortunately, there was no other option. In each case, we first had to be satisfied that the necessary funds could be provided without adverse effects on the level of taxation and the overall level of public expenditure. It was a simple enough matter for my predecessor to include in the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission Act a section specifying that the commission would get £10 million over three years. It is not quite so easy, however, to raise the same £10 million from our citizens already heavily weighed down by taxation. Neither can we lightly add another £10 million to the heavy burden of public debt that has been allowed to grow so rapidly in recent years. These considerations were major factors influencing the decision I eventually made to dissolve the commission.

We cannot get away from the harsh realities of the current financial and economic situation. If the proposers of this motion want the funding restored to the commission, I challenge them now to stand up and say where the £10 million is to come from. Is it to be borrowed or got through more taxation? And, if not, what services are to suffer instead? There is no point in talking in the abstract. This Government have to take real decisions.

I want to emphasise at this point that nothing I have said or done is to be taken as being in any way anti-Dublin. Although I am not a Dublin Minister, Dublin is as much my capital city as it is that of anyone else living within the metropolitan area. During the passage of the Bill through the Oireachtas, a recurring theme in contributions from both sides was the recognition of the problems of decay, dereliction, vandalism, pollution, traffic, noise, etc., of the capital city. I accept that these problems exist and need to be cured. Where we parted company was on the wisdom of attempting to tackle the problems through the mechanism of the three year Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission.

The approach adopted in the Act was to attempt to isolate the area designated as the metropolitan central area from the rest of Dublin city. It would not require a degree in planning to realise that this isolation would cause major difficulty. The only way of mitigating this difficulty would have been to ensure maximum co-operation between the commission and other statutory bodies, in particular, the members and officials of Dublin Corporation. It would simply not have been possible for the commission to function without that co-operation.

With the best will in the world, it seems to me that a body of seven part-time individuals could not have achieved what was expected of them without elaborate back-up and assistance from Dublin Corporation. The only ways in which the commission could have discharged the traffic, roads, litter and refuse functions assigned them would have been either a transfer of all necessary staff, premises, machinery, and so on from Dublin Corporation or alternatively to convince Dublin Corporation to continue to carry out those functions but on an agency basis. Realistically, I have to say I was apprehensive about the continued smooth operation and discharge of these essential functions. The action of my predecessor in transferring these functions to the commission while still in its infancy, with no improvement scheme prepared and only one fulltime employee, struck me as particularly foolhardy.

In any event there were other major difficulties facing the commission in implementing the Act. One of the more important of these was that the time allowed was quite simply far too short. There was a certain fondness in some quarters during the debates on the Bill, and later, to draw parallels between this commission and the Wide Streets Commissioners of 100 years ago. Unfortunately what seems to have been forgotten, is that the Wide Streets Commissioners functioned for much longer than three years. In fact, they functioned for close on 100 years.

If the job which faced the commission was too big, because it depended on a broader and more integrated approach, and the time available was too short, it is also true to say that the finance marked in for the commission, namely £10 million, was almost certainly too small to enable them to achieve what had been mapped out for them. My predecessor may have considered the £10 million a generous sum in times of financial stringency but what was never made clear was where this sum of £10 million was to come from.

It is important that I place on record the nature of the discussions which I had with the members of the commission and with a deputation from Dublin Corporation before I took the final decision to dissolve the commission. The members of the commission felt that they could bring a bold and imaginative new approach to the problems of the city centre area. I have to say I was impressed by their enthusiasm and commitment to hard work. They indicated to me that they hoped to complete the preparation of their improvement scheme by the end of June and that they would be in a position to submit the scheme to me at that stage. Because of that, I agreed to allow the commission to continue until the end of June. In the event, the chairman of the commission indicated to me a number of weeks ago that they would not, in fact, prepare an improvement scheme but would instead prepare a report of their ideas. I have not received any indication of what will be in the report but I understand that the ideas will not be costed and that they will have been prepared without the benefit of consultation with Dublin Corporation.

In my discussions with Dublin Corporation I was equally impressed by the considerable work that both the members and staff of the corporation put in recent years to secure improvements in all parts of the city. The corporation's plans for 1987 include the resurfacing, both carriageway and footpaths, of Crown Alley, thus completing a connection from the Ha'penny Bridge to Grafton Street via the Central Bank Plaza, Trinity Street and Suffolk Street. Lemon Street — which connects the Royal Hibernian Way with Grafton Street — will also be upgraded by resurfacing, as will Duke Lane. Castle Market — which connects the Powerscourt Centre with the South City Markets — is being resurfaced with a special three castles motif. When this is completed there will be a total pedestrian connection from Dawson Street to Georges Street via Royal Hibernian Way, Lemon Street, Johnston's Court, the Powerscourt Centre, Castle Market and South City Markets.

Other improvements envisaged, I believe, include floodlighting at additional strategic points and improvements to traffic islands at key locations in O'Connell Street.

Plans are also advanced for the upgrading of Grafton Street. This is a key location in terms of the city centre shopping area and as a tourist attraction. I will be having further discussions with the corporation about Grafton Street and I can say now that I hope to see a major improvement scheme completed in time for next year's millennium celebrations.

On the question of the millennium, I have to say that I believe it would have been singularly inappropriate to have removed the city centre from the control of the elected members of the city council during the millennium celebrations. I know that the members of the corporation are keenly aware of their responsibilities to the city and of the need to tackle the problems which exist in preparation for the millennium celebrations. The plans for the millennium have attracted interest from many individuals and both public and private bodies have begun to generate support which will be channelled into various projects and events to enhance the city's image.

Under section 2 of the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission Act, Dublin Corporation will continue to have a special duty to have regard to the special importance of the metropolitan central area in the discharge of their statutory functions. A special task force of officials within Dublin Corporation have been established and I have asked for regular reports on progress being made.

In conclusion, I would like to draw Senators's attention to the progress that is being made on urban renewal generally. The Government's approach here is to create the right environment to lead and encourage development and investment, particularly by the private sector, through utilising appropriate tax incentives and making the most of the existing structures and bodies. The existing designated areas scheme is being reviewed and consideration is being given to extending it to a limited number of other provincial centres. In addition, the National Building Agency are playing a more active role in the area of urban renewal and, of course, tremendous advances are being made on the Custom House Docks project. Accordingly, I believe that the Government's approach of utilising existing structures and opportunities to the fullest is the correct one and that there is no real need for a Metropolitan Streets Commission, which would have been another elaborate and expensive State body.

I urge all Senators to reject this motion.

We are all concerned, I suppose the Minister more so than anybody else, about the condition of Dublin. It is our city. It does not belong to any individual or type of individual. I think we are all in favour of the hidden sentiments in this motion. Of course, we reject the motion, but if the sentiment is that we would like to see the central area of the city improved and indeed all of the city, there is nobody who would be against that.

I have listened with great interest to the contributions so far. I was very impressed by the contribution of Senator Joe Doyle. It was well thought out and well prepared. In my view, and I am subject to correction on this as I may have misunderstood the Senator, he has made a very good case for what the Minister has done. If I understood Senator Doyle correctly, he more or less stated that since the Minister made this decision there are indications that private funding will be available and that professional people are prepared to offer their services voluntarily. The Minister in that situation might be tempted to withdraw money in other areas and look for private support and volunteers. If that is the situation I am very happy about it but in all the contributions so far there has been nothing to convince me that there is anything amiss which cannot be done by Dublin Corporation and for which we must have a commission.

I sat in this House last year when the Urban Renewal Act, 1986, was passed. I very much welcome the redevelopment incentives under the Finance Act in association with that Act. As the Minister has pointed out there is on today's Order Paper a Bill to improve that Urban Renewal Act in various ways. There is no question of the commitment of the Government being at issue. I would have to commend the Government and the Minister on coming to a brave decision rather than letting this thing wander on, perhaps with some hope of a little more money. I think it was a brave act and the right one and I commend the Minister for it.

In the Fine Gael/Labour programme for Government published in December 1982 it was proposed to have an annual 10 per cent tax on derelict sites. So far as I know, this was never done. It would not have cost the country anything and this is an important area. The latest Act we have in that regard is the 1961 Derelict Sites Act. There is a need to update the Act. There is a widespread problem in this area. The Government promised to introduce that tax. When I questioned Deputy Fergus O'Brien in this House on the matter he told me that they intended to bring in this tax but that was never done. If any other party, and particularly the Coalition in power, were interested in that area they could have made this important amendment at no cost to the Government.

Reference has been made to a replacement for Nelson's Pillar. I hope the pillar will be replaced because a focal point is a very important consideration in any design. Mention has been made of people it will be appropriate to remember when the time comes. The late Mr. Eamon de Valera would have a great right in that regard, so would other politicians. However, in my view, the right of James Joyce to commemoration in this way would be very hard to surpass.

I went into the matter in great detail when the Bill was being discussed. There is no need to go back over that road, but most people thought it undermocratic. It took power from the corporation. At a time when we are looking for decentralisation and to give more power to local authorities it was rather unfortunate. I have always made the case that in any area of development, and housing in particular, the people who will live in those areas should be consulted. In other countries that is a first step. In Sweden, for example, the views of the people are sought for a proposed housing scheme. There was a provision that local authorities could have this consultation if they wanted. Local authorities have to make very difficult decisions, for example, with regard to rates and service charges. It would be most unfortunate to take this business from them when they have to make that choice.

Dublin Corporation are responsible for the way in which Dublin has developed. We should ask why have Dublin Corporation failed. Is it because of our planning laws? The Planning Act came into force in 1963 before development really started, and consequent legislation dealing with planning is deficient in some ways. New legislation is necessary to amend existing legislation. We have an opportunity now. We see the mistakes which were made. That is one area in which the Minister could work. It has been claimed that planning does not work. Of course this is wrong as there is no other way. But the legislation needs to be amended and supplemented. This should be done.

Reference was made to An Board Pleanála. It is worth remembering that there is no design experience in An Bord Pleanála. This is necessary. Senator Haughey highlighted instances where decisions by Dublin Corporation were ouerruled by An Bord Pleanála. The problem is financial, as the Minister pointed out. The Minister rightly said that it was very easy to allow £10 million on paper, but the actual provision of it was another matter. This reminds me of the various home improvement grants and the other housing grants. I welcomed them at the time but the money was not provided and problems arose. It became almost impossible to get application forms from the Department. The money was not provided in this case either.

Design has two aspects, the functional and the aesthetic. You do not have to have a degree in planning or in architecture to understand these things in their simple, broken down concepts. The functional aspect of design relates to what something has to do and the aesthetic aspect relates to the emotional impact on the beholder. It is not a matter of deciding which is the more important. They are both very important. If the functional aspect is not satisfactory, the aesthetic part cannot make up for it. In simple terms, if I design an armchair which is not comfortable to sit on, it does not serve its purpose and no matter how beautiful it looks, it is a failure. The same applies to urban development. The Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission Bill was a cosmetic exercise. We were dealing simply with aesthetics. There was not enough in depth investigation. There was no provision for that. The aesthetic aspect is important, but the functional aspect is also important. Possibly the investigation into the functional aspects would be the most labour intensive area of this work. We dealt simply with cosmetics whereas the other part of it could have been a total failure. I am not saying it is, but it could have been.

Senator Doyle referred to plastic signs. They are a big problem. It is strange that we did not come to terms with plastic as we have with other materials used in building. It really was an abuse of the material.

In efforts at urban renewal, people were transported to the suburbs. This was unfortunate as it has denuded the centre city area of life. It interfered with the culture and the dignity of a people. It brought consequent stress into their lives by bringing them into strange situations. I dealt with that in detail before. It is unfortunate that we do not have that living central city area. The only way it will come to life again is by bringing the people back. I commend some of the schemes which have been undertaken in the centre city area and contiguous areas in recent times, even if these are taken more or less wholesale from across the water. There is no harm in copying the best features of anything, whether it is in our own country or in foreign countries. But the ordinary people should be consulted and should have some say in the type of environment they get. I am not sure that I should use such a term as I do not believe that there is such a thing as an ordinary individual. It is very important for people to have that contact with the commission. That is the only way improvements will be made. You cannot impose them on people. They must be part of the decision making progress.

The metropolitan streets Bill was very specific regarding area, time and amount. The area extended from Parnell Square to St. Stephen's Green with small spur streets along the way. The time span was three years and the amount was £10 million plus a contribution from Dublin Corporation. It was unfortunate that it was not more flexible. I am not saying it should be open-ended but it should have been more flexible. The areas to be considered and taken into account are mentioned in the Second Schedule of the 1986 Act, for example, buildings and facades in need of improvement, redecoration, renovation or renewal. They do not need a commission.

I admire the work of Patrick Shaffrey and of his wife Maura who is a very noted architect also. Mr. Shaffrey has been responsible to a large extent for the success of The Tidy Towns Competition and I hope his services will be retained by Dublin Corporation.

I hope the motion is rejected for the reason I have stated, that there is nothing that needs to be done that cannot be done by Dublin Corporation.

There is a certain bogus element about this motion which I am very glad was put on the Order Paper. To oppose the motion put down by Fine Gael is to possibly fall into the trap of being accused of being Philistine, being anti-environment and all sorts of accusations of that sort. I do not think that those who are oppossed — and I am opposed to this motion — should be condemned as that.

On the whole I support what the Minister has said on the principle of setting up the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission. I do not think we should once again debate the Bill that went through here last year but we should ask whether at this time it is helpful to set up yet another State or semi-State body which is State-funded and whether it is a principle which we can support. I think we in this House would like to see Dublin city for its millennium becoming a more efficient, better run, more beautiful and more cosmetically attractive place to look at. If we are opposed to this motion it does not mean that we oppose that.

What I find difficult to approve of is primarily the principle that such a body should be set up and, if it is set up, why it is necessary to set it up. Senator Fitzsimons said he felt that there was some fault in the corporation and this was why the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission were necessary. I do not necessarily think that there was a fault in the corporation. There may be a fault in the system because by setting up this body we are once again pandering to the philosophy of depending on the State. If there is something wrong with Dublin, the streets in Dublin and the way the streets are being looked after we look automatically to the Government to rescue us from this problem and to remedy the situation. We look automatically to the apparently limitless treasure trove of Government funding to improve the situation. Instead of depending on the Government to conjure up this lovely idea, which the Minister produced in his speech, of a pedestrian way all the way from Dawson Street to Georges Street why do those who own offices and shops and those who work in the streets not get together and do it themselves? Why do we need Government funding to improve the streets? Why can these people not make their streets more beautiful and get together in a private way to do it? They may need Government or corporation permission for it but I am not sure that they need a Government organisation or a Government funded organisation to do it. If we set up this body we will grow more dependent once again on the Government to do the work which we could perfectly well do ourselves if the motivation was there.

We all agree that the aims of the Bill were lauded and if it achieved the results which we were looking for it would be laudable but we do not agree on whether it was necessary. To set up yet another commission to solve or ameliorate a problem is the wrong way of thinking. The people in individual streets and areas who live and work in the area should be asked to contribute not necessarily with their money but with their time and effort to improve the environment in which they live. It is justifiable to depend on the Government for permission, motivation and direction but not necessarily for funding.

That is why in principle I do not feel it is right to condemn what the Government have done. It is very easy for us to say this is a dreadful thing to have done, they are Philistines and they are ruining a well-intentioned Bill which was put through by the last Government. Nobody believes for one moment that this Government do it out of any motive except to save money and because it cannot be afforded. It is not going to make the Government popular to abolish the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission. The motives of those who have abolished it cannot be questioned.

What I do see in this debate, I am afraid, is the same old problem emerging on party political lines of being in Opposition and immediately condemning specific elements of public expenditure cuts, and of being in Government and having to take them. We had exactly the same thing when Fianna Fáil were in Opposition. They condemned spending and cuts which were made by the Government at that time. Now the shoe is on the other foot and inevitably we have the Opposition condemning it. What we should have had from the Opposition were specific funding proposals for the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission. In other words, if they are going to say this body should not be abolished and it is going to cost £10 million, we should at least have specific proposals about where that £10 million is to come from and where they will cut elsewhere. We had an election campaign in which the present Government, then the Opposition, were continually asked where the cuts would be made if the budget was to be balanced or to come near being balanced. If they are now condemning a Government cut they have a moral duty to say exactly where they would find the £10 million and from whom they would take it. There is a completely different responsibility from being in Government and taking decisions and being in the luxury of Opposition and condemning them. That is the difference. I know the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission were set up by the last Government. They say that if they were in power they would keep the commission going but they ought to point out how they would fund it, in other words, where the money is to come from.

There is a strong argument in this for looking at many other bodies and quangos of this sort and dismantling them and putting them in private hands. There is a good case for looking not only at the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission, their powers and what they are doing but for looking also at other bodies set up by the State to do much of the work which private industry, private individuals and private organisations could do. I would include in this Bord Fáilte, Córas Tráchtála and all sorts of semi-State bodies. Admittedly this body do not have a proven or an unproven record. Therefore, it is very difficult to condemn them before they start but we should look at the principle of setting this up and not necessarily condemn those who want a cut on it.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share