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.