So that the Minister will know where he stands after such a long day, we are now taking item No. 4 until 8 p.m. then item No. 5 and then we come back to you, Minister.
Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
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.
—(Senator Doyle.)
Senator Ross is in possession with five minutes to go.
I was struck just this moment by the similarity between the Bill we were discussing today and this motion and the inconsistency which exists in the Government giving money to Bord Fáilte in a very liberal fashion, as they are doing in the Bill going through the Seanad today, and the withdrawal of £3.4 million allocation being debated in this motion. It would be more consistent, because the two are related, if the Government were either to give less to Bord Fáilte or to give the £3.4 million to Dublin, and admittedly that amount is small. We would be more sensible to put both sums of money, the allocation to Bord Fáilte and this £3.4 million under scrutiny.
I am opposed to this motion put down by Fine Gael not because of the aims, the objectives or the possible achievements of the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission, whom I support, and I support the idea, the objectives and the possible final results of what is being done, but because what we need is a dash of realism. I am sorry to see the Fine Gael Party putting down a motion of this sort without any suggestion from the Opposition about where the money is to come from not just this year but in future years, and I have read last week's report. Remember that this allocation of £3.4 million will not be just for this year but if the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission were to continue it would be an allocation which would continue year after year.
It will be self financing.
Ah, in the words of our Taoiseach. The Senator will, I hope explain that to me in his speech if he has not spoken already. It is a pity that we have not had an explanation from the Opposition in this way, that they have not said, "All right, we will resurrect this £3.4 million and we will get it from here". That is the objective. It is dishonest to suggest that the Government want to scrap the Commission from some motive other than a dearth of money.
I would like to see fewer. State funded bodies in this State. I would like to see the pressure for those idyllic ideas which were put forward by Senator Doyle, come from the community themselves and not from the Government. I read Senator Doyle's excellent speech with great interest. He conducted us on a particularly pleasant tour from the top of Grafton Street to Parnell Square or the Parnell monument anyway — and suggested the great improvements which the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission could make. I applaud all those improvements, but Senator Doyle should have said how this was going to be paid for and how he expected the State to do it. I would like to see people who own those shops he referred to, who pull those shutters down, who put that street furniture out, getting together and doing it themselves. We should be less eager to support this constant dependence on the State which the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission continue to encourage. We have this constant dependence on the State in the Bill which we had earlier today and again it is part of the mentality which unfortunately we are tending to accept. All the aims, all the objectives which this Bill seeks to promote could be achieved by other means and not by the State itself.
The Senator's time is up.
I welcome the Minister, Deputy Connolly to the House. I do not think I have spoken since he has been in attendance in the Seanad and I wish him well.
I support the motion which 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. I, too, have read the report of the Seanad debate on this and in particular the Minister's speech and I am afraid that I remain unconvinced of the argument which he advanced in support of the abolition of this body. I was intrigued by Senator Ross's suggestion that the major task in hand should be accomplished on a sort of DIY basis. I regard that as preposterous. It is just impossible to think that such a mammoth task could be co-ordinated and assembled on the basis of it being left up to the individual will and activity of shop owners etc. in the designated metropolitan area in the core of the city. Such an idea, while it might gain credence with some, is unworkable. Those of us who have been part of the regeneration of urban areas — I have as a member of Waterford City Council — will see that when a city centre begins to come alive again it is the fruit of the process of planning, co-ordination, deliberation and great thought. That is the only way in which it is possible to achieve a meaningful revival of a city centre.
I would like to refer to the question raised by Senator Ross as to where the money would come from to fund this. The money involved is really quite small; it is £3.4 million per annum. It is very easy to be in favour of financial rectitude and constraints on public expenditure in a global sense and then to be opposed to one's pet hobby when the cut comes down in that area, but the money involved in terms of national expenditure is minute and the commission would be self financing, maybe not in the short term but certainly in the long term. I will deal with that later when I speak about what seems to me to be a major Government inconsistency rather than the sort of inconsistency which Senator Ross seems to lay at the feet of the Fine Gael Party.
On 17 June 1986 the then Minister for the Environment, Deputy John Boland, who has been recognised as a good and effective Minister for the Environment, announced his intention to establish a Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission with a mandate "to secure, improvement in the general appearance and condition of the central artery of the city running from O'Connell Street to Grafton Street." The general reaction to this at the time was one of unqualified enthusiasm both from the public in general and from the specific interest groups involved in the area. Representatives from the tourism industry and the building industry and city centre business people were overjoyed because they saw hope in this major initiative.
However, the enthusiasm was not universal and very soon negative and what I would call mean vibes began to surface in relation to this project. The first salvo was fired by the then Lord Mayor of Dublin, Deputy Jim Tunney, who roundly condemned the commission as a dictatorial and alien proposal. Another city council member, Deputy Tomás Mac Giolla, Leader of The Workers' Party, spoke of it as democracy thrown into reverse. The problem, on closer examination, seemed to be one of concern that the powers of the corporation were in some way being eroded by this new creature, this new statutory body, and the hackles were well and truly risen.
In my estimation this attitude was one of full blown paranoia and it was not borne out by the facts of the commission. The commission was to be given a time span of only three years and at the end of that time there was a clear realisation that the powers and duties relative to the designated part of the city would be returned to Dublin City Council and to the Dublin Transport Authority. In fact, the Minister, Deputy Boland, indicated that the City Manager, Mr. Frank Feely, would be a member of the seven person commission and that should have allayed the fears of those who claimed that the powers of the local authority were in some way to be massively eroded, of course, it did not allay the political antagonism which was by then in full spate. It really got underway with a vengenance because the Bill to establish the commission was introduced into the Houses of the Oireachtas. It was opposed tooth and nail by the Fianna Fáil Party now in Government and who are responsible for the abolition of the commission.
The Minister in his speech talked about the commission being established in the dying days of the Coalition Government. Whose fault was that, I ask? It was established in the latter days of the Coalition Government precisely because the Bill had been opposed tooth and nail and had been subjected to an overstated and full-blown denigration by the party now in Government. It was not passed before the summer recess in 1986. It has been suggested — and I do not think this is too cynical — that Fianna Fáil did not want to let the Government pass such an evidently popular measure.
Finally the Bill passed all stages in the Dáil and the Seanad and the commission held their first meeting on 10 February 1987. A new dawn for Dublin was heralded. When looking back over newspapers at that time, all the editorials and all the feature writers were pleased, excited and happy that the possibility of growth, revitalisation and regeneration was on the cards for Dublin. There was clear recognition that the centre of Dublin should be a national showpiece and should be the focus of a concentrated drive to make it such.
The city, and in particular its vital core, has over the past number of years deteriorated massively. O'Connell Street is now an absolute disgrace. It has been overwhelmed by a succession of hamburger joints, gambling dens, which I gather are euphemistically referred to as gaming halls, and discount stores. The whole effect is one of decay and a disgusting tackiness which is totally at variance with what should be and what has been a majestic thoroughfare. The same creeping degeneration is percolating right up through Grafton Street and through the other major streets of the area under consideration.
Here was a chance for change but it was blown, and it was blown by naked political posturing. People who love this city will find it very hard to forgive this action and the Fianna Fáil Party for such an attitude. Ostensibly, the concern and the opposition was based on a wish to preserve the fucntions and the role of Dublin City Council. I contend this was totally spurious. While the corporation have many powers — I am a member of a council so I know what I am talking about and I know what those powers are — these are largely, technical and supervisory. The corporation have not got a city architect, nor have they a design department. Their development plans are all about zoning, land use, site density, road widening and sanitary services, all very valuable and all very necessary, but so very different from the remit of the commission which was specific, limited in area, limited in time and clearly designed to revive and restore the very heart of our noble capital.
The Government are failing to co-ordinate their own policies and here I come to an inconsistency which I find baffling. All day today there has been a lengthy, extensive and discursive debate on tourism. While listening to the other side of the House, I cannot understand why more or less the same people with the same political thrust can say what they said on the Tourist Traffic Bill and then stand up and support the abolition of the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission. There is a massive inconsistency about this.
Government policy has brought tourism into the area of the business expansion scheme. When I was speaking on Second Stage and also on Committee Stage of the Finance Bill I welcomed this. The Government also plan a major development on the 27-acre Dublin docks site which will mean a significant investment. All of this useful activity, this good activity, this valuable activity, for which I give the Government credit is expected to co-exist cheek by jowl with what is the worst and the most honky-tonk city centre in Europe, if not in the world. There is just no logic to it.
The amount of money involved was peanuts in terms of total Government budget, a mere £10 million over three years or £3.4 million per annum. The effect would have been marvellous. It would have been a face lift which is decades overdue. The spin-off in terms of lifting Dubliners' morale and national morale would have been incalculable and the tourism potential which would mesh with Government policy is self-evident. It would — and I am convinced of this — have become self-financing over time.
Some outstanding people were to have been part of this — Matt McNulty, manager of Dublin Tourism, a person with long standing and genuine concern for the city and Patrick Shaffrey whom we have engaged in Waterford to help us with our urban renewal plan. He is an architect and townplanner whose mark has already been made on that fine medieval city of Kilkenny. He has a keenly developed and a very fine aesthetic sense. Shop fronts, offending plastic or neon signs would, over time, have been replaced. Street furniture would have been put in place and a really exciting prospect and a vista of Dublin would have become a reality. I was excited by the prospect of restoring a Doric column in the place of Nelson's Pillar or commissioning a major piece of sculpture which would have been a 20th century civic statement about Dublin but all that has been abolished and is to be no more. I am really sad about the deliberate failure and I can only conclude that the Government and the Fianna Fáil party do not really care about our capital city. It was a foolish, a limited and a wrong-headed decision, a mean economy and an utterly and absolutely false one. I am a realist and I accept that the restoration of the commission is probably not on at this stage despite all the cogent arguments which have been advanced by people outside and in this House. I understand the commission have a report which would be the fruits of their brainstorming sessions and their collective wisdom. I would hate to see that report shelved as so many reports have been, and that the whole matter would be left in abeyance for some more enlightened Administration to put into effect.
Could I ask that this report be given to Dublin Corporation and that Dublin Corporation, who many people feel are official vandals, be requested to implement this report and that we could even at this stage, see what might have been had the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission not been so peremptorily abolished and cut off. I would like to think that this could be done and that something good would come out of this. I wish to reiterate my acute and keen disappointment at what will be seen by people in the future as a parsimonious, mean-minded, negative response from Government to our capital city, the capital city of all the people of Ireland.
I am particularly glad to speak on this motion because I am independent and I speak as an Independent. I would greatly regret it if this matter of the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission were allowed to become a small-minded matter of party political dispute because I believe it is far more significant than that. I also believe that any political party, or indeed individual, who snubs the city of Dublin is taking a grave political risk. I have no doubt whatever from listening in the streets and in the public buildings of this city that this is precisely the view that is taken by the people of Dublin. I would take this opportunity to remind the Government that Dublin as a city is not only one of the cities of Ireland, it is our capital city, and it is a city in which all of the citizens of the State have a direct vested interest.
I, like many other Dubliners and people throughout the country, was excited even before I knew the specific proposals of the Metropolitan Streets Commission because the echo of that name carried me back to the eighteenth century and to a very practical body called the Wide Streets Commissioners on whom, I belive, this commission was at least in part modelled. I would refer the House to the fact that as Dr. Maurice Craig reports in his book "Dublin 1660-1860", in January, 1756, the city petitioned in the matter and the following year an Act set up the commissioners. By the end of the century they were spending £25,000 a year. It was they who achieved the articulation between the two independent and privately sponsored fashionable quarters, a cognate development was the Paving Board set up in 1773 for paving, cleaning, lighting, draining and improving the streets. These enactments show a very high degree of enlightened planning and were well in advance of their time. They left us a Dublin the breadth of whose streets still astonishes the stranger. They are the very embodiment of unsentimental utility. It seems that there you have a very good argument for reconsidering because as has been said already, we have because of the cooperation of various Governments and various interests and in particular the present Government, a number of elements already existing. You have the designated areas, the Custom House Docks development site, you have the creation of the Dublin Traffic Authority, but these are all elements and, as I think my colleague, Senator Bulbulia, was suggesting, it is counterproductive to develop the Custom House Docks site, to develop the designated areas and to miss out that link which is absolutely essential to the prospering of the whole area. It simply frustrates logic. I would appeal to the Minister to think again about this issue.
The intention of the Metropolitan Streets Commission, as I understand it, was to increase pedestrian amenity and access, to reduce traffic and to get rid of the plastic signs which have been so colourfully and poetically described here this evening. It was the intention of the commissioners to encourage shopkeepers to expose the facades fully, to give a greater traditionalism of design and to encourage civic planting and so on. The name of Mr. Patrick Shaffrey has already been mentioned and we can look to one of our provincial cities, Kilkenny, for an example as to what might have happened in Dublin. I personally, as a Dubliner and as an Irishman, feel it is shameful that we have to look to one of our provincial cities for the example we should follow in this great capital city.
A great deal has been made about money, and I was very shocked indeed to hear my university colleague, Senator Shane Ross, speak on this question of money and profligacy and so on, because I do not believe the mathematics of the situation have been fully understood.
It has been.
I do not believe so. Perhaps I can explain it a little more simply just to show how important it is when you are making cuts to use a surgeon's scalpel and not a machete, which is what is being used in this instance.
You cannot have it both ways.
I do not intend to, but I certainly do not wish to be in a situation of confrontation because although I am prepared to be critical, I want to lay the basis for positive suggestions. I do take very much to heart the remarks of the Minister's colleague, Deputy Pádraig Flynn when he said that although he was not a Dubliner he wished to take a very positive view and he was not in any sense anti-Dublin. I believe this is true and I believe this is also true of the Minister of State, Deputy Connolly. What I say is not intended in any carping sense. However, I have had discussions with people centrally involved. As I understand the simple mathematics of it, there was a sum to be made available from the central Exchequer of £10 million. This was to be matched by a package which had been very carefully put together and costed of another £10 million from central city businesses, traders and so on. For this expenditure — and this has been fully costed and I am sure the Minister can go back to the commissioners and ascertain this — if you take the return of tax at the end of the day for the expenditure of a mere £3 million, the Government would get value of £20 million. In any housekeeping budgeting, to spend £3 million and get £20 million benefit is a very good deal indeed. It is also unquestionable that if you spend this money it is, in a sense, priming a pump, and I have every sympathy with the Government in terms of the cutbacks that are necessary. I have spoken on a number of occasions not so much directly against cutbacks but against the principles that underlie them. I did this with the health cuts, in regard to which I suggested that a principle was necessary to be looked at first of all. As regards spending this kind of money in the inner city, first I accept some of the difficulties in quantifying the returns because many of them do come through tourism and it is difficult to estimate this kind of spin-off revenue exactly. However, it is unquestionable that if you deploy this kind of economic power to the centre city area, you begin to get investments from large institutions, such as pension funds and so on. There is no doubt about this. If you feel I am partisan in some way, perhaps the members of the business community in the centre of Dublin and former members of the Metropolitan Streets Commission could be consulted about this.
I would greatly regret it if it was suggested that there was some kind of indecent opposition between the Dublin Corporation and the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission. Over the past few days I had the opportunity to speak to Mr. Frank Feely, Dublin City manager. I said to him that I was very sorry to hear this might be the case. Although occasionally I criticise the corporation, I am not a pathological "corpo" basher. I give them credit when credit is due with the result that I get on moderately well with Mr. Feely. Mr. Feely asked how that could be the case since he was one of the principal commissioners. I asked Mr. Feely if he would be prepared to sit on a reconstituted commission of some kind and he said he would be glad to do that. Mr. Feely may regret having said that to me now but I indicated to him that I would make this point in public which should help to scotch the notion that this is in some way an attack on Dublin Corporation. If they feel that, it is perhaps because they feel a certain guilt.
Senator Haughey said that the job of rejuvenating the inner city should be done by the local authority. They have had 150 years to do it and they have not done it. The city of Dublin which is their responsibility is, to coin a phrase, a thundering disgrace. I do not want to be too contentious and to apportion blame but because of the enormous scale of the bureaucracy of Dublin Corporation and because of the many difficulties and worries that assail that body, it seems to be perfectly legitimate and very good sense to establish a separate project orientated task force which is what this Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission is. The Government would be very foolish to turn away this resource.
I would like — because I believe in being positive — to pay great tribute to the members of the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission, in particular, to Mr. McNulty who has already shown what can be done in the acquisition of Malahide Castle and its refurbishment as a major tourist centre, to Paddy Shaffrey, an extremely distinguished architect, who has benefited this country, not just the city of Dublin. I would like to pay particular tribute to the fact that with great generosity of spirit, which I sincerely hope the Government will feel able to match, Mr. Shaffrey and his colleagues have undertaken to work, if necessary for nothing, until the report is completed. I strongly support Senator Bulbulia's suggestion that this report should at least be made available. I understand that there may have been political feelings of some kind involved. I do not know. I am too junior and too new a politician to be sensitive to this area but it does seem that there is more than a possibility that this does exist. When my friend, Senator Ross, says nobody believes for one moment that this Government do it out of any motive except to save money and because it cannot be afforded, that may be what people think in the stockbroker belt, but in the inner city of Dublin believe you me that is not what people believe. I will not reduce the dignity of the House by saying in this session precisely what the people of Dublin believe, but it not quite as naive as that.
I accept that mistakes of sensitivity were made by the commission. Mistakes of sensitivity may very likely have been made in the method of establishing the commission and the way in which certain officials were treated — that appears from reading the speeches. I appeal to the Government to overlook this and to think in terms of the national interest rather than any monetary advantage. I hope that they will not totally slam the door. The Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission are gone but an opportunity provides itself for something to be done to replace them. When I say there may have been insensitivity, I was horrified to see the proposal that Nelson's Pillar should be re-erected. If anything could be guaranteed to land such a commission right into the middle of controversy, this was it and I regret it. It was foolish and unnecessary but that is gone; let us think afresh; let us get something done on behalf of the city of Dublin and not include these rather ludicrous proposals for the re-erection of Nelson's Pillar. It should include proper funding and some practical instrument.
We have heard a great deal about the millennium and about what is intended to be done for it. It is very sad that the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission should have been abolished in some sense almost to coincide with the millennium itself, which is a very great pity. I hope and urge, for a variety of practical reasons, even if it has to be thought out again, — I am greatly distressed to see the Minister shaking his head — that at least the package that had been so carefully put together should be re-examined with an open mind just to see if, in the interest of the city, something could be done. The people of Dublin will take a very harsh view if nothing is done and if we cannot even emulate the 18th century when we had a city which was the finest in Europe. We are now left with a seedy provincial town, si monumentum requiris, circumspice. I am sure I have pronounced that incorrectly but from my Latin class I remember that what it means is: If you want a monument, look around you.
I would like to remind the Minister and the Government that if the people of Dublin in 50 year's time want a monument to this Government, they may well not find a very pleasant one unless the Government take a much more positive view of the city of Dublin. I appeal to them to do so.
This has been a very useful, very interesting and very positive debate. Many of the earlier speakers, Senator Doyle, Senator Bulbulia and Senator Norris have been very positive in what they have had to say on this motion. I disagree with only one point raised by Senator Norris. As somebody living in Dublin but born in Kilkenny, I see nothing wrong in looking for examples as to what we might do in Dublin to that fine and noble city.
We all know we live in hard times and that there have to be cutbacks. We spent the past five years telling the people and the Government that this was the situation, but they said we were alarmist, insensitive, and monetarist although the Taoiseach now admits we were right. We were accused of being Thatcherite and unimaginative. Every effort we made to implement cuts was frustrated by the party opposite who now find themselves in Government having to implement cuts more severe than any they could have imagined. Be that as it may, we see now that there was not a better way and the public have been subjected to an avalanch of cuts. If accounts in today's papers and talk around the House are anything to go by, "we aint seen nothing yet". We can expect further more severe cuts over the coming weeks. We can also expect the implementation of the 1988 budget by stages during the last weeks of this month and in August.
The Fine Gael Party, unlike our predecessors in Opposition, support the need for many of these cuts. We supported many of the cuts specifically while we have objected in detail to others and, in some cases, to the way in which they have been implemented. We regard some cuts as counterproductive, illogical, as having no economic sense, likely to create more problems than they resolve and ultimately to cost the Exchequer more in terms of lost revenue. Some cuts, in short, are daft and this is one of them.
I will go back to the origin of the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission, although this ground has been covered very well by previous speakers. The decision to establish the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission was taken because we recognised the problem could not be resolved in the ordinary way by ordinary agencies working through normal prodecures. The normal agencies, as we will call them, had two decades to come to terms with the problems and they have not been successful. One has only to walk from this House down to the Parnell Monument to see the extent of the failure of the normal agencies in this case. It is not just the ugliness that speakers have talked about; it is not just the garish, honky-tonk fixtures and fittings, the predominance of fast food outlets and disc stores. It is not just the absence of any symmetrical or thematic planning, the absence of integration that strikes one. It is much worse. It is the failure to grasp the potential which Dublin offers, the failure to use the great possibilities which nature has given this capital city of ours. It is still not too late to make the centre of our capital, of Ireland's capital, a centre of which all our people can be proud, a centre which can increase the tourist potential of Dublin, which will be attractive to the people who live here all the year round and to the people from the country who visit Dublin from time to time.
Clearly, over the years, the relevant authorities have been handicapped by two main factors: the size of the problem and the multiplicity of the agencies involved. It simply was not possible, under existing planning legislation, to devise and implement a unified planning and design concept for all of this area. It was virtually impossible, over the years, to co-ordinate the activities of the legions of services, sometimes competing services, involved. There are really no sanctions which could be imposed on those who lowered the whole tone of areas or, in many cases, those who were allowed to persist for lengthy periods of time, in flagrant violation of planning legislation or by-laws. This was the size of the problem. It was enormous.
Then there was the nature of the problems involved — the absence of any co-ordinated agency capable of dealing with them in an integrated urgent way. Most of all, as far as the development of the city centre of Dublin was concerned, there was the absence of any leadership. Even when many of the businesses in the city centre areas, or people who still live in those areas, wanted to improve the overall sense of the area, there was no single body capable of offering a unified plan which could be implemented. There was little incentive for many of the businesses to get involved in piecemeal restoration. First of all, the premises beside them could be tawdry, cheap and garish thus damaging their efforts, and the concept within which they could operate. We could have restoration work done on one building set to a particular style while somebody up the road would adopt a totally different style. In the end there was likely to be a conflict of styles, mishmash of different styles and different eras. The whole thing was likely to be some kind of dog's dinner, much worse, perhaps than if nothing had been tried. That was the size and the nature of the problem involved in the attempt to create a city centre of which we could all be proud.
The answer to those problems was not to be found within the existing structures. Certainly that was clear. The existing authorities had time to try to sort this matter out and failed. To a great extent they themselves admitted this failure. If they did not, the people of Dublin and those who visited the capital city were certainly very conscious that failure had been visited upon the efforts to create the sort of Dublin that would be worthy of its history and of its place as a capital city.
The solution to this problem was both new and old. In the 18th century the Wide Streets Commission were called into being. That a commission had very sweeping powers and gave Dublin much of its present day character and grandeur. They established the base from which Dublin developed. When the former Minister for the Environment, Deputy Boland looked at the problem he very rightly concluded that some body with the powers of the Wide Streets Commission were needed to tackle the problems as they exist today, such was their depth and nature. Out of that was born the idea of the Dublin Metropolitan Street Commission, the 20th century version of the Wide Streets Commission. That new Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission, as set up, had many advantages. It was packed with expertise, imagination and enthusiasm. Tribute has been paid by other speakers to Mr. Shaffrey and the others members of that commission. Had they been given the chance that commission would have brought to their work a great deal, if not an unrivalled amount of know-how, expertise, flair, sensitivity and enthusiasm for the task in hand. Its composition was sufficiently small to allow for rapid decision making. It was not going to be a bureaucratic body answering back here there and everywhere, stifled, as are many local authorities, by the absence of any rapid decision making process. That commission, was small, knew its business, could take decisions and act quickly. To a great extent, that was the value of that body.
The members of that commission also had imagination as we saw from the plans that were published and the ideas expressed by some of them. Certainly there was imagination in great quantity. What is most important they also had public backing. Indeed, few initiatives have been so warmly welcomed in this city over the past number of years. Those welcoming them included the present Lord Mayor, the city centre business groups, An Taisce, various environmental groups. In fact, almost anybody who has concern for the development of this city welcomed what was being set up as being necessary, timely, imaginative seeing it as the right idea in the right place at the right time. All of the major agencies involved in the re-development of our city welcomed the establishment of that commission. Indeed, much more important, the vast bulk of Dubliners saw it as something which was needed, which was timely, with which they could empathise and to which they gave their support. In all of this the new commission was the right size, had the right ideas, the right people and had public backing. On top of that they had a specific mandate, a job to do and were approaching that job with urgency and imagination.
What we see here — I say this in no polemical sense — is a lost opportunity. I have known the present Minister of State for a long time. I have always regarded him as one of the most open-minded and fair-minded members of any party in this House. He is a man who, when he sees a good idea, is capable of grasping it and evaluating it fairly.
I do not want this to become a party political issue. For that reason I am not going to push this motion to a vote this evening. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to come in here, as have other speakers, to put our case to the Minister. I think the Minister will agree it is a good case. I know the present constraints and difficulties. I am not asking the Minister to back down, change his mind or to give way. I am asking him, in all fairness, to listen to the people who have spoken here this evening, to realise the spirit in which this motion has been put, to grasp the central thrust of what we are trying to do, to be persuaded of our sense of urgency and importance. I ask him to look at this idea calmly over the summer months — it cannot be changed for this year. Even if that commission is reinstated with a different name, even with somewhat changed personnel, if the idea and the thinking behind it live, then I will be happy. In that sense I commend the motion to the Minister. I will not be calling for a vote on it because I believe it is not a party issue. It is an issue which affects all of the people of this city and country. I ask the Minister to accept it in that spirit.
I would like to make it clear at the beginning of my contribution that I am on the side of those who deeply regret the decision to dissolve the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission. I have read the previous day's debate on the matter. I have been here for the entire debate this evening. There have been some very good and well-researched speeches on the matter. Certainly I do not intend to repeat some of the very cogent points which have been made.
What I want to do instead is to look quite closely at the root of the decision to dissolve the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission. I am very glad that Senator Manning is not going to put this to a vote because as an Independent Member of this House I would particularly like to examine not in a partisan or political way but just in an open and fair minded way what is best for the city of Dublin. One point I would make and make it as somebody who served for four years on Dublin City Council: I understand the feelings of members of local authorities in Ireland about the gradual dimunition of powers of those who serve on local authorities, the frustration, the difficulty of getting things done. That is true of local authorities generally and certainly particularly true of Dublin City Council. I speak from personal experience.
I would very deeply regret it if that understandable concern not to have powers further depleted or to be deprived of existing powers and functions in local government were such a major factor in the Government members of Dublin City Council as to have generated a sufficient reaction against the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission to have it dissolved. That appears to be one thread, that these functions could be exercised by Dublin City Council and it is wrong to deprive Dublin City Council of the capacity to do it. There is an answer to that. That answer has been given by a number of contributors. The answer, in fact, is that if you want to accelerate and make more effective the decision making process, then you cannot do it by the existing powers partly resting on Dublin City Council, partly resting on Dublin Transport Authority, partly resting on the Garda and so on. As I understand it, the purpose of the Act which established the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission was a pragmatic assessment that, in fact, you could not get relatively quick and effective co-ordinated decision making to transform the centre of the city on the basis of the existing local authority structure and the fragmentation of functions and responsibilities that existed — a pragmatic decision, particularly pragmatic because the commission were going to be charged with responsibilities for a period of three years. They were not intended to be a replacement of local authority powers and functions. It is very important that we all reflect on that. It would be a great pity if the understandable concern of members of a local authority for their powers were thought to be a reasonable or a full response to the creation of the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission.
That commission are perfectly compatible with the continuance and the reinforcement of powers of Dublin City Council. What they do is to accelerate over a certain period by having a particular focus, by having certain statutory powers which do not at the moment appertain to Dublin City Council, by generating goodwill, by securing a response from the private sector. They would have been able to lift the issue, to provide that kind of zip and innovation which is so badly needed if we are to see a transformation of the centre of our capital city. I would have to say, having considered sympathetically the question of whether they take powers from Dublin City Council, that I cannot regard that as a convincing argument against the establishment of a three year commission to provide that kind of focus and co-ordination.
The second objection which has been put forward is money. There again, it has to be regarded as a very serious issue at this stage in Irish life. It is a serious issue but I would say, particularly having listened to the debate and the contributions on both sides, it surely cannot be the fundamental issue. First of all, we are talking about an allocation of £10 million, £3.4 million a year over the three years initially. I would say at this stage that if we were to halve that allocation, you would get the same performance from the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission because those who are involved, and the private sector who view it as a very welcome thing, would give the same commitment for half the money. You are not, in fact talking about money as being the be-all or end-all of this.
The kind of energy, creativity and goodwill that was generated by the commission greatly exceeds any allocation of, be it £5 million or £10 million. Also, we have seen during the lifetime of the commission, during its brief period of existence, a phenomenal response by the people of Ireland to our national lottery, which I greatly deplore but it is there. The national lottery funds exceed by a factor of five or ten to one what the expectation was. There is a great deal of money in the national lottery funds that is not being deployed at this stage for a purpose. If we are serious and if we recognise what the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission could still do, then I do not believe that money is really the issue. I do not believe there necessarily has to be a budget of £10 million over three years. It could be less for the reasons I am giving.
When people are committed to something they will in fact, if necessary, do it for nothing. Look at the example that the commission are giving at the moment. The members of the commission are going to work voluntarily to complete their report because they fundamentally believe in what they are doing. I do not accept the objections advanced by the Minister and by speakers on the Government side and, indeed, by my university colleague, Senator Ross, who concentrated on this money aspect of it as well. I do not accept that argument at all. It is countered by the reality.
Are we somehow talking about some philosophical objection, the philosophical objection being to a proposal for a statutory body that came from the previous Government and the baby is not the child of this particular Government? I hope that the future of the centre of Dublin would not come down to that. I am not making that as a party political point but it is better to identify all the possible threads. I hope we are not saying that because this was an initiative of the previous Government it could not be carried forward by this Government if this Government are satisfied of the merits of it.
Anybody who is considering the arguments put forward on both sides of the issue in the course of this debate cannot but feel that the arguments for retaining the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission are infinitely more compelling and cogent than the objections which have been raised — objections relating to somehow potentially depriving Dublin City Council. It would not be. It is a three year upgrading of a particular focus on Dublin city centre and a co-ordination which would have to come by way of a statutory body which has been envisaged and the money simply is not in itself either large enough or unobtainable enough, even in the present exigencies, to be an objection. It would be possible to reduce the overall amount that we are talking about and still achieve a great deal of the objectives which were behind the establishment of the commission.
Now I come to what I think is a very important procedural or structural factor in relation to this proposal. It was possible to come forward with a proposal for a statutory body for the establishment of the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission precisely because Dublin is a capital city. It is the city of all citizens of Ireland. It is the capital and therefore is a city which has a particular place for all citizens of the State, regardless of where they were born and brought up. I am a Mayo person myself; I live in Dublin and I have a very strong affiliation with Dublin. We are all like that. It is reflected in the fact that because it is the capital city you can, by means of an Act of Parliament, establish a statutory body for a limited period of years to do a very important task, to revitalise, to rejuvenate and to stimulate the development of the central core of the capital city.
It would be much more difficult to justify in political and structural terms having a statutory body for other towns or cities in Ireland. There it could be said "Why are you cutting across local authority powers and functions? Why are you doing it?". That does not apply when one is talking about the capital city. We had the example that Senator Norris and Senator Manning referred to of the Wide Streets Commission. There was a recognition at that time of the importance of a body focusing and concentrating on the aesthetic and living-in quality of the centre of Dublin. We all recognise the seriousness of the problem. We all recognise the degree of official neglect there has been and the degree of official misjudgment, to put it at its politist, of how to deal with the centre of our capital city. We see each day all too visibly around us the degradation and deprivation of the centre of Dublin as has been referred to.
I come back again to the problem we have been discussing in the context of this motion. The establishment of a statutory commission for a period of three years is a purely pragmatic decision to get action. It cannot be viewed as cutting across local authority powers. It simply enlarges for a brief period certain powers in relation to the central core in order to get decisions taken and implemented. It cannot be said, even under the present economic stringencies, that money is not there in terms that would prevent the commission from functioning.
As I have emphasised, the commission could achieve a very considerable proportion of what they wish to achieve on less than the allocation which the previous Government had in mind, £3.4 million a year. As has been emphasised by a number of contributors to this debate, that money was in effect seed money to call down private funding, private investment and private support which is there ready to provide the necessary goodwill and concentration of resources because the spin-off will be there. The private sector know very well that if we can transform the centre of Dublin then we will improve tourism, we will improve the economic life of the country, people will come back to live in the centre of Dublin and the spin-off, as Senator Doyle said in his very moving opening speech on this motion, will be tangible and will far exceed any investment.
I appeal to the Minister, who has clearly been following the debate with interest and attention, to consider the issues as they have been put, to weigh the objections which have been advanced by the Government and to consider the possibility of finding a middle ground, if I could put it that way. In doing so, I would like to ask the Minister to clarify the present position under the Act. The Minister for the Environment has dissolved the commission. I would like to ask the Minister if the commission could be revived because the Act has not been repealed? Would the Minister clarify that? That is presuming, of course, there is a Government decision to revive it.
The Senator has one minute left.
I think I will be able to formulate that question adequately in a minute. I will happily give way to the Minister in the hope that he might give me an answer to it. If the commission could be revived, then there is a number of possibilities. If money is the problem, then either halve the budget or quarter it — but let the commission get on with their job and let them do within the limits of their budget what they can do. If the problem is that members of Dublin City Council feel that their powers are being encroached upon, then enter into a dialogue with the members of Dublin City Council, and I include Senator Haughey in that. I read his speech with interest. He did not pin-point what powers the city council would be deprived of. He did not refer to the very limited time span, three years. He did not refer to the input of the Dublin City Council, particularly through the involvement of the city manager in the commission.
There is room for discussion. There is room for a formula to be found which would pick up again and allow to flower and develop the enthusiasm, the good will, the personal commitment and the economic commitment of the private sector which was ready to let the commission perform the function of transforming the centre of our capital city.
I am afraid that the problems of inner cities and all that is associated with it is becoming almost an international moaning game at the moment. It seems it is not a problem that is just confined to Ireland and Dublin alone but many other cities and indeed many wealthy countries have similar problems. However, having said that, that does not at all mean that we can hide our head in the sand and forget all about it.
As have been said many times in the debate, Dublin was, and indeed to a large extent remains, one of Europe's great cities. However, to a large extent neglect has set in in a fairly big way especially over the past decade or two. It is saying very much the obvious if one mentions that many of Dublin's grandest buildings have now been reduced to rubble, or if not, have been replaced by structures that are somewhat an offence to the eye and totally out of place environmentally. The condition of Dublin as a whole, and especially the central area, is in a sorry state and it quickly needs treatment.
Like many other speakers I was, therefore, quite excited with the prospect of this new change and new attitude to our capital city which the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission might offer. It seemed a new and original approach. Furthermore, I was exceedingly impressed with the array of talent that consititued the members of the commission. Other Senators have quite rightly paid tribute to various individuals. I will lump them together so to speak and say it would be rather difficult to get such a wide ranging, committed and skilled body of people that the membership of the commission could offer by way of advice and planning. Therefore, a move of that sort was very much a step in the right direction. Indeed, it was a big step forward not only from the point of view of tackling the problems but I would have hoped in creating a greater awareness of the problems that had to be tackled.
Everybody is agreed that something must be done and done quickly with Dublin. If not, the entire middle portion of the city will be a place that will be deserted and will therefore, slide further downhill. The problem then is to keep up the momentum. I agree that the proposal to establish a commission did fire many people with enthusiasm. Of course it also raised hopes and expectations and I hope these expectations and the enthusiasm will continue and remain. If the commission are not going to be restored, something equally effective must be put in place. If this work is going to be done by the corporation it is up to them, the Minister and the Government to ensure that a proper, businesslike and meaningful approach is adopted. There is no point in saying that such will be done if it is not going to be done.
Unfortunately, over a number of years, it is fact that the corporation have been rather lax in some of their work with regard to Dublin. There has been a rather slipshod approach to Dublin. Many Senators have spoken about the plastic signs which we all agree are a total disgrace and are completely out of place. Not only are there plastic signs but there are extraordinary architectural buildings going up. Even in an old city like Dublin, renewal is necessary in order for it to survive but some of the renewal that has taken place is of a rather vulgar variety. I need go no further than mention what I refer to as "the black box" in Westmoreland Street which is one of the most ridiculous buildings put up within its environs. I am not talking about it as a modern architectural building as such. It might be quite all right in a different place but it is completely out of place in the streetscape and environment of Westmoreland Street. That applies to various other buildings as well.
It appears that there is concern not only among Senators and citizens of Dublin but throughout the country about the fate of the city and, in particular, the fate of the inner city. As a result of this goodwill I thrust the Minister will be able to get somebody to move quickly who will do an efficient and sensitive job. Dublin has to be looked at from a sensitive point of view. If it has been decided that the commission is not to be restored and if the job is to be done by the corporation, a proper and well thought out plan must be worked out well in advance. Otherwise we will have more of these ad hoc arrangements. It was these ad hoc arrangements and lack of care which led in the first place to the establishment of the commission.
We are all very conscious of money at present. Everything costs a certain amount of money but we have here something which is rather difficult to buy, that is, quite a lot of goodwill. There is intense concern among people and, therfore, there is goodwill to do something about Dublin. I am quite certain that is also the intention of the Government. It will be the method and approach to the problem that people may vary on to some extent. If we have this goodwill it must be harnessed to try to rescue Dublin. It is interesting to hear that business firms, and so on, have offered to put some money into Dublin not only commercially. We have had a very spirited move recently by the Irish Life Assurance Company who are making their contribution to the millennium by financing a display of Viking Dublin in St. Audoen's Church in High Street. With that sort of commitment from commercial firms and with commitment from individuals one is on the way to restoring Dublin and recovering it from the rather sorry state into which it has descended.
There will be major problems in restoring Dublin back to what it was in the past. I hope there will be practical help available from various interested people. We will need technical as well as financial help. In this way the Government can help. It is very important to have people living in Dublin again. This applies to some of the splendid Georgian houses. I was pleased to hear the other day that the Minister for Finance is sympathetic to the suggestion that income tax relief should be allowed for expenses arising out of work or maintenance carried out on listed buildings. Some of these factors should be taken into account. My hope is that the Government will enlist the great deal of goodwill, expertise and financial help that are available. If this work is to be carried out by somebody other than the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission. As would seem to be the case, the Government should not allow their interest to wane. I hope the Minister will see to it that whatever work is done will be done quickly, sensitively and in keeping with the overall environmental and architectural features of this city.
Acting Chairman
Senator Doyle to conclude. The Minister will come in to answer some of the questions raised. We have arranged to conclude the motion at 8 p.m.
I will take only a few minutes. I should like to thank the Minister for the Environment who came here last week and contributed and also the Minister present tonight. I am thankful to all Senators who contributed. It has been a very interesting debate especially the contributions I heard tonight from Senator Norris, Senator Robinson and Senator Hogan. They touched on the real issue.
If the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission were established by a Fianna Fáil Government and I was a member of the city council I would have welcomed them wholeheartedly. I cannot understand why certain officials of Dublin Corporation believed that it impinged on their functions. The remit of Dublin Corporation is very wide and covers many functions. They neglected the main arteries of our city. The Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission were there to assist them for just three years to give them new ideas and let them get on with the work until the commission would be dissolved having completed their work after three years. Senator Norris said that at the end of the three years they would have been self financing. I fully accept that and I made the same point in my own contribution. They had tremendous potential and would have encouraged the private sector to become involved in a way that it has not been involved before. The initiative was there and they showed great interest in the matter. I am sorry that has been killed.
The designated areas of 27 acre site is a vital aspect of our city now. It has to be revitalised and under the Urban Renewal Act, 1986, the Government have designated certain areas and given certain financial incentives for these areas to be developed. The Government have taken a very special interest in the areas along the quays and the 27 acre site. They are all interlinked with the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission because, if you develop one part of the city, you must develop the centre of the city. The analogy can be drawn that it is no good painting the side windows of your house if you fail to paint your front door. That is what the Government have failed to see and acknowledge. I am glad that my leader, Senator Manning, is not pressing this matter to a vote because we do not see it as a political issue now that the commission has been dissolved.
I will conclude by repeating what I said last week in addressing the Minister: if the Minister were to reconsider his decision in this matter it would not be considered a U-turn. It would be considered a very brave and courageous decision and would be acknowledged by all the citizens of the nation.
I thank all the Members who spoke here. It was a very good and interesting debate and a number of views were put forward.
First, I want to reply to Senator Mary Robinson's remarks in regard to the future of the commission or any other commission in that line. As the Senator knows that will be a Government decision and I cannot give any undertaking of what that will be. I hope the Senator will accept that I am giving her an honest answer because that has always been my policy.
Would the Minister allow me to seek clarfication? So it is possible that there will be a Government decision?
The Senator asked if it would be brought back in any other form. That is a matter for the Government of the day. I cannot give any guarantee but as far as the Government are concerned it is dissolved as of now.
I would like to put a few points on the record. I very much admire our capital city; I count it as part of my own although I am from rural Ireland. It reminds me of my younger days, going up Jones Road to Croke Park when we were playing there. I understand the city's heritage and all it stands for and I would like to see it well kept. I have special responsibility for urban renewal and I would like to see some improvements made to the quays — I am not happy with that — and I hope I will be able to have some development work started there as quickly as possible.
Members are elected to Dublin Corporation every five or six years and the membership is made up of people from all parties and some Independents. In my view they have served us well and I refer to all the parties across the political divide, including Independents. It is Dublin Corporation's task to look after Dublin. The ratepayers and the people of Dublin fund the corporation and the elected representatives are responsible. Who was going to do the work for the commission when it was brought into operation? Dublin Corporation would have to do it and there was an overlap in the services. I want to say — and I hope I am not being offensive to any member or official of Dublin Corporation and I would not want it to be taken in that context — that there was some room for improvement and if that improvement comes about——
There is room for extra finances.
I am delighted that Senator Doyle mentioned this because some people say tighten your belt and get the finances right but they never ask where the money is to come from. Their attitude is to get the finances right but let it not affect them. I say to them that they cannot have it both ways. I will not wear that. I am too long in the business for that. They say get the finances right, get the balance of payments right, get the current budget deficit right. There was some talk about private capital investment coming along but I have not seen any of it on paper. It was all talk. It was reported there was £X million available from private individuals or private investment, but I have not seen this investment money and neither has my Department.
The Minister has arranged a special task force made up of officials from Dublin Corporation and I have no doubt but that the members of the corporation will keep in touch with that task force also. I hope that they will come up with constructive ideas for doing the job.
I am sorry to say that we are not as litter conscious as other countries I have visited, and that is a reality. The inhabitants of some of our major towns are not as litter conscious as they should be and this is true also of my own constituency. We throw our waste around loosely. That does not happen in other countries because they are litter conscious. There is a place for their garbage. There are bins. You do not see those people throwing litter out of car windows or dumping it on the roadside. We are not as litter conscious as that, and you only have to remember the tonnes of litter that were loosely left around after a recent event in Dublin. Are we conscious of this?
I hope that Dublin Corporation in conjunction with the task force will address our litter problem and I have no doubt that they have the ability and the workforce to do this job if they get the right encouragement.
They have not the powers or the money.
They have. With respect to Senator Manning, there is a question mark over how we allocate the moneys and how we put forward initiatives. The question is often asked by the taxpayer as to whether the local authorities are putting the moneys to good use. Are we? It is open to question. There is room for improvement in every county council and corporation. Let us get a more cohesive strategy and I believe it can be done. I ask why bring in another authority to do something that there is already an elected corporation to do, and I am speaking non-politically when I ask that. What have they be doing over the years?
(Interruptions.)
A Senator
They have not done it.
They may not have done the job, but it is a matter for the elected representatives to get together and do it.
They have not the power.
I believe that in view of what the Minister has done, Dublin Corporation with their officials, personnel, work force and members will get their act together and do the job. That is what they are elected to do and what they are there for.
Question put and declared lost.