On Second Stage the Minister mentioned that demands made on the Authority by potential developers required this extra section where the 27 acre site would be extended to take in the road the quay and half the river. I am curious to know why it is half the river. Does it follow that if a development is taking place on the far side of the quay they could have the other half of the river? Why is it necessary to go into half of the river? Why not just the quayside?
Urban Renewal (Amendment) Bill, 1987: Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
This matter has been raised before and when I say there was a demand it was not really on those terms. We recognised that there was a need to include the roadway, the quayside and we then had to decide about going into the river in order to allow the possible development of a marina or other facility. Then the question arose of how far the extension should be into the river. The question was raised about extending the area to the full width of the Liffey which would not give the Authority rights to carry out any works on the other quay. That would be no advantage to the authority. On the other hand extending the area to the full width of the river could limit the possibilities of redevelopment to property on the other side of the Liffey at some future date, for example, on City Quay or Sir John Rogerson's Quay.
The primary purpose was to enable the Custom House Docks development to take account of and to have access to some part of the River Liffey to enable them to carry out developments attached to the quayside on the Custom House Dock site and so, for practical purposes, it was decided to go into the middle of the river which will not militate against any other development that might take place in future on the other side.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
There are two amendments on section 3. Perhaps, if the House agrees, the two amendments Nos. 1 and 2, could be discussed together and separate decisions taken on them. On amendment No. 1 I call Senator Joe O'Toole.
Do you wish me to speak on both amendments?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Yes.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 2, between lines 25 and 26, to insert a new subsection as follows:
"(2) Section 10 (1) of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the addition of the following—
‘One of those appointed to the Authority shall be the nominee of the Dublin Council of Trade Unions.'"
The thrust of the amendments refers to much of what the Minister said in his closing speech on Second Stage. We are talking about a unit, different interests and people being interested in the amenities and the environment of their area. The people who have the greatest vested interest in the environment, in the living and working conditions and in the development of the area are those who live there. My proposal, therefore, is that a representative of the workforce and a representative of the local tenants' or residents' association would be part of the board to which I can see no objection. I referred to the four people on the board, a hotelier, an engineer, an accountant and an estate agent and I asked other people should be included. I was not disparaging those four people — I do not know them — and I am not disparaging what they stand for but they were elected to the board for their expertise and I do not object to that but my proposal is much more positive.
It is inconceivable that we should develop this site without regard to the workers and the inhabitants of the area. I am, therefore, proposing — with regard for what the Minister said — a representative of the workers and a representative of the residents' and tenants' association. In regard to the representation of workers, the person appointed should be a nominee of the Dublin Council of Trade Unions. I name that body for the very good reason that much of the authority of the Dublin Port and Docks Board will now be subsumed into this new Authority. The Dublin Council of Trade Unions have always had two nominees to the Ports and Docks Board and this tradition should be developed and continued. I, therefore appeal to the Minister to take on board these two amendments.
I support the two amendments proposed by Senator O'Toole not probably in the terms expressed, but I would like to see a representative from the trade union movement on the board. Senator Harte made that point earlier. I would also like to see an individual from the community represented on the board. If you want to achieve harmony and success between the people who live nearby and the developers of the 27 acre site it would be a good idea to have a link between them.
It will be very difficult for those living at Sheriff Street and the developers of the 27 acre site to live side by side. I have great reservations in that regard and I hope when the area is developed further down the river, in an easterly direction, that local authority houses will be built. Indeed a precedent has already been set by Dublin Corporation in the very fine local authority houses they built on the opposite side of the quay. The people in Sheriff Street should be rehoused in this manner. It was said that they should be "dispersed" but I am totally opposed to that word in this context. They are part of that community and suitable housing should be provided for them in the community. When the Bill was before the other House I supported the idea of private housing on the 27 acre site, with no local authority housing. However, in fairness to the people who live in that community there should be provision for local authority housing outside the 27 acre site. The good will and support of the local community are essential and the potential developers should bear that in mind.
I should like to welcome the tone and sentiments of the Minister's concluding remarks. I live in the north inner city and I was very pleased to hear the acknowledgment paid by the Minister to the vitality of the community living in that area. He was honest enough to admit that he does not know it very well but I take it from his remarks that he has some acquaintance with it. I hope very much that he will become fully acquainted with the work in particular of the north city centre community action programme led by persons such as Mick Rafferty and Deputy Tony Gregory. I, who live in the area, have taken great heart and comfort in the splendid work they have done, with the assistance of State and civic bodies and funding, in establishing precisely the kind of cultural and educational programmes of which the Minister spoke.
It is particularly welcome that the Minister should have made these remarks, that the people who live in these flats should not be denigrated, and should not all be labelled. I have had the privilege of visiting some of the people particularly concerned with the drugs problem in this area. Although some of the flats in Sheriff Street may be run down or even vandalised, there are those who live in that community who have made therein homes of which any of us could be proud. For this reason, if for no other, it is extremely important to note that on this site whose dimensions — and I am very grateful to the Minister for reminding the House — are just about exactly half that of the Custom House Docks development site, there is still quite a large number of people living there. I share the concern that if the financial services centre development goes ahead as positively as I, along with the Minister hope it does, this could cause some ill-feeling in the Sheriff Street area if its residents are not consulted.
I believe the Minister is not only somebody who is committed to the development of the city of Dublin, but is also very clearly a democrat. I hope he will take seriously the suggestion of my colleague, Senator O'Toole, that the people of the area should be involved in the decision-making with regard to what is their area. I hope there will not be merely a wholesale decision taken at a level removed from the citizens to demolish their homes and move them on. Unfortunately this has been the record of Dublin Corporation in certain areas in the past when without a great degree of sensitivity to the people who lived in those areas, there were wholesale decisions taken to demolish and to disperse the community. I believe that whatever its drawbacks the community in that area of the north inner city should be consulted. I say this particularly because I believe it is possible that the new financial services centre may well succeed.
I am sure the Minister and House are aware there was an announcement on the news this evening that the two major banking institutions in this country appear to be giving some degree of support — as I understand it listening to the news — and I certainly welcome that. It is the kind of encouragement I expect the Minister will welcome. I merely ask that the wishes and human aspirations, to which the Minister was so sensitive in his remarks, should be fully taken into account. I accept what my colleague, Senator Doyle, said about the excellent development in City Quay. However, I would remind him and the House that that development really took place because the decent people of City Quay got up themselves and insisted and demanded their right as citizens to be housed in their own area. I am confident the Minister will respect this excellent spirit of my fellow northsiders.
I should like to support Senator O'Toole's amendments. I had intended to make a contribution to the debate but I was unable to get here on time. I read the Official Report of the Dáil debates on the Bill with great interest, because Dublin is everybody's business. I listened to the Minister with great interest and, like Senator Norris, was impressed by the tone of his whole approach. It is for that reason that I would ask him to take very seriously the amendments now being put forward. This is a very good example of the kind of thing that Seanad Éireann should be doing — constructive amendments being put forward in a non-contentious spirit, in an non-contentious House. To use what seems to be a favourite verb of the Minister, I would be very disappointed if these suggestions were not taken on board.
I should like to add my voice in support of Senator O'Toole's amendments. The Minister said some very positive and fine things about the people of the Sheriff Street area and those who live contiguous to the Custom House Docks region. It is important, in order to allay any fears that what the Minister said was mere lip service, that his very fine sentiments should be translated into practical reality. These amendments put forward by Senator O'Toole allow him to do just that. The Minister, when speaking, seemed to feel that the residents of the Sheriff Street area would have a role to play, that the construction of the facilities in the Custom House Docks area would go on for a stated number of years and then perhaps be extended for even more years.
I would like to think that the role and function of people living in the general area would be more than hewers of wood and drawers of water, that they could be part of the decision-making process. I think it would be a superb idea to invite one of them to take his or her place on the board in question. While it is not down as an amendment, I hope the Minister will give a commitment that he was no objection to seeing a suitably qualified woman, whether a member of the residents and tenants' association or indeed a nominee of the Dublin Council of Trade Unions, take her place on that board.
The remit the Minister gave in the course of his Second Stage speech to the sort of person he wishes to see on the board is far too narrow. He spoke about the need to broaden and strengthen the range of expertise available on the Authority, to include, for example, more persons who have direct experience in the financing and carrying out of large-scale development proposals. I understand that but such expertise could be made available to the board by way of consultants. It is not necessary to have people with this expertise on the board. That kind of expertise can be made available. While the insights, the sensitivity and local involvement can be made part and parcel of the decision-making if amendment No. 2 is accepted, the input from the Dublin Council of Trade Unions can be part of the decision-making if amendment No. 1 is accepted.
I would welcome a positive response from the Minister in relation to these two amendments.
Before the Minister replies, earlier today I drew his attention to what happened in the case of the London Dockside where a similar development to that proposed here took place. Financial services centres were established, private housing was introduced but the casualty was the local communities. That is something we do not want to see happen in Dublin. We should learn from the mistakes made in London. The one way of guaranteeing success is having the local community play an active part in the development of their area. For that reason I ask the Minister to accept these two amendments.
Just a couple of minor comments. Much has been made — which emanated I think from a newspaper report — about the situation that arose in London where local people were thrown out of their homes on the development of the docks area there. I would remind the House that people had not lived in that area for the past 50 years. If one visits that area of dock development in London I hazard a guess one would not find a person who even knew a grandfather or a great grandfather who had lived there. The latest area in London to be developed is off Tooley Street. The only building of importance in that area was the Tooley Street Hotel, an area where people hung over the lines at sixpence a night. It was an area that had lain derelict for 40 years and the Inner London Council have done an excellent job of redeveloping it. Across the river from that site the HMS Belfast is berthed right beside Tooley Street. Across the river you will find a fantastic redevelopment process during which no local resident was thrown out. I see the situation in the 27 acres dock site as a development of that site. The residents of Sheriff Street have been brought into this and nobody has contacted those residents to find out what they think about it.
Excuse me, that is not true.
I know from talking to people who live in the Sheriff Street complex that they are delighted that this development is taking place. They look forward to the prospect that it offers them and their children. I am not talking about speaking to local representatives. I have been talking to people on the ground in that area. The are delighted. A number of people seem to think that the people in that area do not have minds of their own, that they are going to be bulldozed by the developments which can take place. We are talking about the development of a 27 acre site, which will have enormous benefits not only for the people of Sheriff Street but for the people of the whole of the Dublin city area. I genuinely cannot understand how so many people can bring up inhibitions regarding this development.
I would like to go back on a few points. I have been in Sheriff Street and in several places in that area talking about this Bill. I have been going down there, not just in the last two weeks but since 1977, since I have been representing that area, as a member of my union, as the Minister will confirm. I was down there getting schools opened. I was in with Ministers making cases for children who were thrown out of schools, looking for houses for people and so forth. I know what happens down there. I was present for three-quarters of this debate. I listened to the Minister's concluding remarks. I do not remember anybody saying that the local community were opposed to this development. I do not know where this story came from. It should be struck from the record. That is the kind of comment which lowers the tone of the debate. Nobody stood up here today and said that the residents of Sheriff Street or Seville Place were opposed to this development. Neither were they run down by anybody. In fact, they got nothing but a very sincere interest in their case. That is the fact of the matter. What we are saying here is not in opposition to the Bill. We are saying that if these people are so good, let them be represented on the Authority who serve their interesy. I hope that, on the basis of his remark, the Leader of the House will support the amendment.
Senators
Hear, hear.
I want to say a few words on the principle of effectively placing impediments on the Minister as to who he should or should not appoint to this Authority — and not just specifically this Minister. I sit on a few boards where there is effectively a divine right that certain interest groups should be nominated by the Minister. In fact it is written into a number of Acts that trade union groups and so on should be represented on certain bodies appointed by the Minister. I do not see why any group should have a divine right to be appointed to any board. If we depend on the bona fides of any Minister we will presume that he will use his good offices in such a way as to ensure that proper representation is applied in his considerations regarding those he places on the board in the first place. Senator O'Toole has indicated his desire to have the trade union movement represented. Why not the diocese? Should the bishop, for example, have a divine right to have a nominee on the board?
Which bishop?
Any bishop. The point I am making is why not allow the bishop to have a nominee?
I do not think so, or——
The point I am trying to make is that we can depend on the bona fides of the Minister to decide who should and who should not be represented on this board. Why not determine what the entire complement of the board should be by way of amendment? Why confine ourselves to two? Why not fill the three or seven posts by way of amendments here? I presume that is the whole purpose of allowing a Minister to nominate an Authority in the first place. I do not see why people should say that the trade union movement should have a divine right to have a nominee on the board.
I completely accept the bona fides of the Minister. I was both impressed and moved by the combination of practicality and sensitivity displayed in what he said. I believe that he will make every effort to carry it into action. It is appropriate that the local community should be consulted. If Senator Lanigan is aware of the situation in London, he seems to be only partially aware of it because I also have visited London recently. I was entertained on the Isle of Dogs which is a section of this very fine development. Let me tell Senator Lanigan, through the Cathaoirleach, that there was a local community there. Very little of it is left and I am afraid that there is some resentment. It is no harm if we in this country can learn from some of the mistakes of our neighbouring island.
The debate was, as my colleague, Professor Murphy, said, quite non-contentious. It was the intention of Senators to be helpful and to provide assistance to the Minister in making various recommendations and amendments. With regard to what Senator O'Callaghan says, I would quite agree that it would be utterly improper for the Minister's hands to be tied in a particularly offensive way or that we should decide here what should be the ultimate composition of a board like this. But there is a principle involved. This principle was made very clear and was accepted by all the major political parties during the Dublin crisis conference, that is, that if you want a major urban area to work, you must have some degree of participation by the local people. This should be institutionalised. It should be a matter of principle. I did not take it that the Minister was averse to this suggestion from Senator O'Toole.
I would like to make one further point with regard to the Minister's optimism about people coming back into this area — it could happen, as it has in London. Let me make one little warning noise. If people come back in the kind of manner anticipated, it will be necessary to have a series of institutions for them. This is not directly a problem of the Minister's but clearly he has a marginal interest in it and I hope he will take it up with his colleague, the Minister for Education. I am extremely concerned at the plight of educational institutions, particularly second level institutions in the north inner city. I wonder where will the schools be to educate these people who live in luxury apartments or in the reconditioned Sheriff Street flats or in whatever replaces those flats. I hope this Government will take very seriously the warnings which have been made over many years by people like myself. If the city ever recovers as a major centre of population, there simply will not be sufficient educational institutions to cope with the population. I will not specify the institutions.
Senator Norris, we are on amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to section 3 of this Bill. I am not too sure where you are.
I think I have received your guidance back to the Custom House Docks. Thanks to your indulgence, I have managed to make my point. Perhaps I will continue it privately with the Minister for Education. It is a point on which I feel strongly and it has, at least, some degree of relevance.
I am absolutely convinced that it is very important to get the local communities' backing for this project and to consult with them. I ask the Minister to consult with the Custom House Docks Authority to ensure that the local people do play an active part in this project. However, I am not convinced that these two amendments are the right amendments. They are very blunt. I do not know if these are the two correct organisations to be represented on it. I do not know whether the two people coming through this selection process will be the right people. Maybe they will; maybe they will not. The alternative is to allow the Minister discretion to appoint the best people he thinks fit. That is a better system.
First, let me say that I do not know how long one has to live in the inner city before one becomes recognised as having the right attitude towards it. I have been living in the inner city for ten years. Despite what many people think, I live in a house between the canals at this time, so I have taken some little interest in the inner city. Let me go a little further and let you all question yourselves. How many of you have taken the trouble to walk on some of the inner city streets in the past week, month, year? This Minister has taken that trouble on a number of occasions, even in the past month. I take the opportunity to see at first hand what is going on, how the city is being maintained and the proposals that can be made to improve it are always viewed by me at first hand. The Sheriff Street people are all for this development. Let nobody go away with the idea that they are opposing it. They have had meetings to consider the plans. They have been talked to. There are clergy in that area who are very helpful. Those who know the area will know of the people who are involved there. One cannot put a percentage on it, but I understand that a straw poll was taken there in the past month and in excess of 85 per cent of the people balloted are totally in support of this development. The Sheriff Street people see it — and I am loath to say this — as a means of escape for them from the poverty, unemployment and whatever else they have been suffering from over the past number of years.
I was pleased to hear from Senator Norris that the major banking institutions have indicated today that they are going to participate in the taking-up of space in the site. I regard that as a great act of confidence in what the Government are trying to achieve there. It shows faith in the development and it is a direct indication that not alone are the international institutions concerning themselves with it but our institutions are now beginning to see that this project will work, develop and create growth, prosperity and jobs for our people. That is what it is all about. I cannot say to Senator Bulbulia that there will be a lady on the board.
Why not?
I cannot say that there will be and I am not saying there will not be. The names have not been worked out yet. I have only given the broad outlines of the type of people and the expertise they will be required to have before I would consider them eligible for appointment to the board. Apart from that, Senator Bulbulia knows that I am not — I will not get into it.
Please do. Reveal a little more Minister.
I would like to refer to the London development because Senator Doyle and others might have got the wrong idea about this. I have taken the opportunity to go over to London because I am a great believer that you cannot give an overview of anything of such a wide dimension as this development without seeing the examples that are there on the ground. I have spoken to the people involved on the ground and walked the development. I was pleased with the development that has taken place at St. Katherine's Dock. There is an amount of residential accommodation on the dock which is occupied by the original occupants of the area at very small rents. Some people are paying less than £12 per week for their accommodation while certain types of apartments within 30 yards of the area are fetching up to £250,000. There is a perfect blend and balance. Perhaps that is what Senator O'Toole was talking about. Residential accommodation is working in that location. It was not worked quite as well on other docks but I understand that in other developments that are going to take place further down the Thames River public housing is now regarded as an essential part of the overall development so that the existing population can be accommodated. It has worked well in some of the areas and I expect that to make our development live residential accommodation would want to be incorporated in it.
We might be running a little ahead of ourselves in so far as what we are talking about is the 27 acres. You must understand that the Sheriff Street complex is outside of that area. I stated in my Second Stage contribution that it is not envisaged to extend the area eastwards of the existing 27 acres as permitted under the legislation until such time as we see how the existing 27 acres development goes on. It is only when the need is generated for the extension eastwards that that will be accommodated by an order of the Minister.
The Principal Act imposes very specific duties on the Authority and specifies what the functions of the Authority are to be. It states, inter alia, that the Authority have to acquire and hold and manage land in the area, prepare a scheme or schemes for the development, redevelopment or renewal of the area, develop, redevelop, renew and secure the development, redevelopment and renewal of any land in the area, the disposal of land, the provision of infrastructure and related matters and other items which are incorporated in section 9 of the Urban Renewal Act, 1986. That is what we are concerned about.
Section 9 of the Act sets out the functions of the Authority in great detail. All appointments to the Authority must be able to contribute to the achievement of those functions. Appointees of bodies or groups such as those named in the amendments naturally tend to represent the interests of their own particular groups. The Government's concern first and foremost is to get the area developed. That is why the Authority are there and why I wish to extend the number of members to enable them to carry out more speedily and more efficiently their functions as laid down in section 9 of the Principal Act.
It is not clear to me that the appointment of individuals on the nomination of a particular interest group is the way to go about securing that rapid development to a very high standard. Regretfully the amendment that has been put down introduces a slightly divisive note into what the function of the Authority is and the people who would be considered suitable as members. I had hoped that we would have a kind of cohesiveness and that we would collectively have agreed not to pursue this matter in this way. Because of the unanimity that exists in the welcome for the legislation I would have liked if we could have maintained that unity in so far as the membership of the authority is concerned.
I do not want the Senator to be seen to be putting me into the position of having to reject the amendment so that he or anybody else could say I rejected the interests of trade unionists or the interests of the residents of a particular area. I do not want to be cast in that light following my rejection of this amendment. I am not rejecting the amendment for that reason, it is the opposite. I am concerned about the successful redevelopment of the Custom House Docks. That will be to the benefit of the trade unionists and the residents in that area. It will create jobs and upgrade the area and the people best qualified to do that should be the only ones considered for membership of the board. I am not ruling out any person — and I am certainly not ruling out a female as a nominee — simply because he or she belongs to a particular body. That is not envisaged at all.
Neither would I appoint someone simply because he or she belonged to a particular group of people or to a particular organisation. We will have to understand that the Authority are not a representative body and were never intended as such. It is just a body with a particular job to do, an onerous job to do, something unique, something different, something that has not happened here before and something that requires a particular experience and a particular discipline. Not everybody has it. I want it to be a small team of people with those special qualities that will allow the project and the development to go ahead. For that reason I am asking the House to reject the amendments, and for that reason only.
I listened very carefully to the Minister when he referred to the functions of the authority. I watched carefully where he was reading through the functions under section 9 of the Principal Act and I knew my argument had won and that I had hit home properly when I noticed where he stopped. With less than complete information he went down through the five sections or functions; he went down through one, two, three and four and read the first three lines of number five down to "to provide infrastructure." I will read the rest of it and my argument will be made on it.
... and to carry out such works of amenity development or environmental improvement as, in the opinion of the Authority, may be required to encourage people to work, shop or reside in that Area or otherwise to use the facilities provided in that Area.
If the Authority are to decide how and where they should work, live and enjoy recreation in the area, the people should be represented. The argument makes itself on that basis. I will not go any further with it.
On the basis of the interest groups, I say to Senator O'Callaghan, he participated in a debate here during the week where he supported the setting up of FÁS which has a much higher proportion of people designated by authorities. I did not expect the Minister to accept the amendment but I expected him to give some commitment as to the interests being represented. I will withdraw my amendment without putting it to a vote. I say that to give the Minister a chance to say he will take these interest groups into consideration and have them represented in the Authority.
I would be less than fair to the Senator if I told him I was going to appoint somebody from either of the two groups that are part of the Senator's amendment. I am not going to do that for the reasons I have stated. I am sorry that the Senator takes exception to the way I dealt with the part of section 9 of the original Act. It was not intended. I think he will agree, if he has the section in front of him, I only skimmed through it and gave the first line of all the section. It was not intended to mislead. It includes many other thing as well and many other powers as is mentioned further on in the section. I would expect the members of the Authority to work towards exactly what we have been talking about, to encourage people to work, play, shop and to reside there. That is what it is all about. That is what this planning scheme was about. I recommend that Senators get their hands on a copy of the planning scheme and see how faithfully the planners, the architects and the people who compiled it have lived up to that mandate. It is well incorporated in the planning scheme. Senators need have no fears: what is expressed there will be part and parcel of the mandate of the new members who will be appointed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
I was interested to hear what the Minister said in relation to the functions of the Authority under section 9 of the Urban Renewal Act, 1986. The Minister who set up the Authority must have taken cognisance of the requirements of the Authority. Certainly the people who were appointed could fulfil their obligations under section 9. I regret that some doubt has been cast on the people who have been appointed. The four people appointed including the fulltime chairman have done an excellent job in bringing out the planning document. They play a very important part in the community life of our city. They have commercial, industrial and property experience.
The Minister said he wanted to keep the Authority small but in his Second Stage speech today he indicated that for the Authority to be efficient more members were necessary. I cannot see the value of that. It is also most unusual for an incoming Government to change the size of an Authority established by an outgoing Government. We did not all come down the river in a bubble. We know he may want to appoint some of his own nominees to the Authority; whether they are political nominees is another matter. The Minister was asked in the Dáil about the appointments and said the House could rest assured that anyone appointed to the board while he was in charge of the Department of the Environment would be suitably qualified and would be able to give full value to the board on which they serve. Deputy Garret FitzGerald commented on what the Minister said. He said it was a curious and carefully worded statement. I might say it was a very cleverly worded statement. I oppose this section.
No comment was passed here today that cast any reflection on any of those existing members of the board. I do not want that to go unchallenged.
It was implied.
We are not into implication. We are into the straight facts. To introduce a contentious element into the debate at this stage is regrettable and unfortunate. The people who have served on the Authority to date have given of their very best. I am putting it on the record for everybody's benefit. They are dedicated people and they, collectively and individually, are not resisting the increased membership. I will go not further than that. I will leave it at that.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 4 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for Final Consideration and passed.