I move:
That Seanad Éireann congratulates the Minister for the Environment on the urban renewal designation programme and considers that he should extend it to other suitable towns.
I understand that this is a motion in which many Members have an interest and so I do not intend to take up all my time. However, I am happy to move the motion. While I am not clear as to what Minister for the Environment should be congratulated, I recall that during the term of the last Government we spent many hours discussing different aspects of the Bill, as it was then introduced, with Deputy Fergus O'Brien, who, I must say, was most accommodating and forthcoming. At the end of the day we were responsible for legislation which many people felt would do a great deal for urban renewal. I am not too sure if we have achieved the goal or if we are getting there. I would like to hear the Minister speak on that and I look forward to his contribution on that aspect. Clearly, there have been tremendous benefits. As always there are areas in which many people feel disappointed and feel that much more could be done. Initially, the problem arose because local authorities did not have enough power. In trying to solve some problems they may have inadvertently created problems in other respects — for example, in housing.
This scheme was introduced originally to cover the cities of Dublin, Waterford, Limerick, Cork and Galway. As I recall, we spent a lot of time trying to convince the then Minister that there should be more areas involved. In the city of Dublin, the area was in two parts and extended to 168 acres in all. There are many people who feel that it would have been more beneficial if a greater area had been included. For example, one of the areas designated in Dublin extended from near O'Connell Bridge to Henrietta Street and the other extended from the Custom House to Dorset Street and both sides of Gardiner Street. There is a strong body of opinion that the whole area of Dorset Street should have been included. It has been brought to my notice that people arriving in this country for the first time approach this way and what they see is a rather derelict area. In fact, when film crews want to portray areas in times past they use that area precisely because there has been so little change there in the last 50 years. In certain circumstances this might be commendable but not with regard to what has taken place in that area.
Granby Row should be included. I specifically mention this with regard to the waxworks museum. Even if my colleague Senator Cassidy is involved in that area, I do not think I should be inhibited in making a reference to it because, as Paddy Kavanagh has said on a number of occasions, I do not think I should be prevented from saying something because it is in favour of myself. In this instance, the waxworks has been a tremendous success. I understand it cost in excess of £300,000 to get it into its present shape and that it gave work to artisans, artists and skilled people. I understand that last year a record number of visitors attended the waxworks. When we look at the reputation Madam Tussaud's has, people like Senator Cassidy and entrepreneurs of that kind should be facilitated. It is a pity that area was not included. I suppose it is not too late in the day yet to do something about it. I realise that in all areas some people will be dissatisfied. But perhaps the representatives on local authorities, county councillors and urban councillors might be the best people to decide what areas should be included.
As I have said, because local authorities did not have enough authority in certain areas they may have been responsible for not alone depopulating an area but for creating problems in other areas. I speak with regard to the unfortunate situation in Dublin and other centres where people were torn out of their environment where they had family associations and were housed in high rise flats and unsuitable housing schemes. Problems were created for society and stresses of all kinds were introduced. That was all unfortunate and it can be traced back to a large extent to local authorities and to the fact that they did not have sufficient power in certain ways. As I said on previous occasions, people who were put into these schemes in the long run became criminalised. They were decent people who were not responsible for the environment in which they lived. Local authorities, when planning housing schemes should, as they do in different parts of Europe — in Sweden for example — consult with the people who are going to live in houses in particular areas. Their views should be considered before they are finally housed. To a large extent this would eliminate many of the problems and many of the crimes that arise because of alcohol abuse, drugs and so on. The scheme which the last Government introduced was a commendable one. No Member of the House at that time objected to the scheme. However, we all at the time thought that it should be extended and that more should be done. More could have been done. Subsequently the Government introduced a scheme to extend to Athlone, Castlebar, Dundalk, Kilkenny, Letterkenny, Sligo, Tralee, Tullamore and Wexford and I am sure that great strides have been made in those areas. I look forward to the Minister's reply in that respect.
There has been a great improvement in the construction industry. I know it is seasonable at this time of year, but I attribute quite an amount of that success to the urban renewal designation programme. Employment must be a considerable aspect of this scheme. Senator Doyle has spoken on many occasions with regard to re-population, trying to bring people back to an area which has been depopulated. I am not sure, no matter how successful a scheme is if we will ever approach the original situation. We have heard Senator McMahon on many occasions speak with intense feeling with regard to his experiences in this matter. The opinion of someone like that who has lived through the different periods, who has seen the good days and the bad, is worth taking into consideration. I also realise that at the time the scheme was introduced the case was made that by concentrating on particular areas and not having them too extensive it was hoped to maximise the benefits of the scheme which are enormous.
The situation, as it developed, meant that areas were depopulated; and I am not too sure if this was because they were no longer attractive or whether it was the other way around. I am not too clear about that. No matter what the situation was or whose responsibility it was local authorities did not have the essential power to prevent it. No matter what they did they were inhibited and their hands were tied. They did not have the necessary resources or legislation. That situation still obtains and in the long term I believe any future scheme will have to take into consideration extending the power of the local authorities. The local authorities and the elected members must live up to their responsibilities — not an easy thing to do. In some instances it is a very difficult thing to do and a very difficult course to follow, but it is necessary.
The Department of the Environment has, to some extent, played its part; but it could do more. I have made the case many times that grant schemes should be organised and overseen by the local authorities. This was done before by the Department of the Environment. A Minister from my own county, the former Deputy Tully, introduced that scheme in County Meath. From all accounts it was a complete success. I would ask the Minister for the Environment to look at that again perhaps and to see if that could be done. In the long term it would be cheaper to organise the schemes, they would be more efficient and at the end of the day the country would benefit. As I said, there were problems with regard to defining the boundaries of those areas and I suppose there would be problems with regard to the selection of further towns.
By and large, local representatives have the first obligation to their own areas and every public representative would like to see his or her own area getting at least a fair share of whatever finances were available. In fairness to public representatives, they look for no more than that. It is only reasonable that public representatives would make a case for their own areas.
I have always paid tribute where tribute was due, whether it was to my own party or the Opposition. I try to be objective and public representatives by and large would take that line. They want the money spent in the best possible way where it would have the greatest impact and create the most employment. As I have said, the big feature of this scheme is the employment it created. There is a turnabout and I have noticed it in my own profession. Others I have spoken to have told me that there is an improvement in the construction industry and, hopefully, employment will increase considerably in the near future. Much of the credit must go to schemes of this kind where there is a transfer of resources. The general idea is to get the public interested enough to invest in those areas. That is the central role the Government must play.
The towns of my county have a considerable claim to resources — Navan, Kells and Trim. The fact that more might not be needed at this time is a tribute to the urban councils and to Meath County Council for what they have done. Considerable work remains outstanding particularly in relation to roads. The provision of roads is most important. One of the biggest problems at present is in relation to transport. The road between Navan and Dublin is a total bottleneck approaching the city. We have a first-class road running from the north of Donegal practically into Kells but when we reach Clonee there is a bottleneck. There is part of the road that is not much better than a boreen. It is hard to understand why over the years this problem was not dealt with. A scheme of that kind would help in upgrading these towns.
Navan is a town which has made enormous progress in the past few years. It is an industrious town. Tara Mines are sited there and it would have a very good claim to be included in a scheme of this kind. There is not enough time at my disposal in moving a motion of this kind to make a case for a particular town but Navan would have a major claim. I know the local authority would be anxious to cooperate in every way possible to make such a scheme a success. Hopefully, if the Minister extends the scheme, the towns I have mentioned will be included.
Kells is my native town and I would like to make a strong case that it be included as well. The Zenith factory there gives very good employment but we have a considerable area beside the factory which is available to other manufacturers. The facilities are there and I hope that in the not too distant future other industries will locate there because Kells, like every other town, has been hit by emigration. It is a residential town and a very attractive one. It is an historic town and it attracts tourists. We have St. Columcille's Oratory, the High Cross and all the Celtic crosses and monastic sites. I also make the same case for Trim. It is an historic town and has monuments that are renowned the world over.
It is only proper, in moving this motion, to congratulate the Minister for the Environment, the Government and the previous Government. It is only fair to give credit where credit is due. I would like, if I had the time, to speak about community spirit which hopefully will be reintroduced with the success of these schemes. I hope that conservation of existing buildings will be the essential point of any scheme. I know that in many ways it would be more beneficial to construct new buildings but I believe in some areas it is essential to retain the existing fabric of the environment. The Minister may refer to this in his reply.
It would be interesting to know, with regard to the financial incentives, what has been paid out, the benefits that have accrued and what remains to be paid out. If the scheme is not completed by May of this year will it be extended and for how long? One of the points we made when the legislation was introduced was that, to some extent, it should be open-ended. The Minister took the opposite view, that to leave it open-ended might perhaps delay the achievement of what was intended. There is a case to be made for both points of view but I hope that in any area where the final stages are not completed, the Minister would make a case to the Government to consider extending the time limit. Whatever further expense is involved will be repaid many times over, not alone in the financial sense but in ways that are difficult to measure, for example, with regard to society, the community, the tourist potential and the clearing of derelict areas. This was one of the major problems of the local authorities. I am glad that the Government have taken a stand on this and that now we have legislation whereby local authorities can deal with derelict buildings. We are doing it in Kells and I have no doubt it is being done elsewhere.
I should not sit down without paying tribute to the Minister for the last tenant purchase scheme which was introduced. Everybody is agreed right across the political spectrum that this was a scheme of tremendous importance and great significance. Many people have benefited and it has given those people who have purchased their houses a pride in their locality. This is essentially what was missing in the areas that have been depleted and depopulised. The areas were no longer attractive to reside in and therefore there was this effort to get better accommodation. In the stampede local authorities, with hindsight, did not take advantage of criteria which they might have.
I mention in particular the high rise flats and the fact that they are condemned. I spoke at length on this particular subject before. I recall that when I came to Dublin to work in the Office of Public Works in 1958 high rise flats were the "in" thing. There was an exhibition of the works of Corbusier, where we had the high rise flats. I suppose the recommendation was that this was the cure for all our housing ills. In fact, in a very short space of time the people who lived in those flats decided that the easiest way to get rid of the rubbish was to dump it over the sides and another problem was created. Therefore, when we condemn the high rise flats of Ballymun we should think in terms of the thinking at that particular time and that high rise flats were a feature of architectural development in most of Europe. Unfortunately, while it did resolve problems, it created major ones as well. I spoke at considerable length on that particular problem in a previous debate and there is no use in going over the same ground.
We would all agree to congratulate where congratulations are due. By and large, congratulations are due in this case to the Ministers for the Environment who have been involved. I hope the Minister considers that the scheme has been a success. I hope the Minister will perhaps extend the scheme, with improvements, because now he is in a position to determine what aspects could be improved. I hope that in due course with the marked improvement in the construction industry, the Minister will consider extending not alone the designated areas but the number of towns as well.
