Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 14 Dec 1989

Vol. 123 No. 13

Derelict Sites Bill, 1989: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Norris

I want to take up some of the points I was referring to on the last day we took this Bill. I did in my introductory remarks compliment both Ministers involved on their capacity to deal with the problems raised, because they are people I know from past experience who are in full possession and full control of their brief. I made some, I will not say flattering but some positive comments on the Bill and on the performance of the Ministers. However, I also indicated that I had grave reservations, and I do. Having had the opportunity to re-read the Bill, my reservations are confirmed. Although I accept absolutely the intention of the Minister in proposing this legislation, I have to say that that intention seems to me to be so seriously subverted and contradicted by the Bill as drafted that, were I not convinced of the good intention of the Minister, I would have to regard it as a piece of fraudulent legislation, because it seems to me that, rather than deal with the problems outlined from all sides of the House, it actually operates to confirm a very dangerous situation.

I gave a couple of instances. If I may encapsulate briefly, the principle sources of decay and blight within the cities of our country, and I speak with particular feeling about the city of Dublin, are twofold. One, there are the local authorities — Dublin Corporation, for example. Senator Hederman spoke with great passion and vigour of her position inside Dublin Corporation on this point. That is the first one, and the most serious. The second is like unto it, and the second is property speculation. For that reason I am exceedingly concerned that it appears as if there is a specific intention — and this occurs both in the Bill and in what the Minister has said — to exempt from the operations and scope of this Bill the activities of property speculators in assembling sites within the city of Dublin. This must give pause to anybody who wants to speak on this Bill.

I would like to refer briefly to a very important book by Frank McDonald in which he says:

The very people who are destroying the city within through their plans to reshape it for cars, at the cost of demolishing literally hundreds of buildings, are Dublin Corporation. Indeed, Dublin Corporation and the Government's principal contribution to the city in its Millennium Year was to transform once bustling Parnell Street into a major dual carriageway with instant trees and cobble on pavements replacing pubs, shops and guesthouses in terraces of three- and four-storey Georgian buildings.

As Deirdre Kelly of the Living City group observed, "Recently the engineers discovered trees. Maybe in time they will also discover that it is buildings which make a streetscape."

It is highly dangerous to exempt local authorities or even to place them in the situation of being judge, jury and executioner under the terms of this Bill in disputed questions of dereliction. I am not convinced that they will act against what they perceive to be their own interest. With regard to planning for transport, particularly for the private car, we ought to learn from the experience of other major European cities; and nothing in this Bill that convinces me that we have in fact so learned.

I have a couple of examples to give and I would like the Minister to explain a little bit to me how this Bill will work in order to assuage the concerns of people like myself and the vast majority of the citizens of this city, how it will work to prevent or to halt the kind of situation we are confronting every single day.

The first one is a situation that is currently ongoing in Bachelors Walk — Nos. 5, 6 and 7 listed buildings. No. 7 is on list one. It is being placed on list one; and not only is the exterior listed but the interior is listed. It is a very remarkable panelled interior. What has been happening is this. A couple of years ago Arlington Securities started assembling its sites there. The buildings were allowed to go vacant first and then derelict. Lead was stolen off the roofs. Vagrants got in, cider parties were held, one building went on fire and an application was made to demolish that. The demolition process disturbed the adjoining building so it had to be brought down to ground floor level leaving only one building. What is the fate of that last surviving building going to be?

Can the Minister assure me that under this legislation that list one building with a listed interior will be protected? If so, why is a clear signal being given to property speculation — and I might point out to the Republican Party that the interest involved in this is none other than British Aerospace who recently bought Arlington Securities? "Aerospace" is a very fitting word for it, because they have succeeded in creating one of the biggest aerospaces in the city of Dublin by the assembly of this site. I would like to feel — but I am not at all reassured by this Bill — that they would be subject to the most stringent of its provisions. Otherwise, we have no feeling for the heritage of this city. I do not have to remind either Minister that one of the principal axis of this city is along the river with the quays. Every capital city that is placed on a river respects the vital importance of the quay side as a spine of the city.

With regard to the Vocational Education Committee and Nos. 18 and 19 Parnell Square, this is an ongoing scandal. The VEC are a statutory body. They are controlled by Dublin Corporation, as I understand it. Would I have any undertaking that the appalling dereliction of duty they have shown in their utter disregard for the preservation of property publicly vested in them as the guardians of State property would be properly monitored? We are dealing with some of the most important 18th century buildings in the city centre in the charge currently of a statutory body. They have deliberately ignored appeal after appeal to do something about it. Three years ago Ian Lumley from An Taisce wrote to them reminding them of their obligations, advised them that there was a problem of vandalism and that the buildings were deteriorating. His letter was not even answered.

In an article that appeared in The Irish Times on 20 November this year Frank McDonald — I again refer to him and we should be grateful for the service of this courageous journalist in drawing our attention to these problems — telephoned the chief executive of the VEC because it had become clear that five very important Adam-style classical marble fireplaces had been removed, an entire staircase was removed and a painted ceiling with panels reputedly by Angelica Kaufmann were taken out. Five fireplaces, a ceiling and a central staircase, which in a house of that size is absolutely massive, were removed and the response of the chief executive of the VEC was that he did not respond to business matters outside office hours and without an appointment. In other words, exactly what happened with Ian Lumley — a blunt discourteous refusal to accept responsibility. Does the Minister consider that this is good enough on the part of somebody charged with responsibility?

I may point out that the effect of the policy of various Governments and of the Corporation of Dublin in depopulating the area between the two canals means that this can go on in our principal squares. I would like to tell the Minister a cautionary tale. During the week a similar attack by these vandals was carried out in North Great Georges Street, a couple of doors down from my house, and two important but not so important marble fireplaces were dismantled. But because there were people on the QV all the time, this was noticed, the removal of the fireplaces was halted, the door was secured of a vacant house and the fireplaces were stored in property belonging to other members of the society. As individuals we were acting as watchdogs.

Can the Minister convince me that the VEC will be prosecuted under this proposed legislation? I understand that legal action is pending by a concerned citizen against the Vocational Education Committee and I would like a clear undertaking from the Minister that this kind of situation will not be tolerated.

I have two other examples I will deal with quickly. One is in Eccles Street where over the last few years a situation developed where the Mater Hospital and the Mercy Order of nuns, who do very good work, I must say, in the hospital, extended their empire all the way down Eccles Street and they have now succeeded in demolishing one entire side.

They also commenced operations on the side opposite the hospital and gaps started to open up. A number of us, in particular the Students Against the Destruction of Dublin, got involved. I got involved in it, too. They took action as individuals in the High Court against the Mater Hospital and the directors and the order of nuns. The interesting thing that emerged was this, and I would like to quote from Saving The City by Frank McDonald:

From the affidavit sworn by Mr. McGowan for the High Court case it emerged that the Mater had realised in May 1986 that the roofs of the houses were in need of major repair but no work was carried out. A year later a report by the hospital's consulting engineers pointed to the inevitable consequences of this lack of maintenance, referring to continuous water penetration which considerably weakened the roof structure, top floor and second floor. By January 1988, not surprisingly, another inspection by the consulting engineers found that further substantial deterioration had occurred to such a degree that the roofs and floors had become structurally unsound. It was at this point that the Mater invited the Corporation's Dangerous Building Section to inspect the three houses, again with inevitable consequences; and though a local firm of architects, Breen and Kelly, who had restored a Georgian house on the street argued that it would have been a perfectly practical proposition to renovate rather than demolish the Mater's three houses, it was the opinion of the Dangerous Buildings Section which prevailed, even though none of the eight area inspectors were qualified architects or structural engineers. Indeed, in 1967 the Supreme Court judgment declared that in the case of appeals to the District Court against dangerous buildings orders, a court may in no way alter or modify the work directed to be carried out or the conditions under which they are to be carried out or review the opinions of the sanitary authority as to the appropriateness of the works required to be carried out or enter into the question of whether the structure is or is not a dangerous structure.

In other words, we have another classic example of a defaulting bad landlord deliberately causing the dereliction of buildings which they wish to demolish. May I remind the House that not far from here on the south side, just to even things off and make sure it is not all happening on the north side, No. 29 Clare Street was acquired by a property speculator, although it was a list one building, and was substantially demolished on foot of a dangerous buildings order.

I have one further case I would like to draw to the Minister's attention. I did mention briefly the last day that I felt there was a problem, that there was no opportunity for a private citizen to have recourse to some judicial review regarding the dereliction of buildings. I speak with some feeling on this issue because I live next door to a house which is part of a portfolio of about 300 18th Century properties owned by an absentee landlord. In that property there were a couple of sweatshops and there is now what I can only assume to be a brothel. It is a house that specialises in what I am told is "relief massage". It does not matter to me. People presumably need to be relieved. I am not particularly pushed one way or the other. But what I do object to is the increasing dereliction of the house, coupled with the annoyance caused to my basement tenants by people who seem to think that the service is generally available all over North Great George's Street. I do not see any possibility in this legislation for me to bring this person to court and force either a refurbishment or a sale.

For this reason I appealed to the Minister to contemplate something that is not perhaps directly involved in this Bill but I think is an important point I hope he will review, and that is the establishment of an officer, a receiver of derelict buildings, who will have the authority to go in to apply to the court to be appointed receiver of a building like that, to go in without even the consent of the owner, complete all the necessary refurbishment work and offer the building, first, back to the defaulting owner at the price of the renovations and then, if that is not agreed, place it on the open market and give the difference back.

I have since been speaking to people and I am informed — perhaps the Minister could tell me, perhaps not — that some such appointment was part of the discussions leading to the formation of the present Government, that this was something that the Progressive Democrats in particular had in mind as part of their little shopping list. I was told they understood that this was agreed. I would like the Minister to confirm this and to tell me if there is a date when legislation will be produced to give some teeth to the situation, because this Bill as it stands now simply does not do it. I would like to amplify this by pointing to the fact that we wash our hands and wirrasthru all the time about the destruction of Dublin.

We think that by listing buildings this has some effect. It has absolutely no effect whatever in law. The Minister is aware of this, because his attention was drawn to it last year by Michael Keating in the Dáil when he asked the then Minister for the Environment, Deputy Pádraig Flynn, who is once again in this position, in February 1988 if the Minister had any plans to strengthen the flimsy legislative protection for listed buildings. The Minister suggested that the existing powers were adequate and that he had no proposals at present to change the situation. That is worrying. I am sure that the Minister of State, Deputy Connolly, must be aware that I have listed a catalogue. It would be most wrong and greedy of me to spend the whole time this afternoon reading out a list. I have given three or four examples and they are all different. I could spend several days giving the Minister instance after instance of list one buildings that are being pulled down, so that the listing has no real compelling effect, it has no substance in law, it is merely a gesture. I would like to ask if something really serious is not going to be done about this matter, which I think is really the nub of the question.

The Minister will be aware that I have placed a number of amendments to the legislation and I hope that he will consider them. Some of them may be capable of a satisfactory answer. I know that both Ministers Flynn and Connolly are in charge of their briefs. They know what they are talking about and they may be able to explain the circumstances so convincingly that I will be able to withdraw them. I am not going to deal with the substance of them now. I would like to say one thing on the principle of amendments, because it has been said to me on a number of occasions——

Acting Chairman (Mr. Hussey)

The Senator should stick to the principles of the Bill.

Mr. Norris

One of the main principles of the Bill is that it should be seen to be effective and the process of review in this Chamber is rendered totally ineffective if, for reasons of the practical management of political business, there is no intention whatever of accepting any amendments. It may be possible, and it has been suggested to me, that there is not a hope in blazes of getting amendments through in this Bill because it would have to go back down to the Dáil. I am sure that this very relevant point will be addressed by the Minister and that he will indicate that there is a chance of reasoned amendments going through.

There are also one or two other small points that I would like to make. One is that section 32 provides that moneys received from sale or lease of land acquired under the Act should be applied by the local authority for the purpose of their functions in such a manner as, with the consent of the Minister, they shall think proper. This is a most inappropriate element in the Bill. This is precisely what has vitiated the question, for example, of the Road Traffic Act and the motor car tax. People bitterly resent paying tax because they see it disappearing for all kinds of other unspecified functions. I believe that in order to be a proper, complete and logically consistent Bill, the moneys gathered from this should go directly to the restoration of the inner cities, in this case of Dublin. I say this with some force because the answer that we so often get with regard to the restoration of our architectural heritage, however now, thank God, we are all prepared to realise is vitally important economically as well as culturally, usually is "We would live to do it but there is no money". There is not going to be much money if we apply moneys attracted in taxes and levies from derelict sites to building sewage outfall works. Why should this provision be there? Why should the tax not be tied back in to the damage? Make the penalty fit the crime and apply the penalty to the amelioration of the criminal act. I could be tempted to speak at enormous length, because it is something I feel very strongly about but it would be quite wrong. I hope to have the opportunity to present some amendments later.

Acting Chairman

I would like to remind Senators that they should not make reference to identifiable public officials who cannot reply or defend themselves. I would ask the Members therefore, to be careful when they are speaking.

Mrs. Bennett

During the period of four and a half years that I have been a member of Dublin City Council I have become very much aware of the inadequacies in the legislation dealing with derelict sites contained in Derelict Sites Act, 1961. I have examined the new Bill in detail and I have discussed its provisions with the relevant senior officials of Dublin Corporation. In general, both the councillors and officials are pleased with the Bill, in particular with the much stronger penalties which can be imposed on property owners who do not maintain their property to a reasonable standard and also the levy which can be imposed on owners of derelict land.

I am very pleased that the new definition of a derelict site will include ruinous or unsightly buildings which detract or are likely to detract from the amenity or appearance of the neighbourhood. This should enable the local authorities to be much more effective in removing such objectionable eyesores.

When this Bill was discussed at the General Purposes Committee of the council a technical defect in the definition of an owner was drawn to our attention. The definition of an owner excludes a mortagee not in possession. It is considered that this may cause difficulty in some cases and the definition should be amended to include a mortagee not in possession.

The Bill also places an obligation on all public bodies, Departments of State, local authorities, health boards, vocational educational committees and semi-State bodies to maintain their properties in such a way as to prevent them from becoming derelict. This is a welcome provision as bodies of this kind should give a lead to private property owners in the maintenance and management of their property. All public authorities should be determined to give a lead to the general public in the matter of care and maintenance of public property. In Dublin we have found that, where the local authorities embark on improvements and the provision of amenities, this encourages all the local residents and firms to upgrade their properties.

This is a very useful piece of environmental legislation and I hope it receives the support of all the Members here. I would like the Minister to have a look at that point I made in relation to mortgagees, and perhaps he would come back on it.

Mr. Naughten

First, I wish to welcome this Bill. All of us who are members of local authorities recognise the difficulties and problems that derelict sites have created right across the country throughout our towns and cities. This Bill contains basically ten main provisions which will give to local authorities additional powers they need. There are certain reservations I have about some sections in the Bill and on Committee Stage we will be suggesting certain amendments. One of the requirements on local authorities is that they maintain a register of all derelict sites. That provision is appropriate and one that all of us will welcome. One of the matters that concerns me is this. What guideline will local authorities use to ensure that a derelict site in one county differs from that of another? That is one of the things on which we should seek clarification. Indeed, I would ask the Minister when he is replying to clarify what criteria will be used to define a derelict site and how the same criteria will be used in each particular county.

A number of the provisions included in this Bill give local authorities additional powers and also provide for additional funding with regard to the levy. One wonders what criteria are going to be used for the levying and for defining a levy visà-vis the city as against an urban area, which the Minister referred to in his speech. I would like to know precisely how this levy is going to be defined and what criteria will be used. That is very important. It cannot be emphasised enough that there should be a broad level of agreement as between one county and another. As the Minister knows, I come from an area within a few miles of four or five different counties. I would like to see the same criteria used for the definition of a derelict site in each of those counties. I would not wish to see a different standard applying in each county. This is what I refer to when I make this point.

Another requirement in this Bill puts an onus on owners of property not to allow that property to become derelict, and again that is right and appropriate. Unfortunately, very often we see in our towns and cities throughout the country property which has become derelict. That is a great pity. The State should use its influence in ensuring that that does not happen and does not continue to happen.

Very often in this situation we find that people allow their property to become derelict simply because they know that, as inflation continues and as property prices rise, in their long term interest they are going to benefit. They are reluctant to spend money to update this property and bring it into use, when if they simply leave it lying there they are going to have the advantage of it because of inflation. It is right that there should be a levy to ensure that this does not continue. There are certainly advantages there.

One of the areas which worry me, which, is not spelled out in the Bill and which I would like clarified when the Minister is replying is: what are the implications of this Bill for rural areas? That has not been defined. The Minister in his speech referred to the fact of urban areas being levied, which would to some degree indicate that rural areas are excluded. I would like to know from the Minister precisely what are the implications of this Bill for rural areas? At present many rural areas throughout the country have a dwindling population, emigration is rife and we have many vacant houses in rural areas. What is going to happen with regard to this Bill? How is it going to deal with that situation? I would like clarification of this matter from the Minister when he is replying.

We have a reducing number of thatched cottages throughout the length and breadth of this country. Many of those could be described as derelict buildings under the 1961 Act. I would like to know from the Minister what precisely he has in mind under this Bill with regard to that type of house? Unfortunately, many of the type of houses I have described have fallen into dereliction. It is a great pity that the house improvement grant was discontinued because with that grant many of those houses could be brought up to an acceptable standard. While it is not within the definition of the Bill, would the Minister indicate to the House what proposals, if any, his Department have to deal with this situation? It would be a great pity if those thatched cottages, which are part and parcel of the culture and history of this country, are allowed to dwindle and disappear. Many county councils are now giving a grant to have a thatched roof replaced by slates or other type of roofing. That is a pity. The Minister should examine this and see what can be done about it.

Very often when major road improvements have been carried out there are sites left where the road line has been changed. What does the Minister propose to do with these sites, which are very unsightly and undesirable from the point of view of our tourist industry. Many of our semi-State bodies have been very careless with regard to leaving properties in a derelict state. Semi-State companies, such as CIE and Bord na Móna, have left property in an undesirable state. It is time that those boards were made responsible for the condition in which they leave their properties. On our lakes and rivers we often see sights which none of us want to see — boats in a dilapidated condition, many of them left there for years. I would also like to know what the Minister proposes to do about this.

In the last few years the OPW bought a property and seemingly forgot they had purchased it. They let that building fall into a dilapidated, derelict condition. Not alone had they to come along some years later and spend vast sums of money in doing the property up but they also had to pay compensation for adjacent properties. The full rigours of the law should be applied in that case. It is undesirable that a State body should be allowed to purchase property and let it fall into dereliction simply because it would appear that nobody knew that the property existed.

I believe the definition of ownership of a derelict site will cause problems in the years ahead. This is one area in the Bill which has not been adequately covered or adequately spelt out, I would like to hear what steps the Minister or his Department propose to take to define who owns a property. It will be of vital importance to the success of this Bill that the ownership position is clearly defined and that the State will have the power to establish ownership of a particular site. Without those powers and without that being defined in the Bill it will be very difficult for the Bill to have any real meaning.

In welcoming this Bill we all must recognise that dereliction has been one of the greatest scourges of the scenic beauty of our country. Tourists visiting our country unfortunately very often get the wrong impression by the way we have allowed our derelict sites to spoil the beauty of the country. It is time we introduced legislation to clear this matter up.

I welcome this Bill, I believe that its provisions will reclarify the situation. I am, however worried about another aspect of the Bill. Will the local authorities be able to maintain a register and establish the number of derelict sites in each area? What additional resources will be given to the local authorities to provide this information? That has not been clearly specified in the Bill. Over the last number of years — you, a Chathaoirligh, like myself, being a member of a local authority will be well aware of this — additional functions have been given to local authorities, but unfortunately no additional funds to carry them out. The Water Pollution Bill, the Abattoir Bill, the Air Pollution Bill have given additional powers to local authorities, but no additional finance or no additional personnel have been approved for the purpose of carrying out this legislation. Local authorities will have to get additional resources to implement the powers contained in this Bill and I appeal to the Minister to make additional funds available to local authorities. I cannot see how they will be able to maintain a register and keep it up-dated if they do not get additional funds. As the Minister knows, many of the local authorities today are merely ticking over and cannot carry an additional workload without getting additional funding.

I mentioned earlier the situation with regard to the Office of Public Works, I have no doubt that many other Government Departments have been responsible for allowing buildings to lapse into a derelict state. That is undesirable and should not be allowed to continue. I welcome the Bill and will be putting down amendments on Committee Stage.

Mr. Costello

I would like to welcome this Bill and record my appreciation of the work that has been done by Senator Norris who, unfortunately, is not here at the present time. He has probably done more than the Derelict Site Bills we have had in 1940 and 1961 to draw attention to the dereliction in Dublin and to get the community interested in the preservation of our heritage. It is only proper that that should be recorded.

One might say that all of Dublin is a derelict site because there are so many areas of dereliction. I have no doubt that the measures presented here will go some way to dealing with the immediate, though individual problems, as distinct from the overall environmental and planning issues that are required. The extending of the definition of "derelict site" to include dwellings and other structures, the establishment of a register of derelict sites, the duties that are put on authorities and owners and occupiers of sites and buildings are all very desirable. The onus on the local authorities and the powers that are given in relation to the acquisition of derelict land by local authorities and the levies, penalties and taxes that are to be meted out are all desirable objectives. They will address specific instances of dereliction.

Of course, we must look at dereliction in a wider context and that wider context must be in the area of urban renewal, environmental planning and protection, and overall city development and planning. In 1991 Dublin will be the cultural capital of Europe, yet in the Dáil the other day we could not get any commitments in relation to substantial funding to ensure that Dublin will be a showplace and that the extensive dereliction that permeates the capital, particularly the inner city, will be remedied in time. That is an area of planning and of a comprehensive approach but, again, the question of funding of resources is not being addressed.

We have the scandal of five listed Georgian houses in Arran Quay and Batchelors Walk which were demolished in January of this year by the car dealers, Linders of Smithfield. The other day Bord Pleanála granted approval for an office development even though those listed buildings were demolished illegally. It is an absolute scandal that people can flout the law with impunity and get what they want in the long term.

This Bill will not address a serious problem that has destroyed five houses along the quay front in the inner city. Two other houses on Batchelors Walk, Nos. 5 and 6, have recently been demolished and a third, No. 7, is threatened because of its serious condition, It is an 18th Century panelled house which has been purchased by Arlington Securities who want to develop the area for a massive shipping centre. This is another fine part of the waterfront. I am worried that there is no protection. We have seen already where parts of Lower Fitzwilliam Street, Hume Street, Molesworth Street and Wood Quay, fine areas of our heritage, have been demolished. Are we now to witness the demolition of Dublin city quays from the Phoenix Park to the sea? That is the fine old quay front that can be seen on the ten pound note. There is nothing in this Bill that will prevent the continuing demolition and vandalism of the inner city.

In relation to the stock of public housing, the corporation in recent years have been negligent in not maintaining the existing stock. A lot of that is in need of refurbishment already but also in need of essential services. There are 2,000 units in the city centre without bathrooms or shower facilities. Virtually all of the stock, because of lack of funding, has been allowed to fall into major disrepair. This, Bill, of course, does not address that problem so public housing is an eyesore.

The inner city has a very extensive quantity of public housing. Indeed, where something is being done, as in Sheriff Street, we are not talking about refurbishment but de-tenanting, where, because of a particular development in the financial services centre, it is better to get rid of the people than to think about refurbishing the existing property. The public housing stock is in a dreadful state of disrepair and there are no provisions that I can see in this Bill for its renewal, its protection or funding to ensure that it does not fall into further disrepair and become a worse eyesore.

There are many omissions in the Bill and on Committee Stage I will be introducing appropriate amendments. Probably the most glaring failure in the Bill is resources. Where will the staff and finances be got from to ensure that the provisions and duties, particularly of the local authorities, will be implemented? How will all the local authorities be able to identify, catalogue and compile the sites? Will they do this on fresh air? Where will they get the funding? How will they monitor the development that will take place for which they are responsible? How will they acquire the sites and develop them?

There is no indication how funding will be made available to provide the necessary skilled trained staff to effect these functions. That is a glaring failure. You cannot introduce legislation responsibly unless you provide the means, methods and procedures to implement it. While this Bill addresses the immediate problems of the scandalous state of many of our towns and cities, which have become wastelands particularly the inner city of Dublin, unless the local authorities, who are empowered to implement the provisions, have the initiative, imagination and, crucially, the staff and financial resources, to enable the measures to be introduced, the Bill will be useless.

To this end the local authority councillors and officials must concern themselves with the needs of people living in urban communities. In aiming to obliterate direliction they must strive to enhance the environment, the appearance and attractiveness of urban areas for residents and visitors alike. The city's appearance and success depends on what people, both residents and visitors, think of it and what they want it to be. Creating an appropriate and successful image helps to revive the city's sense of identity and self-confidence and also helps to change perceptions and to overcome prejudice. Dublin, as I have said, has fallen into a scandalous state of dereliction, because of the developers, the negligence of owners, occupiers and the inadequate planning legislation and support of local authorities.

Dereliction is symptomatic of industrial and commercial decline in the inner city. Due to the problems of traffic congestion, inadequate parking facilities, and an inefficient and a grossly underdeveloped public transport system, much of the city centre has become a wasteland. Despite the fact that so much derelict land is available for redevelopment in the heart of the city, planners seem committed to building new towns in the suburbs, duplicating, or in many cases, making people live without facilities which already exist in the city centre. The population of the inner city has decreased by over 50 per cent in the past 60 years. Any plans for urban renewal must involve bringing people back to live in the city, not de-tenanting the city and getting rid of communities in the inner city. There are over 600 derelict sites within the canal ring in Dublin city amounting to a total of 161 acres. This level of dereliction in a city where there is a dearth of public amenities and a lack of suitable land is totally unacceptable.

Land assembly for developments or road widening schemes that may never take place is one of the primary causes of dereliction in our cities. In many cases land assembly for a proposed development may take up to 40 years, as was the case with the Ilac Centre in Dublin. Until this Bill is enacted and implemented there is absolutely no incentive for property owners in the city to maintain their property in a proper way. In fact, dereliction has been positively encouraged in our cities as owners are not liable for rates for such a property. Dublin Corporation have been assembling sites for over 30 years and it is unlikely that they will be used for road widening schemes in the near future. It is a sad fact that the main culprits of dereliction in many cities are the local authorities. One derelict site in a generally well-kept and cared-for street, such as Mount Street, does not have the same impact as a whole street area of dereliction like Summerhill or Sheriff Street.

Bord Fáilte are promoting our heritage in the form of our Georgian and Victorian architecture, particularly in Dublin city and county and, as I mentioned before, in 1991 Dublin will be the cultural capital of Europe. Unless drastic action is taken to implement the provisions of the Bill tourists can look forward to visiting a cultural capital in decay. Terraces of Georgian houses facing demolition, overgrown derelict land with ugly hoardings exploited by advertisers and used as rubbish tips will be in full view. If our tourists are looking for parking they can, of course, use one of the many illegal car parks for which these sites are used. We have a bare 12 months to make Dublin a cultural capital of which we can be proud.

Property has duties as well as rights. Speculators and developers do not have the right to hoard land and deface our city in order to make huge profits. Many owners of derelict sites are retaining these and have no intention of developing them until they are designated tax incentive areas and they can make a huge profit. It is absolutely disgraceful that the city has had to become such an unsightly mess before action will be taken.

In 1986 John Boland, who was then Minister for the Environment, launched the urban renewal incentive packaging that was supposed to bring about a new age for the quays and other neglected areas. As I pointed out, little has happened there other than further dereliction. Of the 161 acres that lie derelict in Dublin, only 62 have definite proposals, leaving 99 problematic acres. The Urban Renewal Act has designated certain areas within the inner city for special and immediate attention. Only 10.5 acres of the 99 are located within the designated incentive areas.

Urban renewal is posing a problem for our planners. The experience of other cities such as Glasgow and London indicates that any policy for urban regeneration must include a comprehensive plan to bring people back into the inner city. The population of the inner city has decreased by over 50 per cent in the past 60 years. In regenerating our urban population, local authorities must take the initiative but they must do so in conjunction with the local communities.

Many houses are in a dilapidated state throughout the inner city. Much upper floor space is under-utilised. Many multistorey buildings have been demolished in favour of single storey shopping outlets. The vacant floor space could be converted into flats for single and married people working in the city. This would have many cultural benefits assisting the arts, tourism, growth in community self-confidence and a reduction in crime.

In any plan for urban renewal the public sector must take the initiative. It is not sufficient to produce disincentives to dereliction. The problems will not disappear with the enactment of this Bill. Alternative uses, both temporary and permanent, must be provided. Sites that are to be developed in the near future must be developed in such a way that the street or locality maintains its essential character. In many cases a derelict site is a temporary site but large flats and office developments are more permanent fixtures that reinforce the view that planners are totally uncaring for the cultural heritage of our city. In many cases dereliction and demolition of some of our finest buildings could be prevented if local authorities had the funds to help maintain and preserve buildings.

The 1963 Planning Act empowers local authorities to assist private owners with the cost of maintaining existing buildings. However, no funds have been made available from the Department of the Environment for this purpose. Of course, this is the real nub of the matter we are discussing in this Bill. Owners should be required by law to keep listed buildings in good repair and, where it can be proved to be necessary, financial assistance should be available from local authorities for the maintenance of these buildings. Apart from being unsightly, many derelict sites are definite health hazards. Rubbish on these sites encourages rodents to infest the site and often the area.

The greatest number of derelict sites in the north inner city occur in areas such as Summerhill, Blackhall Place, North Strand, Sheriff Street, Mary's Mansions and so on. They are all located in residential areas — working-class areas where there is a high level of corporation housing. These areas totally lack recreational facilities. Many children play on cleared sites and apart from the health hazards of rubbish tipping, many of these sites are positively dangerous. Many of them could be converted into temporary sports grounds, adventure playgrounds, wildlife gardens and parks. Work could be carried out at a minimum cost, perhaps with the aid of FÁS and SES schemes, thereby providing training and employment in the area.

Such schemes need to be supported by local authorities. In order to tackle the problem of derelict land, in many cases temporary solutions can provide the best way to improve the environment while the land is waiting permanent development. As Dublin Corporation are one of the principal owners of derelict land in Dublin, I urge them to consider the benefits of short term leases to community groups and associations as a way of offloading many such sites for a temporary period of time.

The possibilities for temporary use of derelict sites are endless, ranging from temporary wildlife parks and urban farming to adventure playgrounds. One example of how this can be done is how the Active Retirement Association of Oxmantown acquired a derelict site from the corporation at the junction of Audley Road and Oxmantown Road. With the help of the corporation they have turned this into an invaluable recreational facility for the old age pensioners in the area. The game of French bowls is played there every afternoon.

Many derelict sites already have an interesting flora and they could be converted into valuable recreational and educational facilities as temporary wildlife parks. This could be achieved at a minimum cost. Other ideas include the reintroduction of allotments in the city. This would not only enhance the environment but would also serve as a precious educational resource and would introduce a civil spirit into an area. The Minister should urge local authorities to take full advantage of section 20 (2) of the Urban Renewal Act. Local authorities are too concerned with red tape and the level of bureaucracy. This leads to a growing conservation as each is reluctant to experiment with new ideas.

Private owners should also be encouraged to lease land to community organisations who would restore and care for it with civic pride. While the terms of this Bill are welcome — and, indeed, they have been improved by the amendments that were passed on Committee Stage in the Dáil — it is imperative that from the enactment of the Bill local authorities compile the register of derelict sites, that the Minister give clear guidelines to the local authorities on the operation of such a register and that the Minister must guarantee that local authorities have both the necessary funding and staff to operate this register efficiently. Otherwise, what we are doing here is passing a piece of legislation without teeth and without the means to ensure that it is implemented. If that is the case, how are we going to look in the years to come at this piece of legislation that promises so much, this reforming piece of legislation that is to fill the loopholes of the previous Bills which proved so unsatisfactory in preventing the continuing dereliction of Dublin? It is the responsibility of the Minister to ensure that a desirable piece of legislation is given the necessary resources, backing and staffing to ensure that it is properly implemented. As I said, I will be introducing on Committee Stage a number of amendments to seek to improve the substance of the Bill.

Mr. O'Keeffe

I wish to deal with a couple of points raised by Senator Naughten. I am sorry he is not here because I do not like to be political in his absence on the issue he mentioned: house improvement grants the fact that they were discontinued and his hope that they would be renewed. I hate to point out that when the Coalition Government were in power £37 million was provided in the budget for home improvement grants whereas the actuality was that they cost in excess of £200 million. For somebody to be calling for the reintroduction of that type of home improvement grant, given that this Government had to provide £100 million in the first number of years they came into office, is going a little beyond belief.

I would also like to remind Senator Naughten when he mentioned a scheme for thatched cottages that possibly he is not aware of a letter which emanated from Bord Fáilte to the local authorities asking them to look in particular at the development and preservation of thatched cottages within their jurisdiction. I am glad to be able to report to the House that in Cork we provide a £1,000 grant from our own coffers in respect of the retention of thatched cottages. I also understand that in Dublin something similar is happening.

I am amused when I hear Senator Costello, in particular, talking about additional resources being made available. Who is going to pay for this register that is set up by the local authorities in connection with derelict sites? It is comical in that in this country local authorities have more engineers than we can find work for. For the Labour Party in this Seanad to be calling for additional resources for local authorities verges, in my view, on the comical.

If I might come to a number of issues relating to dereliction, everyone is agreed that dereliction is a blight on the horizon. It gives an image of want and decay. It is certainly not conducive to investment. It is offputting to tourists. It gives a perception of a flagging spirit among the people where dereliction is rife. There is certainly not a city or town in Ireland where derelict sites are not in evidence. What I would like to do from time to time is put myself in the position of, say, an outsider coming into a city or town, having a look at what is around me and objectively asking myself the question "What improvements could be made?" Up to now, listening to the speakers who have spoken prior to me, I understood that this Derelict Sites Bill related to Dublin only. You will not be offended, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, if I take it into the realms of Cork. When I drive in from the Dublin side of Cork city, I must say there is one particular building that looms on the horizon. I say to myself: would that the owners of that property replace a number of panes of glass and put a coat of paint on it. The IDA in Cork are particularly concerned, dereliction and the image that Cork gives to the investor coming from abroad. I think of the old adage "By their image, do you know them". Certainly in that area in Cork a lot of commercial properties have a lot to do. I would say to the owners of such properties that they go out, have an objective look and take remedial action.

It would be wrong in dealing with the Derelict Sites Bill if we did not have a look and take cognisance of the major improvements that have taken place. I refer in particular to the Tidy Towns Competition, which in itself has brought about remarkable achievements over the years, so much so that the tidy towns committees find it hard to understand why, when in their individual towns they embark on a massive programme, at the end of the day their marks have not increased sufficiently. It reminds me of students seeking third level places in colleges where there is a minimum requirement and at the end of the day, candidates find unfortunately that the minimum requirement is not sufficient to obtain a place. In the same way this applies to the Tidy Towns Competition in that marked improvement has been brought about which has brought up the standards. That being said, one must encourage the tidy towns committees to continue their great work and the achievements they have wrought for their communities. These committees are extremely soundly community based and provide tremendous benefits for the people in their areas.

May I also take the opportunity of congratulating the local authorities who have organised tidy districts competitions within their jurisdiction? Where these have been organised the response has been truly magnificent. Something that the Minister might take cognisance of is that in areas where these tidy district competitions are not taking place he should make it mandatory on the local authority to ensure that they provide adequate funding for such competitions. The Department of the Environment should encourage the various festival committees around the country to bring in tidy districts competitions as part of their overall festival activities.

It should also be recorded that the establishment of the designated areas has also provided a major boost. I acknowledge that developers have responded very positively to this scheme. Again, if I may be parochial, we have two designated areas in Cork. The larger site consists of 81 acres including the South Parish, the Marsh and part of Shandon Street. The second one covers 18 acres and is on the north side of the city, covering Blackpool in particular. If we take the south side one, South Terrace was particularly dilapidated and it has been an extraordinary success. It has demonstrated that apartments can be marketed successfully in the city centre at price levels which make such developments economic. I would exhort the Minister to consider very seriously extending particularly the Blackpool scheme. When this scheme was initiated by the Coalition Government many of us in Cork felt it was a rather remarkable achievement that the party faithful seemed to be included in the designated area where those who were not supporters for some reason or another seemed to be kept outside the Pale.

I would also like to comment on the refurbishment programme which was introduced and initiated by the Minister and funded by him. Again, that has brought about a dramatic improvement to what were otherwise derelict houses. I would like to thank the Minister in particular for the £3 million which he made available in Cork last year. I want to report to him today that the schemes have been a major success. Areas that were once in the throes of dereliction are now beautifully restored and in the process the spirit of the people living there has been uplifted. Once more they are taking a pride on their homes. May I also take the opportunity to request the Minister to continue this funding into 1990? Having examined the Estimates, it would appear to me that this is his intention. It is my view that this is money very well spent.

Coming to the Bill itself, the wider definition of derelict sites is appropriate in that it now includes dwellings which were excluded from the 1961 Act. Taken in conjunction with sections 11 and 12 of the Bill, it would mean that action can be taken by the local authority against potential or early dereliction as well as actual dereliction. This has to be seen as being a major step forward on the previous Bill. The Minister said something like 50 local authorities never bothered with using the 1961 Derelict Sites Act. The costs involved for them were prohibitive. I think that was one of the main features, and also the fact that they could never recoup those costs. We have a situation now where the local authority is mandated to establish and maintain a register of all derelict sites. This will ensure their active involvement in administering the provisions of this Bill.

A positive result is that we can now quantify at last the scale of dereliction in each area. In the case of urban areas we can allow the application of a derelict sites levy. I would like to say to the Minister that it is one thing to set up a register but it is another thing to maintain and update that register. I ask him to take particular cognisance of this fact. We must ensure within the ambit of this Act that renewal of the register on an annual basis by local authorities is imperative.

Dealing with the question of levy, it strikes me that we have been very successful when we provided a carrot for our citizens, as was evidenced by the massive sums collected under the tax amnesty. It also strikes me that people would be far quicker to get rid of dereliction if they were given some sort of incentive. I can see a disincentive for the person who immediately refurbishes his derelict building in that such a person then has a rateable commercial property on his hands. Most of us will have examples of somebody who was paying no rates on a property without a roof but immediately he refurbished that property he found himself faced with a bill of £1,100 for rates. An option to the owners of such properties might be provided by the Minister if a five year rates remission was applied to such premises, particularly if they were converted into a commercial activity.

The Minister might, in my view, also consider the extension of section 27 of the derelict sites and buildings being converted into industrial utilities. Under the old act the establishment of ownership proved to be extremely difficult. In my own area a row of houses was involved. The owner was living in Australia and his legal representatives refused point blank to give his address. For refusing to do so, that individual was levied with a paltry fine of £5. Thankfully, under the new Act that situation has been rectified and the fine has been increased substantially. I suggest to the Minister that he look at the possibility of making it compulsory, when property changes hands, that the rating authority be notified of the new owners and the rate records be given some legal status when it comes to derelict sites.

When the Register of Titles Act was introduced it was envisaged that the Land Registry system could be gradually extended to the whole country. Initially, the counties of Carlow, Laois and Offaly had this applied, but no further steps have been taken to have it extended to other counties. At present, town properties are registered in the Registry of Deeds Act and not under the Registry of Titles Act. I would ask the Minister to check the feasibility of having this extended also. We are all aware of the unscrupulous measures taken by some to induce dereliction for their gainful purposes. For those cases section 29, with its provision for increased fines, is timely.

Another point to be aware of is that where people have been left derelict property. Their financial circumstances may be such that they would not have the means to refurbish such property. I express some concern that such persons might be criminalised under section 29 of the Act. Indeed, I ask the Minister to have a look at the possibility of exemptions in particular cases.

In the same vein, I refer the Minister to section 12 (3) of the Bill and pose the question of the constitutionality of the question that it may offend one of the principles of natural justice, that is, that no man can act as a judge in his own cause.

Debate adjourned.