Before we commence Committee Stage I wish to inform the House that amendments Nos. 3 and 10a have been ruled out of order as they involved a potential charge on revenue. There is also a printing error. The heading "Section 9" to amendment Nos. 7 and 8 should read "Section 8".
Derelict Sites Bill, 1989: Committee Stage.
I would like to ask for an explanation with regard to amendment No. 3 which you ruled out of order, Sir, as creating a charge.
I have informed the Senator by letter of the reasons the particular amendments are not acceptable. I cannot at this point engage in debate with the Senator on any further grounds or reasons.
I have no desire whatsoever to be contentious but I have not received such a letter. I gather that Senator Ross has——
Senator, I have sent a letter to you. I have no control over its passage either in time or physically through the House.
How can the exclusion of property speculation create a charge on the Exchequer?
Senator, I must ask you to resume your seat.
I will cetainly do so, but I will try to raise this matter at another point.
Thank you, Senator.
The letter which was sent to me refers to——
I cannot allow discussion at this time on my ruling in relation to the amendment.
I am trying to be helpful. The letter which was sent to me is addressed to me and refers to me. It was obviously mistakenly sent to me rather than to Senator Norris.
In both your cases letters were issued.
It is a letter which was sent to Senator Shane Ross and refers to you and Senator Shane Ross. I think a mistake has been made.
I am satisfied a letter was issued in your case and in the case of Senator David Norris. I am not going to allow any further discussion on it now.
There is an obvious mistake in this letter.
I will once again offer you an invitation to come and visit me if you wish to have any additional clarification.
I was just trying to inform you about something which was causing confusion. If you do not want my help, I am quite willing not to give it.
How could the assembly of sites for the purpose of property development put a charge——
I am not required or obliged to give grounds for my ruling. I have already stated the position. I have issued letters to the Senators involved and I have no further obligation in this matter. I must ask the Senator, in the context of what I have said, to desist and resume her seat.
I believe that Senator Ross is right and that no letter——
Whether Senator Ross is right or not in your opinion is irrelevant. The fact is I have ruled on the matter and I now request you to resume your seat.
You cannot give me any explanation?
I have no intention, and neither am I obliged. My ruling is being questioned and I am afraid I must ask you to resume your seat.
You could just give us a ruling in the case of any amendment——
I am satisfied about what I am doing and I am asking you to resume your seat, please.
Is the House satisfied?
Regardless of the views of the House in this matter, I am asking you to resume your seat, Senator. Let us proceed with the business of this House in accordance with the rulings, precedents and Standing Orders. At the moment, Senator, you are in serious conflict with the Chair.
Will you allow any debate——
I will not allow any further discussion on this matter.
At the stage when we reach this amendment will you allow an explanation?
I have given my reasons why the amendments in question are not acceptable. I am not prepared to go any further.
You will not at the time——
At this time I am asking you to resume your seat because you are out of order. It is as simple as that.
It is very odd.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 1:
In pages 5 and 6, subsection (1), to delete lines 43 and 1 to 3, respectively and substitute the following:
"‘structure' includes any building, dwelling, erection, excavation, or other thing, constructed, erected, or made on, in or under any land, or any part of a structure so defined, and where the context so admits, includes the land on, in, or under which the structure is situate;".
We should clearly specify exactly what a "structure" is, and define it clearly so that it may not at some later stage be misinterpreted in law. It is important on Committee Stage that we clearly and precisely spell out exactly what the structure is with regard to the legislation before us. There is an onus on us to clearly specify this and that is why I have moved this amendment. Perhaps the Minister will be able to take it on board.
For me at this stage, section 2 of the Bill presents a major difficulty. In relation to the amendment Senator Naughten has proposed, I support the observations he has made on it. It is simply another indication of the difficulty that I have. There may be a procedural problem here and I will try and explain what it is. Section 2 is the interpretation section of the Bill. It says that a derelict site shall have the meaning assigned to it by section 3. There is a further problem arising then in relation to the owner other than in section 15. I have a major problem with both these interpretations and I am looking for guidance here. As I said, until I understand what we are talking about clearly and until I know what is involved in a derelict site, I do not know what interpretation we will have on it.
May I elaborate on my problem? I argued this with the Minister when he was here. Today, we have the Minister of State taking Committee Stage of the Bill. My difficulty is that my interpretation, with which the Minister did not agree, is that every green field, whether there is a structure or anything on it, under this legislation has the capacity to become a derelict site, with consequent compulsory acquisition. If I could get a clarification on that point. I would know where I was going from there. That is my difficulty with this section at the moment.
I appreciate what the Senator is saying but he is addressing himself to section 3 and section 2 is the section we are dealing with. The Senator can put down amendments on Report Stage if he wishes on any outstanding matters which he feels he wants to deal with.
Is it implicit if section 2 is accepted that we are then committed to the acceptance of section 3?
On Report Stage, the Senator will have the opportunity to put down amendments in respect of any outstanding matters.
Would the Cathaoirleach permit the Minister to help me in my difficulty at this stage?
The Minister may speak if he wishes.
I thought Senator Naughten moved amendment No. 1 to section 2. I rarely disagree with Senator Howard and he is aware of that. There is an amendment later on relevant to the Senator's point.
That is right.
While I understand the Senator's difficulty, if we start off incorrectly, we would go on to discuss later sections before we reach an amendment which should be moved.
There was a procedural problem. My difficulty is that Senator Naughten's amendment, which I support, has effect further in the part of section 2 which is causing me the difficulty. That is why I wish to raise it at this point. Senator Naughten's amendment applies to later sections of the Bill.
I would like to support the amendment because I think it is important that legislation of this kind should come into operation within a specific time period and the time period prescribed by the Bill is vague and imprecise. The limit, which is three months after the date of the passing of the Act, seems to me to be a realistic one. If the Government are serious in their intention in this legislation — and I deliberately use the conditional — then the very least they can do with this totally defective piece of legislation is, at least, say when it will come into operation. We have already seen what the limitations are and amendments are not accepted. Of course, I have to defer to the Cathaoirleach's ruling in this matter, but even parts of the Government's agreed programme with the Progressive Democrats are not allowed to be included. The very least we can expect is a date by which this totally defective Bill will come into operation.
I would like to support the amendment. It is important that the definition be extended in the widest possible terms and that the interpretation is helped by extending the word "means" to "includes" and that the word "dwelling" be inserted. It is an improvement on the original statement. We have seen in previous legislation where we had no problem at all in using catch-all phrases. It is important here that we include all of the structures which create a derelict site. For that reason I believe the amendment would benefit the Bill.
I would like to remind Senators that the Derelict Sites Bill, 1989, is one of the Bills targeted for enactment as part of the Government's environmental action programme. As Senators know, this programme is a wide ambitious one but practical measures, such as today's Bill, also have been part of it. It is right that we should promote them. In regard to Senator Norris' remarks, to put the Senator's mind at ease, the section he is talking about will come into law as soon as the President signs the Bill.
I will deal now with the amendment moved by Senator Naughten. This amendment attempts to improve the drafting of the definition of "structure" but I would have some reluctance in departing from the original definition in the Bill. This is expressed in identical terms with the definition of "structure" which is set out in section 2 (1) of the Local Government Planning and Development Act, 1963, which is established in law and in judicial interpretation of land use issues of some 25 years now. The only additional element in the amendment is the reference to "dwelling". I am satisfied this would in any normal circumstances be fully comprehended within the definition as it stands. I am talking there about a structure. Say, for instance, it was to be a house; a house and a structure are two different things.
The problem here, as the Minister has responded, is that he is not happy with the use of the word "dwelling". He prefers the word "structure". We may be splitting hairs here but there is an implication inherent in a "dwelling". It implies that somebody is dwelling or living in the particular structure. It may well be the owner, or the occupier or it may well be a squatter. If the Minister fails to include the term "dwelling" and if somebody, who is neither the owner nor the tenant happens to dwell in this dilapidated structure, then has he not denied himself by failing to include it, the option of dealing with it by virtue of the fact that somebody dwells there who may not be the owner or a tenant in the strict sense of the word but nevertheless dwells in it? If the Minister excludes the word "dwelling" from the section, then if the structure is being dwelt in, if it is in a dilapidated and unacceptable state and is an embarrassment on the landscape, the street, town or village, is he not limiting his authority to deal with the situation under this Bill?
I would like to point out that this Bill deals with all structures. If I was to do what the Senator proposes, a dwelling could then be interpreted as a private house. I am dealing with a structure and I am sticking with that. I want to make that quite clear.
The structure is not a private house under any circumstances.
It could be. You could have a structure also which could be an agricultural building, a shed or anything else. I am dealing with it simply on that basis because it takes in all structures.
The Minister has made a good point. Nevertheless, there is validity in the Fine Gael amendment because it is defined here that the structure means any building and it is not necessarily an exclusive list. It would be better to rephrase it to state that the structure includes the list that is there. In the structures that are listed there, we do not necessarily cover all the possibilities. That is why I would prefer that the word proposed by the Fine Gael Senator was changed from "means" to "includes".
Under the 1963 Planning Act all are included, so I have no problem with this at all. I am satisfied that under the definition of the 1963 Act the wording here is right. I am under no illusion about it. I want to make it very clear at the outset that we are anxious to have a very good Bill enacted. I will be as helpful as I possibly can.
The Minister's reputation in this regard is very high and I have experience of it. I would like to apologise to the Minister for my inadequacy in my first contribution, for which he was kind enough not to rebuke me seriously because I was dealing with an earlier set of amendments. I had not at my disposal, perhaps through my own fault, the final set. I was dealing with another amendment in Senator Naughten's name and a confusion arose but the Minister, very chivalrously, did not rebuke me for my total irrelevance.
It is not in my make up.
I know that. I withdraw the specific remarks I made, although I still would have to say I believe the Bill to be defective for a number of reasons, which I hope to have the opportunity to debate at the relevant time. I thank both the Minister and the Chair for their courtesy.
I agree with Senator Norris that the Bill is defective and we will deal with those defects later on. I have no problem with the word "structure" because, as the Minister said, it is defined in the 1963 Act and I believe "structure" includes all those things. I cannot see that it adds anything to the Bill to dwell on, if the Senators will excuse the pun, what is included in the word "structure". That seems to be quite satisfactory.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 6, line 8, after "area", to insert "(and specifically includes sites assembled for the purposes of property development)".
I put down this amendment because the gross defect of the Bill includes the fact that it exempts from its operation the assembly of sites for the purpose of property development. This was included in the Minister's speech. I wish particularly to include this because it seems quite clear that one of the principal sources of blight in urban terms is the assembly of sites for the purpose of property development. I direct the Minister's attention to the situation with regard to Nos. 6 and 7, Bachelor's Walk, where there has been the assembly of a site for the purpose of property development and one of those buildings, which are list one buildings, has subsequently been destroyed. It seems to be vitally important if we are serious about protecting listed buildings, that we include the principal sources of that dereliction.
I am concerned because the Bill, as it stands, excludes from its operation the two principal sources: (1) property speculation and (2) the impact of local authorities with compulsory purchase orders with the intention of creating motorways. I cannot understand how such a Bill can have a serious intention if at the head of its operation, it excludes the two principal sources of blight and dereliction. I urge very strongly that the Minister takes this amendment on board.
I fully support this amendment precisely for the reasons outlined by Senator Norris. I could add to the examples he gave. I refer the Minister to a long-standing blight which afflicted the city on the corner of St. Stephen's Green, when over a very long period a site was being assembled for what is now the St. Stephen's Green Shopping Centre. This probably went back 12 or 15 years. A very large site was assembled there. Modern thinking on planning has now moved away from what is called comprehensive redevelopment for the very reason that it takes so long to assemble these sites. In many instances there is no blame on a developer doing that. We need in this legislation to make it unattractive for a property developer or a property speculator to try to put together such an enormous site. If the sites are curtailed there will not be the problem of dereliction.
I believe that by excluding from the Bill sites assembled for the purposes of property development we are actually encouraging dereliction because we are saying to developers: "It does not matter; you can assemble sites, you can go in for comprehensive redevelopment if you want, going over ten, 15 or 20 years and this Bill specifically excludes you". By its very nature it is saying to them, that we are giving them carte blanche to do that. I believe that is a very defective element of this Bill and I cannot understand why this is the position. Quite clearly, it is reasonable for a developer to put together a site, particularly if it is in an old area of a city, but he must do it in such a way that it goes ahead quickly and he must be able to keep the buildings he has acquired in such a state that they will not cause dereliction. I do not see why the Irish people, and indeed the visitors we are doing so much to encourage to our shores, should be treated to eyesores of this kind, derelict sites to facilitate a developer. This amendment is one of the best amendments which has been put down and I hope the Minister will accept it.
I would like to strongly support the amendment proposed by Senator Norris. It is a very useful amendment where it extends the definition to cover in an urban area property that is assembled for the purpose of development, particularly property development. A number of examples have been cited. They are evident throughout the city where speculators, either of a private or public nature, have got their hands or are in the process of getting their hands on parcels of lands and have kept them in a derelict state for years and even decades.
A number of areas were mentioned. I mention specifically in terms of private speculation, Mountjoy Square, which would be one of the finest squares in this city if it had not been allowed to fall into the hands of speculators; the dereliction there has gone on for well over a decade. I also mention the road widening at Summerhill and on Parnell Street where houses have been acquired under compulsory purchase order for years and nothing has been done. This is being done by the local authority.
It is extremely important that we deal with the body or the individual who acquires property for the purpose of waiting until such time as some perhaps vague or tenuous plan of the local authority will at last come to fruition, or in terms of a private speculator until such time as the market prices have gone up sufficiently to make it sufficiently attractive to proceed with that particular development.
The important thing the Bill seeks to do is essentially what this amendment is about, that it restores respect for the city, that the public will be respected, and individuals or bodies, of whatever nature, will not be entitled to cause blight in the city. Also, it is most appropriate that this Bill be passed very quickly — next year we will be the cultural capital of Europe — so that we can at last begin to compel those individuals who are assembling properties which are eyesores in the city to clean up their act very quickly.
This amendment is unnecessary. The definition of urban land, no matter where it is, comes under the Derelict Sites Bill. It would run contrary to normal drafting to make a special mention of this kind of case when it is already fully comprehensive by the generality of the definition. All urban land, if it is derelict comes under that definition. If urban land is derelict, then it is derelict, and it will come under the full terms of the legislation.
I thank the Minister for his helpful intervention at this point. It is my intention to be helpful as well. I am delighted the Minister says that the amendment is in concert with the intention of the Bill. Basically, he is saying that it is redundant, it is tautology, that it is not necessary.
It is not necessary.
Will the Minister kindly explain to me the statement of the Minister, Deputy Flynn, on Second Stage "that special arrangements may also be operated at the discretion of the local authority for bona fide site assembly". Surely that means property speculation? With the record of various Governments with regard to property speculation and their collusion in it, may I ask the Minister would he not consider it a most appropriate amendment and one without which this Bill is a simple façade job, it is cosmetic legislation and has no impact whatever? I am delighted the Minister says he agrees with the principle. He says it is covered already. I am a simple naïve man. I will be here for a very long time this afternoon arguing the point, hammer and tongs, so why does he not very graciously allow the amendment to go through? He will have no conflict of conscience because he says the Bill already does this. The Minister for the Environment apparently does not seem to think it does because he talks about bona fide site assembly. I do not want us to spend the entire afternoon parsing and analysing the standpoint of various political parties on what bona fide site assembly might be.
That arises under section 25.
I could scarcely hear Senator Honan's interruption because the Minister was joining her in them.
That is unity.
I ask the Senator to stick to the terms of the amendment rather than make extraneous comments.
That is what I am doing. Perhaps the Acting Chairman would call his own side of the House to Order.
On a point of information, what the Senator wants to do in this amendment is covered in section 25. It is well worth reading.
I would prefer to stick with what we are at at the moment.
Acting Chairman
The Chair, as always, is most reluctant to interrupt the Senator because he is most gracious.
The Chair always does it, albeit reluctantly.
Acting Chairman
I will attempt to be as gracious. Would the Senator please stick to the terms of the amendment, I would prefer that he did not make extraneous comments that are not relevant to the amendment we have before the House.
I shall do my best to make my contribution relevant.
Remembering that Trinity is the soul of wit.
In that case it is a soul from which you are clearly detached, Sir.
Acting Chairman
Senator Norris, without interruption. He does not need encouragement.
I always welcome it. I take it from the low calibre, intellectually, of the interjections from the other side they find it impossible to raise objections to this amendment.
Withdraw that remark.
Acting Chairman
The Senator is now being personal. If he could contain himself and keep his comments to the amendment before the House——
I find it strange if, as the Minister maintains, the intention of this amendment is contained in the body of the Bill why he resists the fact that I am attempting specifically to include the question of site assembly. Will the Minister not accept that to anybody who has witnessed the dereliction of the inner cities of this country, the very phrase "site assembly" rings warning bells?
It is fair to say that presumably the Minister and the Department of the Environment wish local authorities to take effective steps, I believe — and I may disagree with my colleague — that there is a genuine commitment on the part of the Government to introduce an effective Bill that will deal with the very serious problem of dereliction in our cities. Because I start from that position I believe the Department and the Minister must wish to ensure that this Bill makes it mandatory on local authorities to take effective action against property speculators or anybody else who may be contributing to the dereliction. It is fair to say that when the Minister, Deputy Flynn, was here he seemed to give them a let out in the phrase "special arrangements may also be operated at the discretion of the local authority for bona fide site assembly". I suggest to the Minister who is here today that if this Bill goes through as it is without this amendment, even though it may not be the intention of the Department of the Environment that this should be the case, it will give those local authorities who may not wish for one reason or another to implement the provisions of the Bill, a let-out and they will be able to quote the Minister's speech in support of their case. If the Minister is serious that he wants local authorities to deal effectively with legislation, this amendment should be inserted.
Where does the definition of urban land in section 2 give any exemption for site assembly? May be Senator's have not had time to study the Bill or this section in detail. Section 25 of the Bill is what Senator Norris it talking about which is relevant and perhaps I should enlighten hin on section 25. However, I do not know if that would be in order.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I am sure the Minister wishes to be as accommodating and informative as possible.
I am in your hands.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It would be a welcome addition to the debate.
Section 25 of the Bill reinforces the argument that urban land does include a derelict site under site assembly. It is based on the premise that the derelict sites levy does in principle apply to derelict redevelopment of sites. That is the position. I think Senator Norris got a little confused between the sections.
Whereas under section 25, as the Minister points out, a local authority can deal with the assembly of sites for bona fide property development and it is appropriate to have that as a specific part of the Bill, what are referred to in this amendment are two things. It refers first to the private property developer and, secondly, to the local authority or other property developer. We saw not so long ago where Dublin Corporation, a local authority, acquired a lot of land along the Liffey known as Wood Quay. A great deal of dereliction was caused by the local authority in the acquisition of the land over a long period of time and there is no specific provision in this Bill which prohibits a local authority from acquiring sites for development purposes, property development purposes I may well add as well. What is intended in the second part of the amendment is not covered by section 25.
I appreciate the point made by the Senator. I want to say to local authorities, no matter where they acquire land, they are duty bound under this Bill to keep the land at their disposal in a proper state.
While it is stated specifically in section 25 in relation to a private developer, there is no specific statement in relation to a local authority developer.
I would like to refer to the history of the situation where there has been very conspicuous dereliction, and that has been caused by the activities of property developers in assembling sites. I am concerned that where special arrangements may be operated for what is described as bone fide site assembly, this could be construed as being assembly for the purpose of redevelopment. We have only to look at Mountjoy Square, Dorset Street, Eccles Street — I could spend a whole afternoon listing and categorising areas of the city where there has been devastation caused by what could be interpreted as bone fide site assembly.
It may be quite difficult to detect the precise section of the Bill which gives operation to this but the Minister, Deputy Flynn, has said this; he has opened the gate and, having opened the gate and it is on the record of this House, basically, the message is, property speculation is all right and the cowboys can return to the city of Dublin. We do not want that. If people like myself and Senator Hederman, a former Lord Mayor of the city of Dublin, feel so strongly about the matter and if the Minister says there is no contradiction between the amendment and the main purpose and function of the Bill, why can he not short-circuit the debate by accepting that amendment, because it is not going to damage the Bill?
I had thought other arguments might have been raised but they have not and I am not going to feed them to the Minister. However, I invite him and plead with him to take this amendment on board. If he does not, what will happen is a signal will go out that it is open day in Dublin once more for dereliction and for the devastation of the city by property speculators.
The whole country is opposed to the devastation of our heritage by property speculators. The Minister has no difficulty with the principle that is enunciated here. Can he not allow us to get on to the next series of amendments by accepting something to which he has no moral or intellectual objection and reassure the people of this country that we have put an end, or we are genuinely in an all-party fashion trying to put an end to property speculation?
I wish my colleague, Senator Norris, would let us get on with the amendment or the section we are at, which is section 2 because absolutely everything the Senator is worried about will be in section 25.
No.
I must defend the Minister, Deputy Flynn, here with regard to the much quoted part of his address to this House. I do not think the Minister intended to open any gates in the fashion suggested. I intend to defend the Minister in his absence even though the Minister of State, Deputy Connolly, is here. Senator Norris is away ahead of himself but that is no bother to him. He should forget about the amendment and let us get on with the Bill. All his problems might well be solved on section 25.
I do not want to get involved in any personal argument between Senator Honan and Senator Norris, amusing and all as it may be, because this is a very serious issue. It is a failing of mine to give people credit and always to think the best of them. If the Minister is telling me he intends that these property speculators who are assembling sites will not be excluded from this Bill — the Minister is nodding his head so we know we have his agreement on that — he would simply be copperfastening the situation, he would be leaving it open to no doubt. I have no wish to attack the Minister in his absence. I think Senator Honan is right, that he did not intend to open up any loopholes but the reality is, and it is on the record of the House, unintentionally he may have opened up some loopholes by saying "special arrangements may also be operated at the discretion of the local authority for bona fide site assembly". Unfortunately, that has happened and we cannot extract that; we cannot remove the words from the record. In the light of that, the Minister who is here today might consider it a good idea, because unintentionally this door may have been opened, to close it here at this moment by accepting this amendment which would specifically include sites assembled for the purpose of property development. If the Minister has no problem with it, because that is what he intends, would he not be strengthening the Bill by accepting the amendment and we could get on, as we all want to, to other aspects of this very important Bill? I would urge the Minister to do that.
I am happy with the wording that is in the section at the moment. With regard to the Minister's Second Stage speech, he was dealing with the matter in a general way as one deals with any Bill on Second Stage. As I stated last week on the Building Control Bill, when it comes to the nitty gritty it is dealt with accordingly. When the Minister of the day puts a Bill through the House, he decides to delete or to add, as the case may be, depending on the drafting and on what the situation is. I am satisfied with the section and I want to say to Senators Norris and Hederman that on section 25 I will deal with all they are concerned about in a very comprehensive manner.
Senator Norris dealt with a number of points in regard to the compiling of land, in the Dublin area especially. That has always been a difficulty but I am glad to say that here on the quays where major development is now being put together Dublin Corporation — and I highly commend them for it — have done a wonderful job through the urban renewal team there, for which I have special responsibility. The members of that urban renewal team of Dublin Corporation have done splendid work and I am glad to have this opportunity to thank them for it. They have created millions of pounds of work there, which is not easy when you are dealing with legal title and all of that.
Two persons will not be involved or two owners; there will be one owner only. I am happy that that is the right way to go about it. On section 25 I will deal with the matter in more detail. I am sorry I cannot agree with Senator Norris on the amendment he has put down.
I thank the Minister very much. When he congratulates Dublin Corporation on the quays of Dublin I believe the shade of Jonathan Swift must be entertaining itself somewhere on a little cloud. Has the Minister seen the quays recently? Is he aware of the conditions there. I do not wish to impugn all the members of the various groups in Dublin Corporation, because that is such a very wide brief, but the Minister, I am sure intentionally and with the puckish sense of humour for which he is so renowned, has drawn our attention specifically to precisely the kind of concerns that those of us on this side of the House at least have in mind when we talk about property speculation. I was not quite sure whether the Minister was suggesting that he might in fact insert on our behalf our amendment at section 25 where it does not currently exist at all.
I would like also to ask would the Minister accept that the function of legislation is twofold? One is to secure, in the most legalistic and comprehensive terms, what the ambition of the Government is. The second is similar to it, to communicate to the great mass of the Irish people what the Government's intention is. By accepting this amendment the Government will clearly be signalling to the people and to property developers what their intention is.
I have one other thing to say. It was not my intention to impugn the honour of the Minister, Deputy Flynn, and I was not intending to speculate about what his intentions may or may not have been. I was dealing simply with the concrete reality of what he said and trying to tease out the implications of that.
I would like to ask the Minister, for example, is he aware that not very far from this building, in No. 29, Clare Street, a site was assembled which was principally one building, a List 1 building, one of the most important buildings in our heritage and, despite the personal intervention of the then Lord Mayor, it was devastated? Can the Minister assure me that this situation could not happen under this Bill? He seems strangely satisfied with the operations of authorities like Dublin Corporation, who we all know, do absolutely nothing whatever. They never intervene, they do not even use the powers they already have. It is, I quite agree with the Minister, an absolute public scandal that they do not. This Bill, if our amendment is accepted, might actually do something.
I do not want this to become a kind of partisan thing. That is why I would like if, for example, the Fianna Fáil Members might just consider it as, through the Cathaoirleach, I would invite the Minister to do so again, because it is such an important matter. We will wish to continue to tease it out for some time, particularly in view of the Minister's good grace in attempting to lead us on in the matter.
It would be very gracious of the Minister if he could accept this amendment because he has already said that it does not damage, detract from or alter the Government's intention. I would say that we do not represent the log jam here this afternoon. The apparent intransigence on the Government's side which, I am sure, we can overcome by argument during the course of the afternoon, an apparent intransigence which I have no doubt will weaken eventually, could be overcome if the Minister would include this amendment and, as I say, there seems to be no conflict between us. I have indicated a problematic area in the Minister's speech. It would be impertinent for me to speculate about his intention — I am not going to do that — but my doubts can be resolved if the Minister can do something that should present him with no difficulty. As my distinguished colleague, Senator Hederman, has said, it will merely copperfasten what the Government intend. So may I plead with them to allow us the honour of inserting just one little nail in the coffin of property speculation?
I have listened with considerable interest to the points raised by Senators Norris and Hederman. I sympathise with their point of view and I believe they have a genuine fear. One way of resolving their fear would be acceptance by the Minister of the amendment. We have spent a considerable time on it; I am not suggesting it is not important but it has been argued to the extent that it can be argued and very effectively. It is a question of whether the Minister accepts it or not. I may not have said the most popular thing now as far as the Senators on the backbenches are concerned but there are two other observations I would like to make in relation to the debate as it has developed so far.
What is very evident is that there is a Dublin problem and the Minister is attempting in this Bill to resolve that problem. However, in attempting to resolve that Dublin problem we are going to create problems later on. There are other counties apart from Dublin that will be confronted with problems as a result of this approach to dealing with the issue.
Reference has been made to an extract from the Minister's speech and certain interpretations have been put on it. What the Minister was actually doing — I am not defending him; I am defending something I have felt strongly about over the years — is that he was giving to the elected members of local authorities the power and authority to make certain decisions. The majority of those of us here today have been members of local authorities and over the years we have decried the removal of power and responsibility from us. Are we at this point saying to the Minister, "We are afraid of facing up to this issue; for God's sake take another bit of responsibility from us"?
I am not without sympathy for the points made. It would be a very simple way of resolving the issue and if I were in the Minister's shoes I would be doing this. However, I cannot make the decisions. The Minister is attempting to resolve a Dublin problem with a piece of legislation which will create other problems with which we will be dealing later this evening. I do not want the further diminution of authority and power of members of local authorities.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.