asked the Minister for the Environment the estimated cost of running the inner city authority outlined in the arrangement announced in the Dáil on 9 March 1982 between Deputies Haughey and Gregory-Independent.
9.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dublin and Cork Inner Cities.
8.
asked the Minister for the Environment the estimated annual cost to the Exchequer of the establishment of the inner-city development authority as outlined in the arrangement between Deputies Haughey and Gregory-Independent announced in the Dáil on 9 March 1982.
10.
asked the Minister for the Environment the terms of reference and general conditions, applying in respect of the proposed new inner city authority, including the probable membership; whether such membership will be representative of various interested organisations; the budget which will be allocated to such an authority; and how soon they are likely to be established.
(Dublin South-East): With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 9 and 10 together.
The proposed new Dublin Inner City Development Authority will replace the existing non-statutory inter-departmental Dublin Inner City Group. A sum of £1.7 million was provided in the budget for the proposed authority in the current financial year, in addition to £300,000 already allocated in my Department's Vote for 1982 for the inner city group. I hope to introduce the legislation providing for the establishment of the authority this session. It would be inappropriate for me at this stage to say anything about the proposed membership of the authority or to comment on its terms of reference. The House will have ample opportunity to consider these matters when the Bill is published.
Would the Minister concede that he is already in default by failing to meet the terms of the agreement which required that steps be taken to implement this within three months of the signing of the agreement?
(Dublin South-East): No, I would not.
We could argue about what is going to be paid or repaid but surely it is a matter of fact whether something is inside or outside three months?
(Dublin South-East): The Deputy is aware of the business before the House and legislation will be introduced as quickly as possible. It is hoped to introduce it in this session.
Would the Minister confirm that it is the Government's intention to abdicate responsibility to appoint members of this committee, and also the chairman, to one particular Member of the House?
(Dublin South-East): I look forward to hearing Deputy Birmingham's contribution to the debate when the Bill in introduced. It would be inappropriate for me to pre-empt any discussion on the Bill when it has not been published.
May I ask the Minister whether he is quite clear and is in a position to guarantee this House that he will introduce that legislation this session, as was promised prior to the election in a private agreement and subsequent to the election by the Taoiseach in this House, that it is not just a question of a hope but that the Bill will be introduced during this session? Secondly, may I ask the Minister — who apparently is reluctant to comment even on the terms of reference of the inner city authority — whether he considers it reasonable that their terms of reference, and indeed detailed membership, can be the subject of detailed negotiations and dealing outside this House while Deputies in this House apparently are refused the courtesy of even being able to ask, by way of Parliamentary Question, and get a reasonable answer, the terms of reference of a body which is designed to replace an existing agency? Is that fair or equitable treatment?
(Dublin South-East): I feel that the reply that I have given is totally adequate given the position prevailing at present. It is difficult to stand up here and give the House an absolute commitment to introduce a Bill. I said I hoped to introduce the legislation. Surely Deputy Keating knows — he has had an opportunity of introducing Bills himself — that one can hope to introduce a Bill and, for one reason or another, that just might not be possible. That is the best and only answer I can give the Deputy now. It will be my absolute intention to get on with this legislation as rapidly as I possibly can. But there are other Departments pressing in as well, as the Deputy will realise.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Hell's play, in other words.
(Dublin South-East):—— and heaven.
Would the Minister sort out which road he is on?
A final supplementary from Deputy Keating.
(Dublin South-East): Deputy Boland knows that when he points one finger there are three pointing back at him.
With regard to the question of the terms of reference of this body, which in principle I welcome and look forward to its being established, may I ask the Minister, for the benefit of the House, whether they were discussed in negotiations outside this House. May I ask him further whether he feels it appropriate, therefore, that he should answer a question about those terms of reference by saying that he feels it now inapproprivate to discuss it with elected representatives in this session?
(Dublin South-East): I would have absolutely nothing whatever to add to that. It is inappropriate to discuss it at this stage.
Is the Minister aware that the details of the so-called and proposed inner city authority were the subject of detailed negotiations and discussions right down to and including who would nominate members to that authority in a bid to purchase power in this field?
Deputy Keating will appreciate that a Bill will be coming before the House on this matter. I think he will accept that we have exhausted what is appropriate for question and answer at this stage.
If members who have no mandate whatever from the public can be involved in negotiations, which include not just the general terms of reference but the detailed aspects of a proposal, including its membership, if that can be done outside this House months ago, is it not reasonable that the Minister should be able to give this House some information about the terms of reference of a body that is going to be publicly funded? Yet the Minister is refusing to do so. I ask the Minister: is that defensible behaviour?
Deputy Keating, as far as the Chair is concerned——
I would like the Minister to answer for himself.
The Minister is subject to the Chair as well. I do not think it would be appropriate for the Minister to discuss what is proposed in legislation at Question Time.
I am asking for an answer. Is the Minister going to answer?
(Dublin South-East): I am happy to give an answer. I do not agree with what the Deputy has said in the context of my reply to that question.
It is the truth, though.
(Dublin South-East): Would the Deputy hold it just for a moment. If the Deputy has anything further specific he wants to ask me outside the terms of that question, he should put it down on the Order Paper——
I have it here in Question No. 10.
(Dublin South-East): I have replied——
Not to Question No. 10, with respect.
(Dublin South-East): I have replied to the questions that have been tabled.
Not to No. 10.
(Dublin South-East): If the Deputy wants to amplify that in a different direction, well then he should table another question and I will answer it.
I am now calling Question No. 11.
May I, with your permission, Sir, draw the Minister's attention to Question No. 10 which reads:
To ask the Minister for the Environment the terms of reference and general conditions applying in respect of the proposed new inner city authority, including its probable membership; whether such membership will be representative of various interested organisations; the budget which will be allocated to such an authority; and how soon it is likely to be established.
Therefore there is no need to ask that question again; that is all I want information on. That information is not available today in this House months after it was the subject of detailed negotiations and haggling behind closed doors——
I am moving on to Question No. 11.
On a point of order, perhaps the Minister could indicate to the House how it is inappropriate and improper for this House to ask information now on the suggested membership of a committee when every newspaper in the land published a document, signed by Deputy Haughey, now Taoiseach, which goes into the most extreme detail about its proposed membership, including the obligation of the Chairman, the Departments which will be represented on it, the fact that people nominated by another Deputy will have an opportunity, against this background——
The Minister has indicated that a Bill is coming before the House. That being the assurance given by the Minister of State, the Chair does not deem it appropriate to allow a debate on the matter now.
Would I be safe in thinking that the Chair would not deem it appropriate, then, for any Deputy of this House to sign a public agreement anticipating the contents of a Bill?
I have called Question No. 11.
That would be the logical consequence. It is corruption, that is what it is.
(Dublin South-East): I have not been permitted to answer supplementary questions——
Minister, I have called Question No. 11, please.
(Dublin South-East): I very much look forward to the debate when the time comes.
So do I.
11.
asked the Minister for the Environment if he is considering the setting up of an inner city renewal group in Cork similar to that existing in Dublin.
12.
asked the Minister for the Environment the moneys allocated to Dublin for urban renewal in 1981-1982.
(Dublin South-East): With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 11 and 12 together.
The Government are especially concerned about the question of urban regeneration in Dublin because of the extent and urgency of the problems there and because it is the capital city and is, therefore, applying certain special measures there as a matter of urgency and on a pilot basis.
As part of this approach legislation is being introduced to provide for the setting up on an Inner City Development Authority to replace the Dublin Inner City Group which has existed since 1979. There will be a budget provision of £2 million in 1982 for the group and for the new authority
The Urban Development Areas Bill, 1982, which I have introduced provides for the establishement of urban development commissions to secure the regeneration of designated urban areas. Two of these will be located in Dublin and the legislation also provides for the designation of other areas and the establishment of commissions where there is a special need for urban renewal. In the light of experience with the pilot projects in Dublin, consideration will be given to a similar approach elsewhere.
In the meantime the urban renewal situation in other areas, including Cork and especially in the main urban centres, will be considered and whatever further support may be possible and appropriate for inner urban development and renewal in those areas will be provided.
It must be stressed that the basic system remains, both in Dublin and elsewhere, by which urban renewal objectives which are defined in local development plans may be supported both by local authority investment and by the exercise of development controls. The local authority investment programmes relating to housing, in particular, and to roads, sanitary services and environmental schemes are particularly relevant in this regard. It is not possible to distinguish in detail between urban renewal and other objectives in the use of these various resources by local authorities but the overall allocations to Dublin Corporation for the years referred to for the services mentioned are given in the following table which, with your permission, I will circulate with the Official Report:
|
Service |
1981 |
1982 |
|
£m |
£m |
|
|
Local Authority Housing |
52.610 |
76.000(a) |
|
Road Works |
6.992 |
6.524 |
|
Sanitary Services |
1.585 |
2.350 |
|
Environmental Works |
1.016 |
3.818 |
Further provision to a maximum of £15 million will be made for this programme if necessary.
Inner city areas would benefit, of course, from the local authority's ongoing programmes in such matters as housing maintenance, but details as to how individual areas benefit are not available. Finally, urban renewal in the Dublin area, and elsewhere, will benefit from the budget provision of £1.5 million for a revolving fund for the purchase and renovation of run-down residential properties, and from the new charges proposed on derelict sites and office developments, for which proposals are at present being considered.
Is the Minister aware that Cork Corporation have had three detailed local plans with his Department now for over 18 months? When does the Minister propose to make moneys available to carry out the proposals contained in those plans?
(Dublin South-East): I will be happy to give specific replies in regard to the three schemes to which the Deputy refers if he tables questions to that effect.
Is the Minister aware that on his trip to Cork in May he gave specific commitments that, having toured the areas, he would be looking into the facts he had collected, and would be taking early decisions on the plans as submitted to him?
(Dublin South-East): A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, this has become very——
Sorry, Deputy Allen, it seems to me here that the questions refer to Dublin.
No, Questions Nos. 11 and 12 together; Question No. 11 refers to Cork.
There is a city there too.
And a fine city it is.
I hope the Cork Deputy will not mind, but it is not written in the copy of the question I have.
(Dublin South-East): That was a mistake and I had to correct it in my copy.
The Minister is ignoring Cork completely.
(Dublin South-East): My goodness.
(Interruptions.)
Could we allow the Minister to deal with Cork?
We are interested in the Minister's reply.
(Dublin South-East): I want to tell the House, for the Deputy's benefit, that we had quite a misunderstanding when I visited Cork. I am saying this again, probably for the sixth time.
The fourth time.
(Dublin South-East): I went to Cork, made no specific commitment to give money to Cork city and made no commitment to come back to Dublin and make commitments to Cork City. Very regrettably, in The Cork Examiner on a couple of occasions information was reported which greatly embarrassed the city manager, Mr. McHugh, who actually issued a statement to The Cork Examiner on 14 May totally disassociating himself with the comments that were made by a certain Deputy on that particular question. He also telephoned my office about it and was very embarrassed about what had happened on my trip to Cork. At this stage, so that no further misinterpretation is given to my visit to Cork, I want to clear it once and for all in the House that I went down to see on the ground, following a deputation from Cork to Dublin, the situation relating to urban renewal and the needs for Cork.
On a point of information, there was no need for the Minister to go to Cork. He had the plans in his office for 18 months.
(Dublin South-East): The Deputy is interrupting now.
I am sure Deputy Allen appreciates that the Minister is replying to questions tabled by him and at least we should give him the opportunity of replying.
(Dublin South-East): It does not matter if Deputy Allen feels that I should not have gone to Cork, but the rest of the deputation felt it would be very useful and worthwhile if I went to Cork. That is why I went to Cork, not because the Deputy felt it was not a worthwhile exercise.
Did the Minister of State find out anything?
(Dublin South-East): I did It was a very worthwhile trip. Cork is a beautiful city.
When will the Minister of State pay them anything?
(Interruptions.)
(Dublin South-East): I will read out for Deputy Keating the funds that have been given to Cork. The House will be left in no doubt in the next question that the moneys that have been provided for Cork have been very generous, given the national finances. I make no apology for the fact that Dublin has been treated as a special case.
Deputy George Birmingham. I hope this will be the final supplementary.
I have a supplementary question too.
We will see about that.
Would the Minister of State, as the person responsible for originating the Urban Development Bill in the House and as the person who presumably will be responsible for the Inner City Authority Bill express his confidence that the areas served by his agencies will experience more effective urban renewal than the other authorities, otherwise there is no point in bringing them in? Why does the Minister of State not make similar agencies available to Cork when they have already got ambitious and adventurous proposals in relation to Shandon and other parts of that city?
(Dublin South-East): The Deputy apparently is not familiar with the facts in relation to Cork. I had a very thorough examination made of the Cork situation. I made that my first trip. I suggest, now that the Deputy is shadow spokesman for urban affairs, that he does similarly.
(Interruptions.)
(Dublin South-East): The Deputy is completely wrong.
Has the Minister had regard to the standards of the commission based on an assessment of the urban renewal needs of the area? Would he make the criteria of such urban renewal available to the House? Urban renewal can mean a lot of things to different people. In order to maximise the benefits of this legislation it would be helpful to the House if the Minister would consider circulating, laying in the Library or coming back into the House on another occasion and setting out the criteria by which he or his successors might approach an area in terms of urban renewal?
(Dublin South-East): I regard that as a very constructive proposal. But I am sure the Deputy realises, being a qualified professional architect, that it is impossible, as I said in my reply, to distinguish in detail questions of urban renewal. I referred recently in the House to the very excellent exhibition that the Institute of Architects have in Merrion Square where this whole question was significantly displayed to great effect. I have encouraged my officials to go along to that exhibition as part of that exercise. Urban renewal is a long-range project and I could not give an assurance that what the Deputy suggests will be done very quickly but I would like to aim in that direction.
I am calling on Deputy Molloy. I would like to indicate to the House that the Chair will not have a discussion on urban renewal in toto. There are specific questions here and I ask the Deputies and the Minister of State to direct themselves to the information sought in the two questions. There are other questions on the Order Paper as well.
Would the Minister of State indicate to the House the names of the local authorities who would be entitled to apply for benefit under the revolving fund proposals which he mentioned in his reply, the requirements to be fulfilled in making application for benefit under this fund and if there are any other conditions which the Minister could indicate to the House which might be applied by his Department in deciding how this fund is to be administered?
(Dublin South-East): Although I feel that is a separate question, I would like to assure the Deputy that it is a nationwide project not particularly geared to one city or one town.
Could the Minister state the conditions to be applied in qualifying for benefit under the fund? The Minister has not replied to that?
(Dublin South-East): I heard the question and I said I felt it was a separate question. I shall be happy to answer that if a question is tabled to me.
I would like the permission of the House to move on. We have given 12 minutes to those two questions. I understand that Questions Nos. 13, 14 and 15 are for written reply. I am now calling Question No. 16.
One final supplementary.
Sorry, Deputy, would you resume your seat?
One final supplementary.
Would the Deputy please resume his seat? I am calling Question No. 16.
I am asking the Minister why he did not designate a similar area in Cork.
The Deputy is being disorderly. If he does not resume his seat, I must ask him to leave the House.
Would the Minister come down to Waterford?
(Dublin South-East): I am going down there in November.
Question No. 16 to the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry.
If the situation is not tackled before it is too late——
The Minister in his replies gives no facts.
Question No. 16.