Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 19 Nov 1986

Vol. 369 No. 12

Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission (No. 2) Bill, 1986 [Seanad]: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. R. Burke

When I moved the adjournment on the last occasion we were discussing section 6 and, in conjunction with it, the Second Schedule setting out the provisions relating to an improvement scheme. One of the problems with that scheme is the complete lack of public participation and An Taisce, for example, feel very strongly about that. In their view, the improvement scheme drawn up by the proposed commission will supersede the existing local authority development plan when sanctioned by the Minister for the Environment under section 6. The whole public participation process for the creation of a development plan as provided in the planning Acts is thus set aside.

The alternative provision for public participation in the drafting of the improvement scheme by the proposed commission as set out by the Minister in the Bill is extremely limited. Section 3 of the Second Schedule to the Bill states the commission must have regard to the existing development plan. The provision made in section 3 (d) of the Second Schedule is in complete contrast to the detailed procedure for public involvement in the drafting of local authority development plans established under the planning Acts. It provides merely that the commission make arrangements for submission by interested persons and for the consideration by the commission of any such submissions. Of course, the reality is that, in practice, this leaves the commission with complete liberty to determine the degree of public participation. The provision that the commission shall make arrangements for the consideration of any public submissions is loose in legal form. I should like the Minister to comment on that point. In contrast to the consideration given to the public submissions, the commission "shall have regard to the existing development plan". The special position of prescribed bodies such as An Taisce contained in the planning Acts is not considered in this Bill.

Section 6 (5) (b) further provides that any development carried out by a person other than the commission which is certified by the commission as being in accordance with the improvement scheme may be exempted from the requirements of the Planning Act. This section completely eliminates the existing procedures whereby third parties may make submissions to the planning authority on a particular development at planning application stage. It also eliminates the right of a third party to appeal against planning permission decisions. Under the Bill as now proposed a development may proceed by private agreement between the commission and the property owner or developer, without any procedure to give information to third parties. Not only will third parties lose the right to appeal but they will not even have the right to information about what is going on. The provision by which plans of proposed developments and copies of all planning permissions and decisions are available for public inspection in the planning authority premises is a very important feature of the Planning Acts. That will not be available.

Section 6 effectively disregards public information and third party submissions and appeal rights. A major element of planning is the right to information, the availability of the planning registers, appeal rights, the rights to see applications. These rights are being done away with because of the private arrangements that can be made under section 6 and the Second Schedule, where the metropolitan commission will decide their improvement scheme and then any developer or property owner who is prepared to develop his or her property in line with the improvement scheme does not have to go through the whole planning procedure. I am interested to hear the Minister's views.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Boland)

I have already basically outlined the situation in relation to the provisions of this section and the Second Schedule. The onus will be on the commission to prepare an improvement scheme or schemes. If the scheme is as detailed as to provide for detailed treatment of facades of property, for example, it will allow a property owner who is prepared to redevelop or refurbish in line with the scheme to carry out that work without having to seek any other approvals, except by-law approval which would in the normal way be necessary. If an improvement scheme is not in existence in that particular part of the central area, or if a proposal is at variance with the improvement scheme, an applicant would have to apply in the normal way for the permission of the local authority. That application would be subject to the provisions of the Planning Acts in relation to appeals and the like.

The situation is radically different from that represented by the Deputy in that the only type of development which would not have to receive planning permission and be subject to appeals procedures would be a development which was wholly in conformity with an improvement scheme prepared by the commission. Where the commission have prepared a detailed improvement plan for a section of the area and property owners are prepared to improve their property exactly in line with what is proposed by the commission, they will be allowed to go ahead without having to go through any further procedures.

There is provision in the preparation of the improvement scheme for consultation with Dublin Corporation to take into account the corporation's development plan. There will also be provision for the commission to receive and consider submissions from interested parties. Then the improvement scheme has to be sent to the Minister for ratification. There is also provision for the Minister to consult with and hear the views of Dublin Corporation before the improvement scheme would come fully into operation. Procedure for hearing the views of voluntary or other bodies is provided for at the stage of making of the improvement scheme. In all other cases the planning application procedure will apply.

Mr. R. Burke

In theory it sounds fine. The Minister must submit to the corporation the scheme suggested by the commission. They have one month in which to make comments and send it back. The Minister may or may not listen to the views of the corporation.

Section 6 (4) states:

Where an improvement scheme is submitted to him by the Commission the Minister shall consider any objections made to the scheme by Dublin Corporation within one month of its submission to him and may modify the scheme in such manner and to such extent as he thinks proper and may approve the scheme or the scheme as so modified.

That is the full extent of the consulation procedure.

The role of the third party is a very important aspect of our planning law but it is totally ignored in this Bill. In the light of the special arrangements between the developer and the commission, that right of appeal no longer exists. Let us consider the case of a premises in O'Connell Street. Will the commission be working on the basis of improving the facade or designating the use of the building or even the internal design? Will they change the facade of some of the take-away places or have they the power to decide that a particular premises will no longer be used as a take-away food establishment?

Mr. Boland

It is envisaged that an improvement scheme would deal with such questions as facades and the external appearance of properties in the streetscape. The question of usage may well arise and I remind the House that this matter will be dealt with in section 11. It is not envisaged that matters such as the internal layout of premises would form part of the matters which might fall to be considered in the context of an improvement scheme. At the time when an improvement scheme is being prepared for an area an onus falls upon the commission to take the views of interested parties into account. People who have such views should make them known when the scheme is being prepared. The commission also have an onus to consult with other authorities such as the Dublin Transport Authority and Dublin Corporation. In turn they refer the proposed scheme to the Minister for consultation with the corporation and his eventual decision as to whether the scheme should be adopted, with or without modifications.

Mr. R. Burke

The commission will have power to decide not only on the facade but on the use of particular buildings. They have the power to change and take action on unauthorised development but where a shop or take-away is built and is an authorised development, whether authorised by the local authority or by An Board Pleanála on appeal, will the commission have the right to say that they no longer believe that is the correct usage for the building? For instance, can they say to Kentucky Fried Chicken on the corner of O'Connell Street and Abbey Street that in the context of what is good for that area, the commission do not believe that that business should be on that premises, and they will rescind permission and pay compensation? What way does this work?

Mr. Boland

This is the subject matter for a later section——

Mr. R. Burke

It is but it is also relevant to the Schedule we are discussing in conjunction with section 6. This Schedule talks about the provisions relating to an improvement scheme. I believe it is appropriate to discuss this matter on this section because in the development of an improvement scheme the Minister says the usage of a building as well as the facade will be taken into account. Therefore, it is relevant to ask what happens to a building the use of which has been decided by planning permission granted by An Bord Pleanála or the corporation, if the commission put before the Minister a proposal for a change of usage of, say, Kentucky Fried Chicken so that it might revert to being a newspaper office? If the Minister sanctions the improvement scheme as prepared under the Second Schedule, does this mean he is liable for compensation? Who pays the compensation for the change back to, say, a newspaper office?

Mr. Barrett

(Dublin North-West): I want to ask about a building at present occupied by Aer Lingus in O'Connell Street. I understand this office will be vacated in the near future. Will the commission be able to decide what kind of development will be there? Will he guarantee we will not have a chip shop or a take-away on those premises, but that the commission will be able to decide on a suitable development for that premises?

Mr. Boland

It is always very difficult when we get into specifics. We have now mentioned two particular existing users in O'Connell Street, and it might be better if we tried to avoid that. As a general principle, if a building is vacated by a current user, in the context of the preparation of an improvement scheme or in the context of section 11, the commission would have the power to indicate the type of usage they felt most appropriate or which they felt ought not be permitted. As regards Deputy Burke's question, if I were to respond to it in detail I would be prejudging the discussion on section 11.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair feels that the change of usage is much more appropriate to the discussion on section 11 (1) (b).

Mr. R. Burke

I have no strong views on that except that this comes under the provision relating to the preparation of an improvement scheme. However, I will wait until we get to section 11.

Mr. Boland

It might be more appropriate if, on section 11, the Deputy referred back to section 6 and the Schedule.

Mr. R. Burke

It is a case of Tweedledum and Tweedledee. I will wait until we reach section 11. I am worried because it appears that the Minister is not clear in his mind as to what exactly is in this Bill. On the last occasion we discussed the improvement the Minister wants. The idea in this Bill is to improve the spine of our capital city. During the debate the Minister made what to me was a very revealing statement. He said he viewed Upper O'Connell Street as being dead and that it needed a particular improvement scheme. I mentioned what was in Upper O'Connell Street. That area is exactly what this Bill should be trying to improve rather than declaring it a dead area. Starting at the corner we have the Ambassador, the Parnell Monument and a bank on the corner of Cavendish Row and Parnell Square. On the other side of the road there is a bank, the Aer Lingus offices, the Royal Dublin Hotel, the headquarters of Dublin County Council, the Carlton cinema and CIE premises. On the far side of the road there are An Bord Telecom, the Gresham Hotel, the Savoy Cinema and Bord Fáilte headquarters. There are two takeaways and a restaurant in this area, as well as a building society. As far as the facade is concerned, that is probably the best part of O'Connell Street. If the Minister views this as a dead area, does that mean he views the other side of O'Connell Street, from Abbey Street to the river, which I would describe as the honky-tonk area, as the ideal world? I would like the Minister to let the House know that he is clear in his mind as to what is required of this commission, because if we are talking about facades and ideal usages. Upper O'Connell Street, which he considers to be dead, would seem to be the way we should be going. In that area there are hotels, two cinemas, banks, offices for Aer Lingus, Bord Fáilte, Bord Telecom, CIE and the county council——

Mr. Boland

I am clear in my mind.

Mr. R. Burke

I take it the Minister considers that two hotels, three banks, Bord Telecom, Bord Fáilte and CIE offices, the county council headquarters, the Carlton and the Savoy cinemas — I am going back to the Dublin of 25 and 30 years ago——

An Ceann Comhairle

This is an enabling Bill and it would be unfortunate at this stage if the debate were to develop into a discussion of whether the premises owned by "A" could be improved. That is another day's work for when the Bill becomes law.

Mr. R. Burke

It is very important when giving powers to the Minister——

An Ceann Comhairle

I am thinking about the owners of these buildings as of now.

Mr. R. Burke

I disagree with you because this Bill is about improving the streetscape and the quality of life in our capital city streets — O'Connell Street, Cavendish Row, Westmoreland Street, D'Olier Street, Nassau Street, Grafton Street. It is about improving those streets or portions of them. It is very important that we know the Minister's mind We have taken many strolls down O'Connell Street. There has been much television and newspaper coverage. There has been much of the type of talk that we must return Dublin to its state of 20, 30 or 40 years ago. When we get down to the nitty-gritty of what is involved in the Second Schedule, in the provisions relating to an improvement scheme, it is important to know the mind of the Minister.

The Minister says Dublin has become too gaudy and so on. I suggest that the gaudy end of O'Connell Street is comprised of the portion running from the river to Abbey Street where there are all of the take-away shops of various descriptions. The Minister, in a scathing way, described Upper O'Connell Street as being dead. I would make the point that Upper O'Connell Street comprises the Gresham Hotel, the Royal Dublin Hotel, three banks, the head offices of Aer Lingus, Bord Telecom, Bord Fáilte, CIE and Dublin County Council. There are also the two oldest cinemas in the city located there, the Savoy and the Carlton, which are absolutely associated in the public mind with O'Connell Street. That portion of the street, as the Minister described it, is dead, needing improvement and up-lifting.

Within the provisions of the Second Schedule relating to an improvement scheme I want to know what exactly the Minister has in mind for that area. For example, has he in mind that that end of the street should be converted into what is now to be found at the far end of the street? I understood that the whole objective of this Bill was to get away from that. That was what the Minister's own backbenchers were speaking about. It must be remembered that we cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Boland

I really do not think we are getting anywhere. This is the second day on which the Deputy has endeavoured to trot the House up and down a small section of the central area of the city. His description of it is less than accurate. For example, he conveniently omitted to mention the fact that there has been a major derelict site in the area about which he speaks for the past seven years. He conveniently skipped that site in his perambulations down one side of the street. The Deputy, I and others know very well that in the building in which he has his office the original planning permission was given on the basis that there would be four, five or six shop fronts fronting onto the street. A different usage was made of that building. A combination of various developments like that means there is less activity to attract the general public to that end of the street. The Deputy is being disingenous in representing my remarks about that end of the street being dead as meaning that I favoured or somehow felt that the opposite end of the street was in some way superior or constituted the goal at which we should aim. My views are quite well known and have been expressed in the House in some detail. In the course of our discussion on Committee Stage on the last day I made every effort to be as helpful as possible. The result is that the Deputy now has us running up and down 75 yards each side of Upper O'Connell Street. It is pointless to the activities of the House and does not improve the standard of debate.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 7.

Amendment No. 11 not moved.

Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. R. Burke

Deputies Mac Giolla and De Rossa raised an interesting point in their amendment — which unfortunately they have not moved — where they say:

Such work as the Commission may require undertaken as a road authority, or in relation to the cleansing of streets, shall be carried out on behalf of the Commission by Dublin Corporation under such terms and conditions and for such sums of money as may be agreed between the Commission and the Corporation.

This section covers the whole question of the transfer of road functions to the commission. Who has the Minister in mind to undertake the work and who will pay for it? Will it be paid for by the commission out of the £10 million which is to keep them going for three years? Is that meant to keep the commission operational, to undertake all of the functions the Minister intends giving them even down to street cleansing, road naming and so on? Who will do the work and who will pay for it? This is relevant because, after the lifetime of the commission, under the provisions of section 4 (3) (a) if the commission decide to use private contractors, the Minister has the power to insist that Dublin Corporation continue to use private contractors. I believe the work should be undertaken by Dublin Corporation. I would be interested to hear from the Minister if that is what he has in mind.

Mr. Barrett

(Dublin North West): I should like to raise two questions raised also by Deputy R. Burke. I would be concerned if the power is to be taken from Dublin Corporation and transferred to the commission because under the provisions of this section the commission will be responsible for the cleansing of the streets in that area. Like Deputy R. Burke, as a member of Dublin Corporation I would be concerned to know who would be engaged to undertake this work. For example, would the staff members of Dublin Corporation cleansing department be made redundant?

I heard the Minister say in the course of the Second Stage debate that he took a stroll through the city from Grafton Street right over to Parnell Street, and he intimated that O'Connell Street was in a deplorable condition. I wonder was he referring to the litter on the street.

Mr. Boland

On a point of order, the Deputy's contribution and the previous one are probably more relevant to section 9 than to this section. The street cleansing functions are dealt with under section 9.

Mr. R. Burke

Section 7 deals with construction, maintenance and improvement.

Mr. Barrett

(Dublin North West): Section 7 deals with the transfer of roads functions to the commission.

Mr. Boland

Section 7 deals with the improvement, rebuilding and restoration of roads, footpaths and road surfacing. The question of litter control and cleansing is dealt with under section 9.

An Ceann Comhairle

The maintenance and improvement of roads is relevant here.

Mr. R. Burke

Yes, maintenance. I should like to know whether the Minister intends that the commission will engage private contractors to carry out these maintenance improvement works. Would that mean there would be a commitment, official or unofficial, so that the contractors would understand that they would continue to operate in this area of the city after the lifetime of the commission?

Mr. Boland

As the House knows, local authorities carry out work of this nature in a number of different ways, sometimes by way of direct labour and on other occasions by employing contractors to do the work for them. We should not pre-empt the position of the commission or in any way allow them less flexibility than the local authority enjoy.

Mr. R. Burke

It raises the whole question to which I shall be referring later — I have an amendment down about it — which is the funding of this commission and how it will affect the funding of Dublin Corporation. What I am concerned about is that the £10 million being devoted to this task over the three year lifespan of the commission will not be used as a means of reducing the overall rates support grant of the local authority. I am concerned that this will constitute additional funds for Dublin rather than a diversion of funds from Dublin Corporation to the commission.

Mr. Boland

The question of funding is dealt with under section 12.

Mr. R. Burke

We will be coming back to that later.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 8.

Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. R. Burke

This is a classic example of where this Bill is merely a cosmetic exercise from the Minister. The various powers of the Garda and the local authorities in this area were transferred by way of recent legislation to the Dublin Transport Authority. Last week there was the first meeting of the Dublin Transport Authority. Even as this Bill is being discussed and as the Dublin Transport Authority are being established part of their powers are being swiped and given to the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission. That is confusion upon confusion. If this commission was about improving the facades of the buildings it would have some merit. As a result of this Bill I fear that rather than improving traffic management in the city we will have greater confusion than at present. Powers are being transferred from the corporation and the Garda to the Dublin Transport Authority and then to the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission. That leads to endless confusion especially when one is being established at the same time as the other so this is a totally unnecessary section.

Mr. Boland

This section is an integral part of the functions the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission will be expected to carry out. If we are to have any substantial improvement in the Dublin central area the entire question of the control and management of traffic will be very much part of the activities of the commission. As I explained previously to the House, it is hoped that O'Connell Street can be restored to a street where the pedestrian is supreme rather than the traffic. For example, if the commission are to prohibit heavy traffic from using O'Connell Street or to have power to make regulations regarding the usage of the general area by traffic — the hours at which goods vehicles may come to make deliveries and the pedestrianisation of streets and so on — they need to have these powers.

It is coincidental that the Dublin Transport Authority Act predated this Bill. The Dublin Transport Authority had just come into operation this week. I remind the House that were it not for the obstructionist tactics of certain Members this Bill would have been enacted last June and the commission would have been in operation since July. Presumably, we would then have another side of the argument and the suggestion that it was wrong that the commission had assumed these powers in advance of the setting up of the Dublin Transport Authority. The commission will have these functions for a three year period and they will then revert, in the case of this section, to the Dublin Transport Authority. In this case, as in other cases relating to functions such as this, the success of the commission in this area will depend largely on close co-operation between the commission in their activities as empowered under this section and the Dublin Transport Authority in relation to their responsibilities generally for transport and transport management in the general Dublin area.

Mr. Wilson

I support what Deputy Burke said with regard to the taking of powers from the Dublin Transport Authority. Despite what the Minister has just said, the Dublin Transport Authority could have been predated by this Bill being enacted some time ago. The Fianna Fáil Government after many months of discussion and after modifying their proposals had prepared and sent to the draftsman four years ago a copy of the Dublin Transport Authority Bill. It did not surface for many years and when it did surface it was a weakened and emasculated form of the Bill that finally reached this House. It was not welcomed by anybody. Notably, many members of the Minister's party found it weak and unsatisfactory compared with what could have been done. I refer particularly to a very good contribution — his contributions are always good — by junior Minister. Deputy Richard Bruton, who went along with my thesis that the Bill was weakened so much that it was not going to be very useful with regard to transport in Dublin city. There was a battle between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment won. Now there is another battle with still more power being taken from the Dublin Transport Authority. I would like this House to give that Department a bloody nose after its two victories by rejecting this grab for power again, admittedly over a three year period. The basic parts of the original, proper and healthy Dublin Transport Authority as envisaged was that there would be a traffic plan which would cover all points made by the Minister in his answer to Deputy Burke and that there would be a budgeting power and so on.

If we had a decent Dublin Transport Authority Act the taking away of the powers for three years would be more fatal than it is but as it is taking power away from an already largely powerless transport authority perhaps we should not get too excited about it. The whole question of traffic management, budgeting, co-ordination of plans between the various local authorities and so on could have been incorporated into a decent Dublin Transport Authority Act but that was not done. Whatever powers were given to the Authority are now, before the ink is dry, being taken away by the Department of the Environment. The House should register its objection to this.

Mr. R. Burke

The Minister said that a fundamental part of the powers of the commission will be traffic management. It is not as if one could decide on and control the volume of traffic in that area in isolation, as if one could decide whether the traffic should be heavy or whether there should be a move back to pedestrianisation. It is not as if we can decide those things in isolation from all of the remaining traffic through the remaining portions of Dublin, whether it is Parnell Street, Abbey Street, the quays area or any other portion adjoining the streets mentioned as the areas to be dealt with by this commission. To suggest that one can discuss traffic in isolation in O'Connell Street without it having an effect on Marlborough Street, on Gardiner Street, on Talbot Street, is a nonsense. I oppose this section of the Bill.

Mr. Boland

I find Deputy Wilson's remarks extremely interesting. I suspect that his dispute is as much within his own party as in any other respect. It is a little much to invite the House to give the Department of the Environment a bloody nose because they happened to have made a better case to successive Cabinets than other Departments.

Mr. Wilson

We got an admission. I knew I was right. My instinct was right.

Mr. Boland

It is not the Deputy's instinct, it was what happened to his own Government.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 73; Níl, 56.

Tá

• Allen, Bernard.
• Barnes, Monica.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Begley, Michael.
• Bell, Michael.
• Boland, John.
• Bruton, John.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Burke, Liam.
• Carey, Donal.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Desmond, Barry.
• Donnellan, John.
• Dowling, Dick.
• Doyle, Avril.
• Dukes, Alan.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Glenn, Alice.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Hegarty, Paddy.
• Hussey, Gemma.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kelly, John.
• Kenny, Enda.
• L'Estrange, Gerry.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• McLoughlin, Frank.
• Manning, Maurice.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Collins, Edward.
• Conlon, John F.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cosgrave, Liam T.
• Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
• Coveney, Hugh.
• Creed, Donal.
• Crotty, Kieran.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Deasy, Martin Austin.
• Molloy, Robert
• Molony, David.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Naughten, Liam.
• Nealon, Ted.
• Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Brien, Willie.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Malley, Desmond J.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• O'Toole, Paddy.
• Owen, Nora.
• Pattison, Seamus.
• Prendergast, Frank.
• Ryan, John.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
• Skelly, Liam.
• Spring, Dick.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Wyse, Pearse.
• Yates, Ivan.

Níl

• Ahern, Michael.
• Andrews, David.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Mattie.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Byrne, Seán.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Conaghan, Hugh.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Daly, Brendan.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Fahey, Francis.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Fitzgerald, Gene.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Foley, Denis.
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Gallagher, Pat Cope.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Haughey, Charles J.
• Hilliard, Colm.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Leonard, Tom.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lyons, Denis.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• Moynihan, Donal.
• Nolan, M.J.
• Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Dea, William.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Edmond.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• Ormonde, Donal.
• Power, Paddy.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies F. O'Brien and Taylor; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Browne.

Question declared carried.

SECTION 9.

Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. R. Burke

I referred to this during the discussion on section 7. It refers to the employment of private contractors for the control and prevention of litter in the affected area. We on this side feel that such work should be done by corporation staff under sub-contract to the commission rather than by private contractors. The Minister has taken power to transfer this work back to the corporation at the end of the lifetime of the commission and he may permit the local authority to continue the services provided by the commission during their lifetime.

Therefore, we suggest that instead of using private contractors for this work, the commission should employ corporation staff, because at the end of the commission's term of office the work will be performed again by the corporation, and rather than have private contractors continuing to do this under the administration of the corporation it would be far better to have the corporation staff employed throughout the period of the commission's administration. Otherwise we would have private contractors doing street cleaning jobs in the area under the jurisdiction of the commission and corporation staff cleaning other parts of the city. This would lead to intolerable confusion. We also want to ensure that the funding for this work will be adequate and will not affect the corporation's revenue.

Proinsias De Rossa

First let me apologise for being absent when my amendment came up. I expected to be back before it had been reached but unfortunately other events intervened to prevent that.

Let me say in relation to section 9 more or less what I had hoped to say in relation to section 7 in my amendment to that section. The position we have adopted on this Bill from the beginning has been that if the powers and money which the Minister is giving to this new authority he is setting up had been given to Dublin Corporation they could just as easily have done the job which he is hoping to do through this authority and it is totally unnecessary to proceed with this kind of authority. The Minister, having got through this Bill in the Seanad and with the likelihood of his getting it through this House as well, at least should ensure that the local authority in the area who have the expertise, the staff and the structures to carry out such functions as road repairs, cleansing and the maintenance of litter free streets should be directly involved in that work and it should not be contracted out to private contractors. Apart altogether from the fact that this could undermine the morale of Dublin Corporation staff and would be a slap in the face for the very good work which Dublin Corporation staff have carried out over many years with very little resources, it would be the thin end of the wedge for hiving off other functions of the local authority and other work carried out by the local authority. Therefore, I urge the Minister strongly to ensure that where work which is normally carried out by the local authority is being transferred to this new streets authority, the job itself, the sweeping of the streets, the maintenance of clean streets, the repair of streets and so on be done by the local authority who have the staff and so on.

I am also concerned about section 4. If the new authority were to enter contracts for the cleansing of streets, for the digging up or repair of streets with private contractors, when the Minister — this or any future Minister — decides either at the end of three years or before the end of three years — which may happen — that the contractors would be entitled to maintain those contracts, Dublin Corporation would be duty bound under section 4 to continue with those contractors to provide the services which they themselves are in a position to provide. There is no guarantee that at the end of the period, while the corporation would be saddled with these contracts, the extra funding which the Minister is providing now for the duration of the life of this authority or additional funds would be available to pay those contractors and the local authority would be faced with the additional task of paying funds out of their own resources for contracts which they had no hand, act or part in entering into but were obliged under this Bill to take over when the streets authority had been dissolved.

Those are my concerns on how this Bill would operate in relation to the functions which Dublin Corporation have at present and which they should retain. I urge the Minister to ensure that where this new authority are seeking to have these functions carried out, Dublin Corporation will be the one whom they will engage to carry out this work.

Mr. Barrett

(Dublin North-West): Once again I would like the Minister to explain to the House who is going to take over the work at present being done by Dublin Corporation. As a member of that corporation I do not agree that this authority should be taken over from the corporation. It is nothing short of undermining the whole authority of the corporation and casting a reflection on the workmen in Dublin Corporation. If this work is hired out to private contractors it would appear that the men in the cleansing department who do the work already will be made redundant.

I refer again to the walk the Minister had from Grafton Street back to Parnell Street when he described here in the House how he was appalled at the condition of the streets. I take issue with him if he is talking about the cleansing of the streets. Again as a member of Dublin Corporation I am very much aware that the cleansing department do an excellent job. They have special teams continually operating within the city centre cleaning up the refuse. In Moore Street, Thomas Street and other places where there are markets the corporation workmen have to come in the evening between 5.30 p.m. and 6 p.m. Anyone who has seen Moore Street or Thomas Street after the markets are closed can see the amount of refuse there and after a few short hours anyone going back there would not think they were the same streets at all. The corporation workmen are dedicated and do an excellent job. It would be a shame to take this authority away from the corporation in view of the fact that they are doing such excellent work.

Mr. Boland

The examples which Deputy Barrett gave are not really relevant to the debate on this section. They pertain to areas which would not be covered by the remit of the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission. This section is simply in line with other sections of the Bill to give to the streets commission all of general powers for the operation, improvement and maintenance of the streets and the overground services in the streets to ensure that they are kept and maintained to the highest possible level. Already I have indicated that I envisage the commission themselves having a very small staff and that they would perform their functions through the commissioning of work on their behalf. I assume that a substantial amount of the work which would be done on behalf of the commission would be carried out on an agency basis by Dublin Corporation, but that will be a matter for the commission to decide when they are established.

Mr. R. Burke

That is too loose. I assume that the whole object of the amendment put down by Deputy De Rossa and Deputy Mac Giolla for section 7 is that it is too loose. I support the point that they require that any work undertaken in relation to the roads authority or in relation to the cleaning of streets shall be carried out on behalf of the commission by the corporation. For the Minister to come in and say that he assumes that the agency they will use is going to be Dublin Corporation is just not good enough. It is necessary to tie this down. I ask the Minister that on Report Stage — which we will be coming to shortly — he either accepts that amendment or includes an amendment of his own to ensure that the agency to be used would be the workforce of Dublin Corporation. Otherwise we will have, for instance, the private contractors cleaning as far as the corner of Cavendish Row and the remainder of Parnell Square being covered by the corporation. We would have all sorts of demarcation problems with parts of O'Connell Street and small portions of the side streets being cleaned by private contractors and the rest of the streets being cleaned by the corporation. That is bad enough in the lifetime of the commission, but when the commission's life is concluded after three years, the Minister has retained for himself the power which we rejected in an amendment put forward by me. Section 4 (3) (a) provides that:

The functions vested in the Commission (other than those specified in paragraph (b) of this subsection) shall, on the dissolution of the Commission, become and be exercisable by Dublin Corporation subject to such modifications as the Minister shall classify in the dissolution order.

Paragraph (b) is in relation to the DTA. When we debated that amendment proposing the removal of this clause subject to such modification as the Minister may specify in the dissolution order, the Minister made the point that the reason he wanted, to retain this clause was that if the streets authority had been using some agency or other, he wanted to make sure that the corporation would have to use that agency in the future. I see total confusion and a recipe for considerable industrial relations problems after the lifetime of this commission if the Minister imposes regulations on the corporation providing that they take back these streets under their control but that they must also use the cleaning and other agencies which may be used under this section 9 of the Bill. It is bad enough that the Minister is taking these functions away from the corporation in this Bill but to allow the commission to use services of agencies other than the corporation is a recipe for chaos and major labour relations problems in the corporation.

Proinsias De Rossa

The Minister's response to the case made in relation to what the commission should or should not do in relation to having work done is not satisfactory. This Bill is being brought in to ensure the improvement of Dublin's central thoroughfare, in the main. This job could be done by Dublin Corporation given the powers and resources which the Minister is giving to the commission. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that the commission can decide at the end of the day whether to engage Dublin Corporation as the agency to carry out the functions they are carrying out at present and which they will be obliged to carry out once the commission have stood down. It must be obvious to the Minister that the corporation are the only authority capable of carrying out the general functions which are their responsibility at present, and which will be their responsibility at the end of the three year period of the life of the commission. It is essential that the commission be given clear guidelines for the carrying out of cleaning, roadworks and so on which are the corporation's functions at present. The commission should have to engage the corporation to carry out these functions in compliance with the plan the commission will come up with in relation to improving the street. It is nonsense to argue that the commission should have the right to choose whom they want to do the work. The corporation have the expertise, the staff, the experience, and the structures needed. They are responsible for this work at the moment and will be responsible again. It is nonsense for the Minister to say that the commission should have the right to decide not to engage them. The likelihood is that they will decide not to engage Dublin Corporation to carry out this work. I urge the Minister to accept the spirit at least of the amendment which I have put down to section 7, which would ensure that Dublin Corporation are taken on as an agency to carry out that work for the commission.

Mr. Boland

I dislike having to go into all of this again. It is less than factual for Deputy De Rossa to say that if the corporation were given the money and the power they would be able to carry out the objectives put forward. Virtually every power that has been given to the commission is already vested in Dublin Corporation. This year the corporation will spend approximately £260 million in the provision of services in their administrative area. I would have thought that out of resources of that size, had the corporation wished to add additional moneys to central Dublin, they could have done so long before now. The commission will have, under section 1 (b), the functions of a sanitary authority under the Public Health Act of 1878. Dublin Corporation have those powers. It is interesting that the last occasion on which Dublin Corporation made by-laws in relation to the cleaning of the footpaths and pavements under that Act, the by-laws referred to were those made by the Right Honorable the Lord Mayor Alderman and the Burgesses of Dublin in 1878 and those moved under the Dublin Corporation Act, 1890. Those by-laws were adopted by the Municipal Council on 5 June 1899. The last time Dublin Corporation made by-laws under the Litter Acts, despite my exhortation to all local authorities to update by-laws under the 1982 Litter Act, was 11 February 1938.

Proinsias De Rossa

The Minister is being too clever by half in relation to this matter of Dublin Corporation and their resources and the laws and by-laws of 1899. Dublin Corporation have a budget of £260 million this year to provide services for a population of almost 500,000 people. In my area of Dublin North-West, Dublin Corporation do not have sufficient resources to sweep the streets. At the same time Dublin Corporation have put exceptional resources into the cleansing of O'Connell Street and they have a special team cleaning Moore Street every day of the week. There are special teams in O'Connell Street every day of the week. There is a constant round of cleaning that street. For the Minister to imply, by his clever manipulation of dates and figures, that Dublin Corporation are not concerned about O'Connell Street or its environs is nonsense. Dublin Corporation made O'Connell Street and its side streets a special litter free area two years ago. I do not know where the Minister got his 1938 date. Two years ago Dublin Corporation designated O'Connell Street as a special litter free area. There are fines for people who throw litter on O'Connell Street and other areas around there. Dublin Corporation have erected special signs in O'Connell Street designating that area as a special litter free zone. They have also spent considerable amounts of money in cleaning O'Connell Street and laying out the central island. It may not be in line with what the Minister regards as suitable for O'Connell Street but they have spent money on it in so far as the Minister has allowed them having regard to the niggardly way he has applied resources to Dublin Corporation.

The Minister said that most of the powers being given to the commission are available to Dublin Corporation, but he carefully avoided saying what powers Dublin Corporation do not have which the commission have. Dublin Corporation do not have the power to go to a premises owner in O'Connell Street and say that they do not regard the use for which the building is being used as being suitable and that therefore they will shut the premises down and ensure that an alternative use is made of it. There are other powers in this Bill which Dublin Corporation do not have and which they should have to carry out their functions. If the corporation were given a special funding of £10 million for O'Connell Street I can guarantee that the work the Minister is giving to this commission to do, over three years, could be done within 12 months.

Mr. Boland

I do not accept——

Mr. R. Burke

On the Minister's point——

An Ceann Comhairle

I should call the Minister if he wishes to reply.

Mr. R. Burke

I am sorry.

Mr. Boland

I doubt if I will change anybody's mind.

Mr. R. Burke

For the Minister to start talking about by-laws going back to the last century is ridiculous. I wish to emphasise the point made by Deputy De Rossa. After the Litter Acts were enacted by me as Minister for the Environment, one of the first authorities to respond with a litter free zone were Dublin Corporation in relation to O'Connell Street. They put up posters and signs, made an extra effort in the area and did an excellent job. The Minister is very conveniently moving away from the section and the effects of giving to the commission the right to employ companies to act as cleansing agents on behalf of the commission and to employ private contractors and the confusion which will arise between private contractors doing one part of the street and the cleansing department of the corporation doing another. There is no point in the Minister having a bash at the soft target of Dublin Corporation. It may be popular but it is not reality.

Mr. Boland

I have to rely on the facts; Deputies can rely on rhetoric. It is all very well for Deputy De Rossa to tell the House that Dublin Corporation designated a litter free zone but they have made no by-laws under the 1982 Litter Act. If they had intended to designate O'Connell Street or anywhere else as a litter free zone they did not back it up by taking unto themselves the powers given to them in the Act to do something about it. I have been exhorting them and other local authorities to make by-laws in this regard but only a minority have done so. The last time Dublin Corporation made by-laws under similar provisions was in 1938 and the last time they made by-laws regarding the proper cleansing of streets and footpaths was in 1889. The corporation already have all the powers we are now suggesting should be given to the commission.

Proinsias De Rossa

They do not have all the powers.

Mr. Boland

I am not attacking the corporation but I must express my profound regret that the majority of local authorities have not made by-laws under the most recent legislation despite the fact that some months ago I radically increased the amount of fines which could be imposed by local authorities on an on the spot basis. I changed the situation whereby if court proceedings were taken and persons fined, the revenue from such fines would accrue to the local authorities directly instead of, as had applied, going to the State.

Deputy De Rossa spoke about the niggardly subvention which I gave to Dublin Corporation. This year, in relation to current expenditure, the corporation will get Exchequer grants, taxpayers' money, of about £125 million. Perhaps we are talking about questions of scale but I regard that sum as a lot of taxpayers' money. It is not a niggardly sum and I am sure the taxpayers agree with me.

Proinsias De Rossa

The Minister is a master of the art of rhetoric although he berates us for using it. However, I merely stated the fact that the corporation designated O'Connell Street as a litter free zone. They did so and prosecuted quite a number of people many of whom were quite aggrieved at being fined for throwing a sweet paper on the street. The Minister mentioned the sum of £125 million which is to be given to Dublin Corporation. It may be a large sum but it is not sufficient to run the services. I gave the example of my own area where the corporation sweep the streets about once a fortnight although they sweep O'Connell Street six or seven times every day. If the additional powers and money which the Minister is giving to the commission were given to Dublin Corporation they could do the job and have proved it in the past. There is a need to ensure that the commission do not employ itsy-bitsy private contractors to do the work which Dublin Corporation have the staff and experience to do. They are responsible for that work at present and will be responsible for it again in three years' time. That is the point at issue.

Mr. R. Burke

We should remember that we are discussing section 9, the control and prevention of litter. I want the Minister to ensure that the commission will not be allowed to use their powers to employ non-trade union, cheap labour, cleansing companies. If that was the case, the corporation would be expected to take them on to continue the operation. It would mean that fly-by-night operators would be cleaning the main streets of the city and the corporation workforce would be coming up to the edge of the commission area. That is the last thing we want to see happening and the Minister should insist that the commission should use the corporation workforce on an agency basis.

Mr. Boland

I am unable to deal with this uneasy alliance of Deputy Burke and Deputy De Rossa in this combination of an extraordinary attack on the private sector by Deputy Burke and the demands from Deputy De Rossa that the taxpayers should be asked to fork out more money.

Mr. R. Burke

It is very hard to deal with the Minister in his present mood. We had a very reasonable and rational debate here the last day——

Mr. Boland

We were getting nowhere.

Mr. R. Burke

The Minister said I made an extraordinary attack on the private sector. I did no such thing. I merely wish to emphasise that some of the operators in the private sector could be used but that they should be properly insured, pay trade union rates and ensure that the men will be properly covered as far as PRSI is concerned——

Mr. Boland

That is a sexist remark.

Mr. R. Burke

The only way to ensure that these companies are operated properly is by allowing a professional organisation with proper facilities to do so and that applies to Dublin Corporation. It is important for the efficient cleansing of our city that if the commission use their powers they use them by calling on Dublin Corporation as their agents to operate on their behalf.

Acting Chairman (Mr. McGinley)

Is section 9 agreed?

Mr. R. Burke

No.

Question put and declared carried.

SECTION 10.

Acting Chairman

It has been agreed to take amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14 together.

Mr. R. Burke

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 8, subsection (4), line 15, after "may", to insert ", with the consent of the relevant local authority or local authorities,".

Is the Minister not going to comment?

Mr. Boland

I did not expect that we were going to move on.

Mr. R. Burke

We have to because of the time constraint.

Proinsias De Rossa

That is why he is digging his heels in. He knows we have only until 1.30 p.m.

Mr. Boland

These amendments would have the effect of giving the local authority the power of veto over a number of activities of the commission which the Bill sets out to assign to them for a limited period. Quite frankly, I can understand Deputy Burke's motives behind tabling the amendments especially in view of the general line he has been taking in relation to the Bill. We have been through the debate on a number of occasions and, essentially, what it seems to boil down to is that Deputy Burke would prefer that the commission were not established in the first place. The effect of these amendments, to a large extent, would be to have the commission operate as some form of sub committee of the corporation. Essentially, the amendments are striking at the concept of the Bill rather than endeavouring to improve it.

Mr. R. Burke

I can assure the Minister that the amendments are not striking at the concept of the Bill. They set out to try to improve the operation of the commission. There will be close liaison between the corporation and the commission because without that close liaison to isolate the spine of the city from the rest of the city is not going work. We have discussed this principle over and over again.

Acting Chairman

Is amendment No. 12 withdrawn?

Mr. R. Burke

No.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.

Mr. R. Burke

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 8, subsection (7), between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:

"(c) The financial liabilities involved in the use of such services shall be borne by the commission.".

Mr. Boland

I do not see any need for this amendment. I would expect that any statutory body would be paid when they provide services to the commission. Naturally, if a statutory body wants to provide services free of charge that would be a matter for the body concerned. It is rather unlikely that that situation will arise.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 10 agreed to.

SECTION 11.

Mr. R. Burke

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 9, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following subsection:

"(4) Where in an improvement scheme as approved under section 6 of this Act, the owner or occupier of the land, structure or advertisement objects to the notice of the Commission, the said owner or occupier shall have leave to appeal to An Bord Pleanála.".

Mr. Boland

I have previously pointed out that in preparing an improvement scheme the commission would be obliged to consult with both Dublin Corporation and the Dublin Transport Authority; to take into account the development plan made by the corporation under the 1963 Planning Act; to make arrangements for the making of submissions by interested parties in relation to the improvement scheme to the commission and take those submissions or observations into account. In addition, following that procedure, the improvement scheme then being made must be sent to the Minister who would then consult with the corporation before deciding whether to approve, modify or reject any such improvement scheme. That procedure will more than adequately allow for any reservations, objections or more likely, observations which may come forward from an owner or occupier of land, structure or advertisement as this particular amendment adverts to.

Mr. R. Burke

The principle of planning along with the right of the third party appeal, the right of an owner to appeal and the transparency of the planning procedure is vital. Under the property rights contained in the Constitution it is essential that no owner should find himself faced with a decision of a commission, confirmed by a Minister, without having a right of appeal. That is wrong in principle. The Minister should accept the amendment so that there would be a further avenue open to the citizen to appeal against the decision of an appointed commission which the Minister has confirmed. We could find ourselves in a situation where the commission make a decision on a particular premises in O'Connell Street. When their improvement scheme is sent to the corporation they take a different view. The owner favours the view of the corporation. The improvement scheme within a month is confirmed by the Minister who has ignored the observations of the corporation and the individual property owner. The property owner will have no rights whatsoever despite the fact that the corporation will have a development plan confirming his view. The property owner will be going on the basis of the development plan and because of the commission's decision with regard to an improvement scheme he will find himself with no comeback. He should at least have the right of appeal to An Bord Pleanála.

Proinsias De Rossa

I support the contention made by Deputy Burke in this matter. I am extremely concerned that the approach to the operation of the commission undermines the established practice over the years whereby if a person who applies for planning permission to have work done on a building is dissatisfied with the decision of the planners he has the right of appeal to An Bord Pleanála. What concerns me, in particular, is that the scheme will be made on the basis of submitting the plans to the Minister who will decide whether the scheme goes ahead or not. This undermines the functions of An Bord Pleanála. Prior to An Bord Pleanála being set up the Minister of the day was involved on a day to day basis with decisions relating to planning appeals, and appeals in regard to applications by individuals and companies for building approval or otherwise. We are aware of the scandals that were involved then in the permissions given. There are examples of them all over the city. There is one good example in Donnybrook where a building was slapped up on a bridge. That building is standing in the way of road widening and many other improvements. Permission to erect that building was given by the Minister of the day against the advice of planners, the corporation and local people in various interest groups. It is a monument to why Ministers should not be involved in the granting of permission.

It seems to me that the Minister is breaking with the practice that has been established, that plans of this type should go to a disinterested party, or certainly a group of people who do not have a particular axe to grind. That is why An Bórd Pleanála were established. The idea was to ensure that Ministers of the day were protected from having to make decisions of this type. However, there is a proposals in the Bill to establish a commission, the members of which will be appointed by the Minister, and it will be their function to present a plan to the Minister on what should be done with various buildings, streetscapes and so on in Dublin's O'Connell Street and other streets adjacent to it. There is no facility in the Bill for the people who may be affected by those decisions of the commission and the Minister to appeal against them. That is extremely dangerous and unsatisfactory and it is the aspect of the Bill I am most concerned about. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment.

Mr. Boland

I should like to explain to the House, and to Deputy De Rossa, that the procedure under the Bill is very far from the hypothesis outlined by him. The commission, in preparing an improvement scheme, have to have consultations with the statutory bodies, the corporation and the Dublin Transport Authority and have to make arrangements for the invitation of submissions by interested parties, take them into consideration and send the scheme to the Minister. The Minister will then invite further observations from the corporation before deciding whether to agree or modify the improvement scheme. It will be the Minister's sole function to decide whether to confirm the improvement scheme or to make modifications to it. Obviously, the modification will be in the light of further views or representations made by the corporation, or in the light of the submissions made originally to the commission in the course of their preparation of the improvement scheme.

The improvement schemes generally, if the House can accept the concept of the improvement scheme as such irrespective of whether Members agree with the concept of the commission, will be for all or sections of the area from time to time. The whole purpose of them will be to improve the use, appearance and general character of that area. Obviously, one of the hopes and intentions will be that property owners will respond to an improvement scheme by carrying out refurbishment in accordance with the objectives of the scheme. In that regard it was felt appropriate to allow such property owners exemption from the normal planning process if the work they were doing was specifically in accordance with the improvement scheme and would result in the overall objective of having the aim of the scheme implemented in the general area covered by it. In all other cases the property owner still has the right to apply for planning permission to Dublin Corporation and if he or she feels aggrieved by the decision of the corporation to take the application on appeal to An Bord Pleanála. Similar provisions obtained in 1982.

Mr. R. Burke

The Minister's fall-back position when he runs out of argument is to go back to the 1982 Bill which I introduced.

Mr. Boland

Under that Bill a development carried out by people in the functional area of a development commission, if approved by the commission, was exempted development and that was that.

Mr. R. Burke

It is worth noting that the Minister's party opposed that Bill and, if such a provision was wrong then, it is wrong now. I suggest that the right of a third party to appeal has been fundamental in our planning laws that have evolved down the years. There should be a right of third party appeal against an improvement scheme and I urge the Minister to accept that the owner or occupier of land should have leave to appeal to An Bord Pleanála. The Minister should accept the amendment.

Mr. Boland

The amendment seeks to provide for first party appeal, not third party appeal.

Proinsias De Rossa

The Minister made the point that the commission will be obliged to consult with interested parties, including the local authority, when preparing their improvement scheme and that that would be submitted to the Minister who may modify it. The Minister may decide to do that on the basis of submissions made by individual property owners in O'Connell Street and other streets adjacent to it. That is what I am concerned about. The Minister is taking power to himself to decide in the long run what shape the plan for O'Connell Street takes. He said individuals can apply to him to make changes in the plan and that brings us back to the position we were in under the last Coalition, between 1973 and 1977.

At that time there were widespread allegations about the abuse of power by the Minister in regard to planning appeals and decisions. An Bord Pleanála were established subsequently to end that practice and the amendment before us is seeking to ensure that people have a right to appeal to that board in relation to decisions made by the commission and subsequently altered or sanctioned by the Minister. We want to protect the interests of citizens from the possibility or the accusation that the Minister may in some way be influenced by other individuals in relation to their property or somebody else's property.

It is time for the Minister to say the commission are obliged to consult with local authorities and so on but that is not an adequate response to the case being made in regard to the right of appeal. I urge the Minister to reconsider his position on this.

Mr. Boland

The amendment seeks to give to the property owner the right of appeal.

Proinsias De Rossa

To an independent body.

Mr. Boland

The Deputy is talking about giving the right of appeal to other persons. The amendment seeks to give to the property owner or occupier the right of appeal. The property owner has the right to apply for planning permission to the corporation and if he or she is aggrieved by that decision to appeal to An Bord Pleanála. The only instance in which the property owner would not have to go through that procedure would be if the property owner intended to carry out an improvement or alteration to his or her premises which was wholly in accordance with an improvement scheme already prepared by the commission under the procedures I have outlined. Improvement schemes will not be for individual properties. I imagine that at the minimum they will be for a block of properties from one street junction to another. Presumably in almost every case they will involve the facade of the street on either side in the area to be covered.

The intention of the section is to ensure that if a property owner within that area then decides to take the standard, appearance and presentation of his property up to the standard demanded of him in an improvement scheme, he might do so without having to make a planning application if it emerged there were not suitable or sufficient grounds for consultation between property owners and the commission at the time of the making of the improvement scheme. I reiterate the provisions are for making submissions to the commission, not to the Minister. If it was felt the commission were not having sufficient consultation with property owners, the Minister still has the residual general powers under section 10 (8) to give the commission a directive in writing as to the manner in which they should go about ensuring there is a sufficient consultative procedure adopted and adhered to during the initial stages of the preparation of the improvement scheme.

Mr. R. Burke

In the preparation of the improvement scheme the Minister is now saying that improvements will probably concern a block of property from one street to another.

Mr. Boland

In fairness I am not now saying that. I said that last week.

Mr. R. Burke

The Minister said that earlier this morning when I asked specifically about the commission having the right to say not only what would be the facade of the building but the use of the building behind the facade. He was asked if the commission would have the power to decide on that and he said yes. He cannot have it both ways. There are either individual properties concerned or blocks of properties.

My amendment seeks to give to property owners who are citizens the right of appeal about how the commission and the Minister of the day may say their property should be used. They should have the right of appeal to An Bord Pleanála about these matters. I want the amendment put now.

Question put: "That the amendment be made."

The Committee divided: Tá. 58; Níl, 70.

Tá

• Ahern, Michael.
• Andrews, David.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Byrne, Seán.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Conaghan, Hugh.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Daly, Brendan.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Fahey, Francis.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Fitzgerald, Gene.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Foley, Denis.
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Gallagher, Pat Cope.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Haughey, Charles J.
• Hilliard, Colm.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Mattie.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Leonard, Tom.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lyons, Denis.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• Moynihan, Donal.
• Nolan, M.J.
• Noonan, Michael J (Limerick West).
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Dea, William.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Edmond.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• Ormonde, Donal.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• Power, Paddy.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael.

Níl

• Allen, Bernard.
• Barnes, Monica.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Begley, Michael.
• Bell, Michael.
• Boland, John.
• Bruton, John.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Burke, Liam.
• Carey, Donal.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Collins, Edward.
• Conlon, John F.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cosgrave, Liam T.
• Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
• Coveney, Hugh.
• Creed, Donal.
• Crotty, Kieran.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Deasy, Martin Austin.
• Desmond, Barry.
• Donnellan, John.
• Dowling, Dick.
• Dukes, Alan.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Glenn, Alice.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Hegarty, Paddy.
• Hussey, Gemma.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Keating, Michael.
• Kelly, John.
• Kenny, Enda.
• L'Estrange, Gerry.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• McLoughlin, Frank.
• Manning, Maurice.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Molony, David.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Naughten, Liam.
• Nealon, Ted.
• Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Brien, Willie.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Leary, Michael.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• O'Toole, Paddy.
• Owen, Nora.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Prendergast, Frank.
• Ryan, John.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
• Skelly, Liam.
• Spring, Dick.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Yates, Ivan.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Browne; Níl, Deputies F. O'Brien and Taylor.

Amendment declared lost.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 17 has been ruled out of order.

Amendment No. 17 not moved.

Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. R. Burke

This section gives the proposed commission sweeping legal powers for the removal or alteration of existing structures. However, the provision fails to discriminate between the powers of the commission to deal with illegal structures as opposed to structures in conformity with the provision of the Planning Acts. Concerted action to remove illegal structures in the area bounded by the proposed commission would be most welcome and desirable. However, a large number of structures have been erected entirely legally under permission from the corporation, An Bord Pleanála, or the Minister for the Environment before their establishment, the removal of which would be highly desirable if we are to have this clean-up of the city.

I will give a likely example. A case would probably arise if the commission were to stipulate a prohibition on advertising signs on the upper floors of buildings as part of the improvement scheme. In order to achieve this, the commission would not only have to remove any illegal signs but would also have to seek the removal of legally erected signs like the Bailey's Irish Cream illumination already referred to. Section 11 does not give a clear indication of the legal procedure which the commission must follow in seeking the removal, alteration or change of use of the structure or the removal or alteration of advertising structures which have valid planning permission. It is very important to differentiate between the illegal sign and the legal one. The application for the Bailey's sign was turned down by the corporation but an appeal was made to An Bord Pleanála and permission was granted in 1984. It is possible that the provision might be open to legal challenge. The effectiveness of this provision will also require compensation provision if the removal of legally erected structures is to be sought by the commission. That is a very important aspect of compensation on which the Minister might expand.

I would like to hear from the Minister about the clear distinction in the treatment of illegal structures and if there should be a separate procedure for structures errected under earlier planning permissions. Section 11 deals with compensation and compensation claims. I would like the Minister to expand on this.

Mr. Boland

There is a very clear distinction. Where the commission seek the removal or alteration of an unauthorised structure, they have the power to see that that is enforced without payment of compensation, with which I think the House would agree. However, where the commission felt that, in pursuance of their desire to see an improvement in the area generally, they required the removal or alteration of a structure or advertisement which had a permission, then the compensation provisions outlined in this section would apply. I do not envisage that a significant proportion of the commission's money will or should be used to pay large compensation claims as a result of requiring change of usage in the case of authorised structures.

Where there may be authorised structures or advertisements which are generally regarded as regrettable, or which are not in conformity with the overall objective for improvement of that area, I hope peer pressure or the response of the owner or occupier, will show that the advertisement was clearly out of character with the rest of the improvement works in the area and they might readily respond to the improvement, alteration or removal of the offending advertisement or structure.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 12.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 18 is in the name of Deputy Ray Burke and amendment No. 19 is an alternative. If it is agreed, amendments Nos. 18 and 19 may be discussed together.

Mr. R. Burke

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 10, subsection (3), lines 45 and 46, to delete:

"or, in the event of disagreement, as shall be determined by the Minister".

Proinsias De Rossa

Amendment No. 19 seeks to limit the money which the corporation would be obliged to pay to the commission for the services they will be taking over from Dublin Corporation. The section does not put any limit on this money except to say that, if agreement is not reached between the commission and the corporation, the Minister presumably would decide. We are seeking to delete the words "or, in the event of disagreement, as shall be determined by the Minister" and substitute "but such sum shall not exceed the revenue received by the Corporation for commercial rates within the Metropolitan Central area". That is a reasonable amendment to this section. There is nothing to stop the commission engaging contractors. The Minister indicated that the commission will be free to engage whomever they choose to carry out work at present carried out by Dublin Corporation, and Dublin Corporation will have no control over the terms of the contract into which the commission will enter with such private contractors. For that reason it is important that the extent to which Dublin Corporation will be committed to paying for such services, which the commission control under this legislation, would be limited to the amount they would normally receive in any year in commercial rates from the property holders or lessees in the central metropolitan area.

Mr. Barrett

(Dublin North-West): Will the allocation to Dublin Corporation be deducted from this £10 million? Will the corporation get a reduced allocation or will they get the same amount as the other local authorities? At the beginning of each financial year the corporation have to submit their estimate to the Minister. Will the corporation's allocation from the Department be reduced?

Mr. Boland

As regards the last point, the £10 million Exchequer provision is completely separate from the rates support grant, the subhead in the Department of the Environment's current Estimates from which local authorities are grant-aided. It would be wrong to respond positively to the Deputy's suggestion that the corporation continue to get the same amount of money as other local authorities because, as the Deputy probably knows, Dublin Corporation receive substantially more money than any other local authority. As I mentioned earlier, this year they will receive £125 million in current account subventions from my Department. The allocation to the corporation will be made in the normal way, as if they were still carrying out these functions. It will be for the corporation and the commission to establish the amount the corporation would normally spend on the functions which are being transferred temporarily to the commission. The corporation would then transfer that money to the commission, except for any of the functions which the commission might ask the corporation to carry out on an agency basis. In that instance the transfer might be in the opposite direction if the commission were asking for a higher standard of work than that normally provided by the corporation.

In relation to Deputy Burke's amendment, if there is a failure to agree on the amount of money to be spent on these functions this year there is a need for some body or some person to arbitrate. I do not believe the clause which needs to be inserted will actually come into play because the corporation will be able to identify the amount of money they spent. Once that amount is identified, I cannot see that there will be a dispute between the two bodies when this provision is enacted. It would be a question of establishing the amount of moneys expended by Dublin Corporation on the particular services and ensuring that that amount is transferred to the commission when they come into operation.

In relation to the amendment of Deputies Mac Giolla and De Rossa, I am interested to know whether the Deputies feel that Dublin Corporation would be in favour of the provisions of this amendment being incorporated in the Bill. Perhaps Deputy De Rossa might clarify the point for us.

Proinsias De Rossa

I can clarify that for the Minister by saying the amendment is one put forward by The Workers' Party, not one from Dublin Corporation. Whether or not Dublin Corporation are in favour of it, it is in the names of myself and Deputy Mac Giolla. It is an amendment of ours, not of Dublin Corporation.

Mr. R. Burke

The need for my amendment No. 18 is self-evident. There should not be any need for disagreement about the figure being right or wrong. It should be accepted as it is. There should be no need for arbitration by the Minister involved. I do not think the Minister should be involved. I know what Deputy De Rossa is trying to get at. I question whether the commission will do better out of it than they might otherwise because of the income from the rates on the streets being covered by the commission. I fear that the commission would make more out of it, taking money out of the pockets of Dublin Corporation rather than vice versa. That would be my fear in supporting it.

Proinsias De Rossa

We are awaiting the Minister's response.

Mr. Boland

I find it useful to have clarification. For example, is it the intention of the Deputies' amendment to assign more money from Dublin Corporation to the commission than would be assigned to the commission by Dublin Corporation if they merely identified the amount they were spending on the services which are to be transferred?

Proinsias De Rossa

No, the problem is that the Minister is again trying to be a bit smart on this amendment.

Mr. Boland

I am endeavouring to be helpful.

Proinsias De Rossa

Perhaps the Minister will allow me to finish. Part of our amendment reads:

...... but such sum shall not exceed the revenue received by the Corporation for commercial rates within the Metropolitan Central Area.

The Minister may well have a point, that if one were to take all of the rates involved in the rating of those buildings in O'Connell Street and say: Well, if we took all of those rates, that would be a lot more than it would cost to provide cleansing services or whatever in that area. The point of the amendment is that it would be that portion of the rates which applies to cleansing, or would apply to whatever function Dublin Corporation would be handing over. That is the intention of the amendment.

Mr. Boland

That is not what the amendment says.

Proinsias De Rossa

I do not have the Minister's draftsmen at my back to draft amendments. The Minister may well feel it is a badly drafted amendment. The fact is that is the intention of the amendment: In the case of the services which are being handed over by Dublin Corporation, it will be that portion of the rates that will apply, and no more than that will be paid over to the commission. Does that satisfy the Minister?

Mr. Boland

As I said earlier, I can only deal in facts. The fact is that The Workers' Party amendment would provide for the transfer of the total revenue from commercial rates on properties within the metropolitan central area to the commission. I endeavoured to be helpful in seeking clarification from the Deputy as to what he meant, whether he intended that the commission would get more money than the actual amount expended by Dublin Corporation on the services in this area. The amendment is as it is. I cannot deal now with a modification which the Deputy feels he had better enter.

I have no strong views on this. I would be interested in hearing the views of the House. As the two amendments are being taken together, perhaps Deputy R. Burke would indicate whether — if we were disposed to accept this amendment — he would be in favour of it.

Mr. R. Burke

The point being made about the amendment is not to say that all of the rates will be transferred to the commission. The amendment says that it shall not exceed the revenue received by Dublin Corporation. That is the important part. If one reads subsection (3) it says:

Dublin Corporation shall, in lieu of expenses that would otherwise have been incurred by them in the Metropolitan Central Area, contribute annually to the commission such sums of money as shall be agreed with the Commission...

It is in respect of the services that they will agree the sums of money. Then the subsection, as amended, would continue to say:

but such sum shall not exceed the revenue received by the Corporation for commercial rates within the Metropolitan Central Area.

It does not say it has to be the total sum of money, it says just that it shall not exceed that portion.

I fully accept the point made by Deputy De Rossa that it is clear that the subsection reads that Dublin Corporation shall, in lieu of expenses that would otherwise have been incurred by them in the metropolitan central area, contribute annually and so on and that refers to the services specified, which services are specified in the rates demands as well. It is obvious that is exactly what Deputy De Rossa is getting at and it should be clear to the Minister. The Minister was making the point that, in our day, both of us have had the same draftsmen, probably using the same wording for convenience sake without actually checking.

The principle Deputy De Rossa is advancing is one that can be supported. We want to ensure there is a limit on the sum of money, not to stipulate that the commission will get all of the rates money. Rather the principle being advanced is that there be some limit placed on it because, as drafted, there is no limit. The commission could decide they wanted to do a Rolls Royce job on it within their lifetime, which job Dublin Corporation could have undertaken themselves had they sufficient funding but which, because they have been starved of funds, they have been unable to do.

Proinsias De Rossa

In the few years I have been in this House I have dealt with quite a number of Bills and amendments. I have to admit I have never come across the Minister who has adopted the smart-Aleck approach this Minister has adopted to amendments being put forward by Opposition Deputies. The Minister finds it extremely difficult to suppress his glee because he thinks he has found an error in the amendment put forward by our party. On previous occasions when I have dealt with amendments in this House I have always found Ministers extremely helpful and courteous in their handling of them, recognising that Opposition Deputies do not have the drafting expertise available to them in their Departments. Having said that, I emphasise that the intent of the amendment is clear. The Minister may not be satisfied with the wording. He may feel that the wording is too broad, that it may be read legally as meaning all of the rates for that area being handed over to the commission. I am quite prepared to accept the Minister's amendment to my amendment if he accepts the principle that where Dublin Corporation are being asked to hand over money to the commission for services they normally provide there, that sum of money should not exceed the amount they receive from the ratepayers in that area for those services. That is the principle behind my amendment. I would appreciate the Minister telling me whether he agrees with that principle. If he does, perhaps he would suggest a wording he feels would cover that intention.

Mr. Boland

I have spent 17 years in the Houses of the Oireachtas and I do not need Deputy De Rossa to tell me how to conduct my parliamentary business. I suspect I have personally drafted more amendments in my time than the Deputy ever will. I took some care to endeavour to have the amendments I put forward in the name of my party mean what they intended, that they would be clear, unequivocal and would withstand scrutiny. The Deputy cannot have it both ways. If the Deputy's amendment is accepted, on the one hand the corporation would presumably seek to pay less and, on the other hand, the commission would seek to have paid to them all of the revenue received by the corporation for commercial rates within the metropolitan central area. I am quoting from the amendment. There would be nobody to arbitrate as to what a fair or reasonable compromise was between those two situations. The Deputy's amendment, as does Deputy Burke's amendment, seeks to remove the obligation on the Minister in the event of a disagreement to determine the appropriate amount.

As the Bill is drafted it provides that the corporation would contribute annually to the commission such sums of money as shall be agreed with the commission or, in the event of disagreement, as shall be determined by the Minister. That would be in lieu of expenses that would otherwise have been incurred by them in the metropolitan central area. That is a definable identifiable amount of money. The information that enables that sum to be quantified rests in the administrative offices of Dublin Corporation. It would only be if the commission felt that for some reason or another the corporation were incorrectly identifying or had made an error in the identification of the amount of money which they would have expended in the area that there could be any disagreement.

I said when initially responding to Deputy Burke's amendment that the provision in the Bill obliging the Minister to arbitrate will not have to be used because we are talking about a question of fact and the fact can be identified from within the records of Dublin Corporation. If instead we were to agree, first, to Deputy Burke's amendment, if there was a dispute there would be nobody to arbitrate so as to establish with finality as to the amount of money. I suspect that if Deputy Burke's amendment was removed and if there was a dispute — I am speaking very hypothetically and it is extremely unlikely — there might be no other way to resolve the dispute except for one or other body to turn to the courts. I do not think that would be regarded by anyone in the House as a very satisfactory way to resolve disputes between two statutory bodies. We all know that from time to time statutory bodies have negotiations with each other as to the amount of moneys which are due from one body to the other. Normally there is provision in the legislation for some body or individual, normally the Minister responsible, to arbitrate in the event of such a dispute. That is all the section seeks to do in relation to this amendment.

On the other hand, if we accepted Deputy De Rossa's amendment the section would appear to indicate the Legislature felt that approximately the appropriate sum was the revenue received by the corporation for commercial rates within the metropolitan area. Clearly, from the Deputy's remarks it is unlikely that Dublin Corporation would feel that the sum of money to be transfered should be all of that revenue. Yet the commission could reasonably suggest that in view of the wording in the legislation — if this amendment were to be incorporated — they were entitled to all of that revenue. Once again there would be nobody to arbitrate because Deputy De Rossa's amendment also seeks to remove the obligation placed on the Minister to bring the matter to finality.

There is a basic difficulty with both of the amendments. I suspect Deputy De Rossa's amendment would compound the difficulties which I outlined in relation to Deputy Burke's amendment. It would seem to convey the impression that the Legislature felt that the appropriate level, not to be exceeded admittedly, was in or about the revenue from commercial rates which would normally be payable to the corporation in the metropolitan central area. This is the highest valued area in the corporation's administrative responsibility. It has extremely high valuations. The effect of Deputy De Rossa's amendment would mean that in whatever way the matter was eventually resolved, the corporation would pay substantially more to the commission than is the intention of the section as it stands.

Mr. R. Burke

It is very important that we get to amendment No. 21 which seeks to ensure that the rate subvention grant, as paid by the Minister to Dublin Corporation, shall not be adversely affected by this Bill. It is obvious we are not going to change the Minister's mind on amendments Nos. 18 and 19.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Are you withdrawing amendment No. 18?

Mr. R. Burke

I will leave it for now.

Proinsias De Rossa

Like Deputy Burke I will be interested to hear the Minister's response to amendment No. 21. The reason we put down our amendments in the first place is that there is nothing in the section as it stands, other than the intervention by the Minister, to limit the demands of the commission for the provision of the services the corporation are providing at present. As I said earlier, the commission will be free to contract out these services presumably at whatever price they think is reasonable. What we are trying to avoid is that the corporation in turn would be obliged to hand over the cost to the commission for these services and that it would be limited to the amount which the corporation would receive in commercial rates for the services involved. That is what we are concerned about.

Mr. Boland

Deputy De Rossa is mistaken in his interpretation of the section. There is absolutely no point in his becoming annoyed because I happen to disagree with him.

Proinsias De Rossa

I am annoyed at the Minister's attitude.

Mr. Boland

I find Deputy De Rossa's response extraordinary in view of the fact that 15 minutes earlier Deputy Burke seemed to be complaining that I was so reasonable in a previous section. Deputy De Rossa was not in the House but if his colleague, Deputy Mac Giolla, were here I suspect, in fairness, he would have to explain to him that——

Mr. R. Burke

We are getting into personalities at this stage. Can we get down to business?

Mr. Boland

——I spent endless hours last week discussing the various amendments and points put forward by Deputy Mac Giolla in relation to earlier sections of this Bill.

Mr. R. Burke

That is your job.

Mr. Boland

It is unfair of the Deputy to suggest I did not give care or attention to any of the points or amendments put forward. I discussed a variety of points put forward by the Deputy's colleague in extreme detail. Proof of that should be evident in the fact that the debate on the first six sections of the Bill on Committee Stage lasted from immediately after the Order of Business until the commencement of Private Members' time at 7 p.m. on Wednesday last. I do not think any Minister who is involved in a debate on a Bill where discussion on the sixth section had not been completed by 7 p.m. could be accused of being unreasonable or unfair in his approach.

Section 12(3) states that Dublin Corporation shall, in lieu of expenses that would otherwise have been incurred by them in the metropolitan central area, contribute annually to the commission such sums of money as shall be agreed with the commission or, in the event of disagreement, as shall be determined by the Minister. That means quite the opposite to what has been represented by the Deputy. It means the corporation are obliged by this part of the Statute to transfer to the commission only such sums of money as would otherwise have been incurred by them in the operation of the functions which are being temporarily transferred to the commission. I cannot envisage why there should be a disagreement between the commission and the corporation in relation to what is ascertainable fact. The ascertainable fact is available to the corporation and, in turn, to the commission from the internal records of Dublin Corporation.

There is however, a further procedure which would help in the event of there being any dispute and before the matter might have to be referred to the Minister. Under the Public Bodies Order there is a procedure for identifying the way in which the compilation of expenses towards the operation and the provision of any services ought to be gone about. That procedure under the Public Bodies Order is used, for example, by the local government auditor; when he comes to audit the activities of the local authority he may very well find, from time to time, that one local authority are providing services for another. A case in point might be in relation to Dublin Corporation which provide the public piped water supply in an area of South County Dublin. On the amount of money which the corporation might charge to Dublin County Council for providing and delivering a service which is the statutory responsibility of Dublin County Council, if the local government auditor when auditing the accounts of Dublin Corporation or Dublin County Council felt that the money being charged was wrong or was unfair to one or other of the authorities, he would turn to the provisions outlined in the Public Bodies Order, and would conduct his own compilation to establish what he felt was a fair and reasonable amount for one body to charge to the other in those circumstances.

It is very unlikely that there would be a dispute between Dublin Corporation and the Metropolitan Streets Commission regarding this sum of money. But if there were I see no reason that the same procedure would not be used. We are talking about discussions between two sets of officials about the correct amount of money to be transferred from one body to another and I think the apprehensions and reservations being expressed by the Deputies are mistaken.

There is a further and much more dangerous point. In the event of there being, for some reason, absolute dispute which is apparently irreconcilable there must be provision for some body or person to arbitrate on the appropriate amount to be paid by the corporation to the commission. If Deputy Burke's amendment were accepted it would prevent the Minister from carrying out that function. If Deputy De Rossa's amendment were accepted it would prevent the Minister from carrying out that function and does not provide for anyone to arbitrate in the event of a dispute. The subsection would then place an obligation on the corporation to pay expenses to the Metropolitan Streets Commission which they would otherwise have incurred in the metropolitan streets area and would provide also that the sum of money would not exceed revenue received by the corporation for commercial rates in the metropolitan central area. If the Deputy reflects upon this he will realise that this would result in a greater likelihood of disagreement because the corporation would opt for the initial part of the subsection in lines 42 and 43 of the Bill while the commission would feel disposed to opt for the wording in the Deputy's amendment which would then be contained in the new lines 46 and 47 of the Bill. Also, in the event of the amendment being accepted there would be nobody to arbitrate and I suggest that the likelihood of needing an arbitrator would be far greater if the Deputy's amendment were accepted because the subsection would appear to suggest two different methods of ascertaining the appropriate amount of money.

Mr. R. Burke

The Minister is giving a very detailed reply and we are grateful. But we have down amendment No. 21 and I am anxious to get to that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is Deputy De Rossa pressing amendment No. 19?

Proinsias De Rossa

I appreciate the detail in which the Minister is now responding to the amendment. Had he done so in this vein from the beginning there would have been no problem and we could have finished ten minutes ago.

Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.

Mr. R. Burke

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 11, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following subsection:

"(5) The rate subvention grant, as paid by the Minister to Dublin Corporation, shall not be adversely affected by this Bill.".

This is fundamental to the Bill. Whatever cosmetic exercise the Minister is involved in with this Bill, it is vital that the rest of the Dublin Corporation areas should not suffer financially as a result of this commission. This Bill sets out the sum of £10 million as being the total amount of grants paid to the commission under this section. It also imposes the requirement on the corporation to hand over to the commission the sums of money necessary to allow them to keep services going.

We on this side of the House are very much afraid that the rest of the corporation areas such as Finglas, Ballymun and the remainder of the Dublin Corporation areas, and the operations of the corporation, will suffer because of this cosmetic exercise by the Minister. If the Minister had given adequate sums to the corporation to run their affairs this commission would not be necessary. If the corporation, under the control of Fine Gael and Labour, had done their business properly there would be no need for this commission. Now that the corporation are running efficiently with a strong Fianna Fáil team since the 1985 local election, the effects of that 18 months' work are being seen. Much of the work set out for this commission has already been undertaken, some started by the Lord Mayor recently, and this cosmetic exercise is not required. I am afraid the people of Dublin will be penalised by the Minister reducing the rates subvention for having elected so many Fianna Fáil members to the Dublin Corporation in 1985 against the Minister's party and against their associates in the Labour Party. For too long Dublin has suffered from Coalition politics at a local level and I do not want to see it suffering at national level as well.

Question put: "That the Bill is hereby agreed in Committee and is reported to the House, and Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 59.

Tá

• Allen, Bernard.
• Barnes, Monica.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Bruton, John.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Burke, Liam.
• Carey, Donal.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Collins, Edward.
• Conlon, John F.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cosgrave, Liam T.
• Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
• Coveney, Hugh.
• Creed, Donal.
• Crotty, Kieran.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Deasy, Martin Austin.
• Desmond, Barry.
• Donnellan, John.
• Dowling, Dick.
• Dukes, Alan.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Glenn, Alice.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Hegarty, Paddy.
• Hussey, Gemma.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Begley, Michael.
• Bell, Michael.
• Boland, John.
• Keating, Michael.
• Kelly, John.
• Kenny, Enda.
• L'Estrange, Gerry.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• McLoughlin, Frank.
• Manning, Maurice.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Molony, David.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Naughten, Liam.
• Nealon, Ted.
• Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Brien, Willie.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• O'Toole, Paddy.
• Owen, Nora.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Prendergast, Frank.
• Ryan, John.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
• Skelly, Liam.
• Spring, Dick.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Yates, Ivan.

Níl

• Ahern, Michael.
• Andrews, David.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Mattie.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Byrne, Seán.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Conaghan, Hugh.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Daly, Brendan.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Fahey, Francis.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Foley, Denis.
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Gallagher, Pat Cope.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Haughey, Charles J.
• Hilliard, Colm.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Leonard, Tom.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lyons, Denis.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• Moynihan, Donal.
• Nolan, M.J.
• Noonan, Michael J (Limerick West).
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Dea, William.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Edmond.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• Ormonde, Donal.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• Power, Paddy.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies F. O'Brien and Taylor; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Browne.

Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle

A message will be sent to Seanad Éireann acquainting it that the Dáil has passed the Bill without amendment.

Sitting suspended at 1.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.