Urban Renewal (Amendment) Bill, 1987: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. Boland

When the debate was adjourned I was saying that this is a strange little Bill, produced at a very strange time. I invite the House to consider just how strange this Bill is. The Urban Renewal Bill as passed last year provided for the establishment of designated areas in a number of our cities for redevelopment purposes, and specifically, as is the subject of this Bill, for the establishment of the Custom House Dock Development Authority for 27 acres. Now, extraordinarily, before one brick had been laid or one foundation opened, the Minister comes in ostensibly to seek our agreement to the enactment of this legislation to allow him to extend the area.

As I have said, the boundaries to which the area is to be extended are ill-defined, in sharp contrast to the position when the principal Bill was presented to the Oireachtas and when lists of the areas were laid in the Oireachtas Library for the consideration of Members so that they might speak with greater knowledge on what was envisaged. It was always envisaged that the Custom House Dock Development Authority, if successful, would extend the scope of their activities and in time would see to the redevelopment of the entire Dublin dockland area. Though the Minister has said that the primary purpose of the Bill is to provide for the extension of the Custom House Docks area, that is not so.

The Bill has been introduced for one real reason only, that is, as represented by the Minister in a subservient and minor part of the Bill, because the present administration want to increase the size of the board membership from a chairman and four members to a chairman and seven members. What we have presented to us is merely the cloak of the purported desire of the Minister to be able to extend the authority of the Custom House Dock Authority to a wider area for the Minister to achieve his main objective, in section 3, of enlarging the ordinary membership which, together with the chairman, would result in an authority of eight members rather than five.

Even that attempt is rather clumsy because virtually every administration and Minister would attempt to have a board comprising an uneven number whereas the Minister now proposes there will likely be an equality of votes, a situation which is not regarded as particularly desirable.

It is too bad that within months of the Minister taking office he has identified an authority appointed by the previous administration and because he or his party did not have the right to appoint the membership of that authority he has resorted to the device of substantially increasing the membership so as to be able to appoint persons of his choosing. It is very difficult to come to any other conclusion. In explanation of the clause to increase the ordinary membership, the Minister said it was necessary in order "for example, to have persons who have direct experience in the financing and carrying out of large scale development proposals".

Apart from the gratuitous insult thereby paid to some of the existing members of the authority, anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the development scene in Ireland will know that in the existing membership of the Custom House Dock Development Authority there is extraordinary experience and expertise among some of the members in the carrying out of major developments in construction, in the tourist industry and major financing of developments in Dublin, throughout Ireland and abroad. There is in the authority a wealth of civil engineering experience among people who have been principal partners of the main contracting firms in the country. It ill suits the Minister to attempt to represent that the authority do not have expertise among the members. They clearly do. The existing membership were chosen specifically so that that expertise would be available in the activities of the authority.

I regret that the Minister has chosen to represent that the authority have not got particular knowledge or experience. That is the reason why the membership need now, so soon after the authority had been set up, to be increased so substantially. The plain unvarnished truth is that the Minister wants to appoint his own men, and the way in which he has chosen to do that is to introduce legislation ostensibly to allow him the right to extend the area under the control of the authority, which is not opportune at all at present. As the Minister said, the authority in the past week have published planning schemes and invited submissions from potential developers. Already, by the production of this Bill, ostensibly to double or treble the area for redevelopment, potential developers have been left in a state of confusion because they are no longer certain whether they should make proposals regarding the 27 acres or whether the proposals should relate to a wider area and, if so, whether the proposals for the primary section of the site should be different from the position if the site itself would be a contained unit.

It is particularly unfortunate that with the much heralded launch of the planning scheme last week we have, contemporaneously with that launch, the Minister's proposal to extend the area in an easterly direction with no potential easterly boundary as far as I am aware. There are other minor aspects in this regard. I should not have thought it necessary to publish a Bill simply to extend in a southerly direction the area in the control of the Authority, to include the North Wall with a section of the River Liffey. It was a suggestion I made in order that the southerly face of the area would be developed and opened up in an imaginative way so as to provide a picture window into the entire development area of the site.

In that regard I intend to table an amendment on Committee Stage to seek the inclusion of the entire width of the river along the southern boundary of the existing Authority area. It is desirable that if there is to be some kind of marine development in the inner dock that it be allowed to spill out into the river so as to provide an attractive picture of the opening into the site. It would be more beneficial if such development included the entire width of the river rather than using just half its width as has been suggested by the Minister but that is not the primary purpose of the Bill. The primary purpose of the Bill is to play politics with the membership of the Authority.

It is normal practice for one administration to accept the bodies which were put in place by a previous administration and to accept the appointments which were made by a previous administration until such time as the period of appointment comes to an end. Indeed, in many cases, outgoing members are reappointed by the administration of the day. I do not think it could be suggested that the members of the existing Authority were primarily appointed on party political lines as each of them has a particular expertise. Now, for whatever strange reason, the Government have decided that they wish to appoint their own people on to the Custom House Dock Authority and one can only wonder as to the reasons. One cannot deal with statutory bodies in the same way as certain financial institutions might attempt to initiate take-over bids for other institutions. The Minister in introducing this Bill seemed to indicate that that is the type of cavalier approach being adopted in this case.

There were particular reasons as to why the membership of the Custom House Dock Authority was kept to a small number. The Minister of State in introducing the Bill at that time made it clear that he intended that Authority to have an executive rather than a representational function. For that reason he wanted a small tightly knit group who were prepared to devote a good deal of their time and expertise to ensuring that the venture would be a success. Now the Minister, for whatever reason by increasing the membership is defeating much of that purpose and for no useful reason. I want to give notice to the House that I will be tabling amendments to sections 3 and 4 of the Bill on Committee Stage.

The thinking behind section 4 is extraordinary. Normally, when a statutory body is appointed it consists of a chairman and ordinary members and the normal powers, duties and functions of a chairman are set out in the appointing section of the Bill. There is no necessity for section 4 to outline specifiedly that it shall be the duty of the chairman of the Authority to ensure the official discharge of the business of the Authority. That is one of the normal functions of any chairman or acting chairman. It is dangerous that the Minister should suggest that he has had widespread consultation with the chairman of the Authority and is now making a number of suggestions. Each member of the Custom House Dock Authority has a specific responsibility and as I have already said it was the intention of the previous administration that the five member Authority, whose chairman would also act as a full time chief executive, would act in an executive capacity.

It would be regrettable and wrong if the chairman in his dual capacity as both chairman and chief executive felt he had the right to take decisions which later only require the rubber stamp of approval from his colleagues. It is particularly important that where a person acts in the dual role of chairman and chief executive, the other members of the body or organisation have the right to question his decisions and put forward other points of view. If that is not the case it would be more realistic and honest if one person was appointed chairman chief executive and sole decision maker. In this case before a decision can be reached it has to have the approval of a majority of the members of the Authority.

When the Urban Renewal Bill, 1986 was introduced in this House it provided for the establishment of designated areas for tax and special rates and one of the areas designated was the Custom House Docks site. However, the Bill did not deal with the tax concessions which would apply to the designated areas and the reason for that was because it was felt it would be more appropriate if such concessions were outlined in the Finance Bill. Therefore, the boundary of the Custom House Docks site was set out in Part II of Schedule III of the Finance Act, 1986 and in section 41 of the same Act the tax concessions which would apply inside that area were set out.

The Minister purports to have, as his primary purpose, the extension of the boundaries of the existing site in a southerly direction towards the River Liffey and in an easterly direction for an undefined distance. Yet in the 1987 Finance Bill there is no mention of any change in the area to be administered by the Custom House Docks Authority. If the Minister makes an order to extend the size of the Custom House Docks site either to the south or to the east there will be a 27 acre site on which certain tax incentives and rate remissions will apply and an additional site to be brought within the remit of the Authority which presumably will carry the rate concessions proposed in the Bill but which will not carry the tax concessions as no attempt has been made to insert a clause in the Finance Bill to modify the boundaries of the designated area which are set out in Part II of Schedule III of the Finance Act, 1986. Would the Minister explain how the Authority are to be expected to operate in that fashion and why extension clauses are not included in the Finance Bill this year as was the case last year.

I am also disappointed that in this Bill the Minister deals only with one aspect of the 1986 Act, that is, the Custom House Dock Development Authority. I would have thought that he would have taken this opportunity to outline to the House the progress which had been made in encouraging development into each of the designated areas which were set out under the Principal Act — the County Boroughs of Dublin, Waterford, Cork, Limerick and Galway. As it has been found necessary at this early stage to extend the boundaries of the Custom House Docks site perhaps the Minister would indicate to the House whether there is any intention to alter or modify the boundaries of the designated areas in the five county boroughs.

The Minister might also explain, which should be an interesting process, how it is now envisaged that the Authority will develop a larger area — how much larger we do not yet know and perhaps there will be some indication given of that in the reply — when one considers that the funding made available to the Authority in this year for the redevelopment of the 27 acre site was reduced by this administration from the £5 million provided by us in the last Government to £3 million. How is it now envisaged that a larger site will be developed expeditiously and in the manner which apparently is desired on a budget which is reduced by two-fifths from what was regarded as the minimum necessary for the Custom House Dock Authority to develop during this year on the 27 acres.

I also find it rather difficult to accept the bona fides of the Minister in regard to some of the things which he has said regarding the necessity, identified and recognised by everyone, for there to be large-scale redevelopment and regeneration of life and activity in Dublin city centre when the Minister is the same person who has in the last week, announced his intention as from the end of this month to abolish the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission, having some months ago removed the funding assigned to them. It does not seem to be a very consistent line for a Minister to suggest that he is so concerned about the redevelopment of Dublin city that he wishes now to extend the boundaries of this particular, unique, designated area for redevelopment having reduced the funding of the Authority charged with doing it and at the same time having abolished an authority which was set up virtually at the same time with the express purpose of redeveloping and bringing back a particular style of life into Dublin city centre.

All of these proposals had a particular purpose; they were all designed in various ways, between the designated area for the redevelopment of Dublin, the Custom House Dock Authority and the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission, towards a greater area of Dublin inner city with redevelopment taking place along the quays, up through the northern derelict inner city, on the Custom House Docks site to open up the docklands and assign to them a new usage and at the same time to redevelop the main shopping spine of the capital city which would run through and be contiguous to those areas. It does not seem to be very consistent to hear of the Minister's ostensible commitment to the redevelopment of Dublin docklands when one compares that with the actuality of his actions since becoming Minister for the Environment.

There seems now to be also a representation being made that the primary purpose of the development of the Custom House Dock Authority area is for the setting up and creation of a financial services area. Indeed one of today's newspapers seems to report the chairman of the Custom House Dock Authority as suggesting that that is the primary purpose. That was not at all the primary purpose when the Government of the day turned their minds to the prospect of redeveloping the site under the ownership of the Dublin Port and Docks Board, which site was becoming progressively obsolete over a number of years. That process started in 1981 when my colleague, Deputy O'Brien, was Minister of State in the Department of the Environment and was continued by the Minister's administration in 1982 and had been worked on progressively by Deputy O'Brien over the intervening years, taking the proposal to the stage it is at now.

The prospect and possibility of a financial services centre being established or located within the site is indeed an exciting one which ought to be pursued and hopefully will be successful. However, it would be remiss to think that the entire site is to be primarily one for the provision of a financial services centre. I do not think there is the scale of interest that would involve the redevelopment of the entire site and from what I understand, neither do the Authority. It is important that whatever opportunities are in this area should be availed of and that those who have an interest should be encouraged to locate within the designated area, but the operation of any financial services activity should be one of a range of activities which will need to be carried out and developed virtually contemporaneously if the entire area is to have generated within it the life and the activity and new dawning which have been envisaged by so many people associated with the Custom House Docks site.

I now make a point which I hope the Minister might consider in his examination of the planning scheme which I gather has been submitted to him. It does not seem that the suggested location of the financial services area on the south west boundary of the existing site, that would be on the part of the site most adjacent to the Custom House, is perhaps the ideal location for such an activity, which is primarily an activity to be carried out within an office block. In the same way as it is important to develop the southern boundary, the boundary opening out on to the River Liffey, in an imaginative way so as to attract the attention and the interest of passersby and Dubliners to the site and to what it may contain. The south western corner which faces the Custom House and Busarus is vitally important and it is to be hoped that development will open up vistas as to what activities are taking place deep within the site, thus attracting people to enter on to the 27 acres and become aware of retail shopping, commercial usage, hotels, conference centres or whatever else. I am not sure that the heart of the site where the general public will see the range of activities which are occurring is the best possible location for an office block for the proposed financial services area.

I want to emphasise again that it is not that I have any objection or feel that it is not appropriate that financial services should be located on the site, but I do not think that it ought to be represented that the site would be primarily for or substantially taken up by financial service users. I think, regretfully, that it is unlikely that there would be that level of demand. For the reasons I have outlined I feel that the suggested location for a financial services office block is not in the most appropriate part of the site. The other suggestions relating to the establishment of a possible conference centre, hotels and a mixture of commercial, retail and housing have been generally accepted. These proposals were advocated also by the previous administration.

In view of the fact that the Customs House Docks Authority has been in existence for such a short time it is extraordinary that there is a need to introduce a new Bill ostensibly to extend the size of the authority before either the market or the authority has been tested to see to what extent there is a market and what the time scale will be for the development of the 27 acres which has been assigned to the care and responsibility of the authority. It is regrettable that the primary purpose for the introduction of this Bill is to enable the Minister to make his own appointments onto an authority where he did not make appointments in the first place. That is not acceptable. It is not the normal practice which has been engaged in by administrations operating in this country. I do not think the Minister can expect this House to easily accept this without registering a strong complaint.

Mr. G. Mitchell

On a point of order, as my party's officially appointed spokesman on urban renewal may I ask when it is likely that I will get in on this debate? I understand the Chair indicated he intended to go all the way around the world before coming back to the Fine Gael benches.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I hope that other Deputies who will be called to speak will realise the time limits that are on us and encapsulate their thoughts as best they can.

Mr. Gregory

On a point of order, will the Chair clarify the Order? I contacted the Government Whip earlier and I was not made aware of any order. I have been here since the debate started and I have been waiting partiently to speak. I thought I would get in next because there did not appear to be any rush of Deputies to get into the debate. Am I now to understand that I have to await speakers from parties who are not even present?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is making his position worse. I have stated what has been practice of the House. There is a spokesperson here for the Progressive Democrats; there is not one for the Labour Party and that would have been noted. The debate would then go to the Government benches and then back to you. I imagine that should happen fairly expeditiously.

Mr. Gregory

I want to clarify that I will get in ahead of the Labour Party.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Yes, in so far as their absence and your presence has been noted. That is what I propose doing if I am in the Chair. The person who follows me can make his or her own decision but that is what I would do in the circumstances. Deputy Gibbons.

Mr. Gibbons

I thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Urban Renewal (Amendment) Bill. I assure you I will not delay the House. For too long the planning laws of Dublin city have been controlled in no small way by a very select number of prominent people in a position of power. The ease with which rezoning was granted in exchange for personal gain has led to the present state of decay in the inner city. It is time to call a halt. The Progressive Democrats support the Urban Renewal (Amendment) Bill, 1987.

It is a well known fact that the centre of every major city suffers in some way from dereliction and urban decay. It is the duty of every public representative to reverse this trend and in doing so to provide much needed employment for the people of Ireland. This employment will afford a much needed injection of capital into the deprived areas of Dublin. The nature of the redevelopment will be such that it should encourage major investment from home and abroad. The profits from multinationals which have so often in the past been repatriated can now be invested in Ireland for the benefit of the country and citizens. The Bill creates an atmosphere and structure that will enable this to happen.

Large sums of money are being made available to develop achievable short-term and medium-term plans. This will create an attractive commercial environment thereby encouraging confidence in inner city developers. This proposed development will contain both commercial and residential units and this will make it ideally suited for inner city renewal. Too often in the past residential and commercial interests were deemed to be incompatible. This dock site development is a prime example of where an alliance between the two interests can be achieved successfully. This can be brought about only in a planned and controlled manner as proposed in the Bill.

Dublin Gas admitted yesterday that there are approximately 3,000 potholes in Dublin streets, causing great inconvenience and loss of time to motorists. This is in addition to the craters dug by Telecom Éireann, the ESB and Dublin Corporation. It is high time the Minister got this matter under control. This city has suffered from the eyesore of dereliction for far too long. This Bill provides the authorities with the necessary powers to ensure that these circumstances will no longer prevail. One of the essential ingredients of any urban renewal programme is the creation of a community. In order to facilitate the growth of a community, it is vital to provide a mixture of shops, offices, private and local dwellings and relevant amenities. We know from previous experience that planning without any consideration of community aspects has been nothing short of disastrous. This Bill contains the necessary mechanism for planned development incorporating both commercial and residential interests.

I say with confidence that proper planning does work. On a smaller scale, my own city of Kilkenny could be held up as a shining example of urban renewal. The city has come alive in the very recent past in terms of residential and commercial interests. It is no accident that Kilkenny has won the major town award on a number of occasions and in 1985 it was the first large town to win the coveted Tidy Towns Award. I have seen the benefits that controlled urban renewal can bring to a city. Therefore, on behalf of the Progressive Democrats I endorse this Bill and hope that Dublin will reap similar benefits to those of my native city.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair appreciates the Deputy's co-operation.

Dr. D. Fitzpatrick

I will be equally brief as I realise that my colleague from the constituency is anxious to come in and no doubt the House will benefit from his long experience of local authority matters. I congratulate the Minister on introducing this Bill as it was badly needed. I hope he will push the development through with all haste. This is probably one of the most depressed and derelict areas in the whole country. What we badly need here are jobs because we have the highest unemployment rate in the country. We also need a proper mix between commercial and residential development. I would not like this to become a ghost town after 5 o'clock in the evening. In this city streets have changed over the years and have become totally commercial and especially on dark winter evenings they become positively dangerous, a haven for muggers and other undesirable characters. Now that the Minister is settling in I hope he can break what appears to be central government indifference and local government inertia when it comes to developing areas.

In 1963 the film "The Spy who came in from the Cold" was shot in the north inner city because it most resembled postwar Berlin. That film could be shot all over again in areas in my constituency and one would not have to change anything. Much of the cause of this problem is that planners draw lines on maps without a thought for the communities. The street widening plans for Dublin were drawn up in the 1950s. Once one draws a line on the map for a road widening scheme one condemns the area to dereliction. We saw it in the North King Street area, in Smithfield, in the Hay-market, an area which has been completely derelict for years. We were told we needed a street widening scheme to improve traffic flow etc. but in the process we have destroyed whole communities. We have built houses on farmland miles from jobs, services, churches etc., when we could have been developing the inner city and keeping the communities alive in places where families have grown up not just for generations but for centuries. Once this Bill has been passed I hope the Minister will turn his mind to that.

Although it may not be the Minister's field, he might, in consultation with his colleague the Minister for Transport and Tourism, take a look at the development of the north river as a ferry port. The way passenger trends are going it seems that foot passengers on ferry boats are now becoming a thing of the past on the ferry boats between Ireland and England. The north docks area is an area that could be developed to take heavy goods, cars, caravans and so on. We cannot pour money into two areas, into Dún Laoghaire and the North Docks. I am making a plea for the north inner city. Dún Laoghaire is good for yachting and perhaps a marina could be built where people may use their boats and enjoy themselves but what we need in the north inner city are jobs and an end to the dereliction. This is a step on the road to it.

Mr. Gregory

I welcome this Bill. As is known to the Minister and other Members of the House, I was involved in the initiative for this in 1982. I could claim credit for initiating the whole project but that is not important. What is important is the proper redevelopment of this site and the extended areas involved in it. I disagree with the Minister in relation to what I would consider to be the proper redevelopment of this area. I am afraid there will be a major gap between my views and what the Minister appears to intend, judging from the very glossy designed proposals with which we were all presented at the very expensive launch of this scheme last week. It was noteworthy that at that very sophisticated, well organised, well orchestrated launch, there was not one member of the local community from Sheriff Street. That is a very good indication of the Government's attitude of this area of the city and perhaps even of the Minister's attitude. Not one member of a community that has been there for generations, that has kept that area alive and who worked, as my father did, in the warehouses on that site, was invited to this launch and they were not consulted in the proposals to redevelop the area in which they sweated for years. On the day of the launch I was contacted by the Sheriff Street Tenants' Association and asked what was happening. They had not been informed and anything they knew they had read in the newspapers. That is a terrible indictment of the way this matter has been dealt with.

I would define urban renewal as a renewal process involving the communities in the inner city or in the urban area involved. This redevelopment does not involve the inner city communities. It does not provide any possibility of jobs or any possibility of modern housing for the community. The type of jobs involved in the financial services centre and the type of residential content envisaged in the glossy scheme with which we were presented would not be the sort of jobs or residential accommodation of which people from the Sheriff Street area, the East Wall or any of the inner city areas could avail. It seems that what is involved in urban renewal from the Minister's point of view is renewal by speculators and developers of the office blocks, luxury apartments and so on and facilitating on the north side that type of commercial expansion that has destroyed so much of the south side of Dublin.

I differ from Deputy Boland in his view that the major reason this Bill is being brought in is to increase membership of the board. I am sure that was high in the Minister's mind, but equally high in the minds of some of the Minister's advisers would be the presence of that community that I have referred to, the Sheriff Street community, virtually over the wall from the 27-acre site. They present a threat to the Minister's redevelopment proposals for that area. I know he devotes a few words to this community who comprise in the region of 2,000 people which would be bigger than the population of many small towns and villages throughout the country and about whom perhaps the Minister would be more concerned. The Minister said:

The local authority housing complex at Sheriff Street is already the subject of review by a special working party drawn from Dublin Corporation, the Department of the Environment and the Authority. This does not imply, however, that any decision has been made about the future status of this housing area, much less that it is to become the responsibility of the Authority.

It does not imply it, but will the Minister when replying clarify what it implies about the Sheriff Street community? Whose responsibility will they be? Does the Minister intend, as things stand at the moment, to leave the sole responsibility for that community with Dublin City Council and Dublin Corporation? Does he intend to intervene in any way in regard to that responsibility?

I am chairman of the Dublin City Council special committee for the inner city. I have been involved in every renewal project in that area of the north side of Dublin during the last ten years or more, and I was not aware that a special working party drawn from Dublin Corporation and other authorities have been set up. I am not suggesting for a minute they have not. I suppose if the Minister says they have been set up then they have been set up, but I will be calling an emergency meeting of the inner city committee to find out why we were not informed of such a development and to ensure that the elected representatives for that area who stand on that committee have an input into this special working party.

My main interest in the redevelopment proposals for the north inner city and the north side of Dublin centre is on the people who live there. They are a very disadvantaged community. Local surveys have shown that the very large population of the Sheriff Street area have perhaps the highest unemployment rate in the country, something like 60 to 70 per cent of the adult population there being unemployed. They live in grossly overcrowded conditions but little or no mention is made of these facts. The residential content the Minister proposes for the 27 acres will hardly cater for the needs of those people. Other than jobs cleaning floors and windows in hotels and office blocks, I see nothing in the Minister's outline planning scheme to provide employment for the underprivileged people who live there.

Mr. Flynn

I do not agree with the Deputy.

Mr. Gregory

The Minister is perturbed by what I am saying. He will have ample opportunity to tell us about all the opportunities in his proposal to provide jobs for the people who live in disadvantaged inner city areas, and I will be only too willing to listen to these detailed, specific proposals because I have heard nothing of them so far.

Deputy Gibbons said on behalf of the PDs that he was anxious to help the growth of the community. Clearly the PDs are unaware of the existence of one of the most traditional communities already in that area. We do not need to provide for the growth of a community. We need to provide just for the basic needs to sustain the existing community there. There is a responsibility on the Government and on the Minister to take this point perhaps a little more seriously than the Minister appears to be taking it.

The Sheriff Street flats complex was built in the late thirties and early forties to provide accommodation for people who worked in the docks area. During the past 20 years with the containerisation of work at the docks virtually all those people lost their jobs. There was never an attempt by any Government to provide any alternative source of employment in that area for those people. It would seem that this urban renewal project offers a possibility of doing that if the Government have the will and the intention to direct their energies at providing alternative employment in that area for the people who live there.

Regarding the Government's intention, the Minister said: ".....the purpose is to expedite the redevelopment of the existing Custom House Docks area by providing potential developers and investors with an assurance that the Government intend to see to it that the entire dockland area is progressively renewed and redeveloped." The potential developers and investors are the people the Minister is concerned about. I feel that the Minister is saying there he intends to drive the disadvantaged people of Sheriff Street out of that area of the city entirely because they do not provide the type of scenario he feels is required to attract the developers and investors. If this is what the Minister or any of his advisers have in mind, he will have a very serious conflict on his hands because the people who live in the Sheriff Street and North Wall area will not leave it for developers, investors, the Minister or anybody else. Their roots are there and they intend to stay there. Deputy Fitzpatrick, who is also a local representative, is well aware of that.

If they are to stay there they need modern housing facilities so that they can live as all families should be able to live in 1987, and they need jobs. Those are essentials. I will be interested to hear whether the Minister has any plans to provide either of those requirements for that community. I raised with the Minister at Question Time some weeks ago his record so far in relation to urban renewal. That record shows a failure to approve even one single inner city local authority housing scheme for Dublin Corporation, despite the fact that there are projects for approximately 400 inner city houses on the Minister's desk. Some are at design stage and some even at tender stage awaiting his approval. To date the Minister has failed to approve one single house let alone one single scheme. If that is the Minister's view of urban renewal — which seems to reflect overall Government attitude to cutbacks, to not investing in the construction industry or in any type of urban redevelopment — it is highly unlikely that we will see anything like the ambitious scheme that would be required in the North Wall area to rehouse the people living there in such terrible conditions. If the Minister does not accept that there are terrible conditions prevailing in the Sheriff Street area I would ask him to take a walk among the flats complexes there when he will see how they have deteriorated, particularly over the past couple of years, to a very sorry state resulting largely from the huge unemployment levels among its people. On the other hand if everything I have said is not accurate, it is not fair to the Minister, I would be the first to withdraw it if and when the Minister presents proposals to deal with the problems to which I have referred.

Having said all that I accept the need for this amending Bill before us, particularly the extension of the boundaries. I assume that the boundaries extend to the East Wall Road. It makes sense to do that but, unfortunately, the provisions do not do anything else. There is no provision for State investment in that area, no specific answers to the social problems of the people living there. The provisions of this Bill merely extends boundaries for some vague purpose the Minister is not prepared to detail. That is not good enough.

I might revert to my starting point — it may be easy to brush it aside — that is the fact that there has been no consultation whatever with the very large population of the North Wall, the Sheriff Street area, in order to ascertain their views on how that area should be redeveloped. We could all be invited to a reception at which there were several hundred people, none of whom had ever shown any interest whatever in the north inner city in the past but who were there, presumably, because there may have been something to be gained in the future. Yet those who organised that reception did not see fit to invite representatives of the people who have lived in that area, who know it intimately, who know every brick in the walls of the 27 acres, people who reared their families there for generations. That is a pointer to the attitude of those who advise the Minister in relation to this Bill and the proposals to redevelop this area.

I do not say this lightly or in any dramatic way but if any attempt is made to proceed with the redevelopment of the area set out in this amending Bill, which includes the Sheriff Street flats complex, without consulting the people who live there — in a way that conflicts with the interests and needs of those people — the Minister will have a major social problem on his hands. I say that with absolute certainty and conviction.

Deputies G. Mitchell and Kemmy rose.

Mr. Kemmy

I thought I would be allowed speak after Deputy Gregory. I thought you mentioned earlier, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that if the Labour Party and The Workers' Party did not turn up, as they have not, we could then speak. No member of the Labour Party turned up, and Deputy Gregory has filled in for that party——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am afraid that Deputy Kemmy is making deductions to suit his own case. That is not what I said. I indicated that when Deputy Fitzpatrick would have spoken I would go to Deputy Gregory. Then I would be calling Deputy Gay Mitchell. Having called Deputy Gay Mitchell I would then be happy to call on Deputy Kemmy.

Mr. Kemmy

I did not hear the last part of your remarks at all but, if Deputy Gay Mitchell is brief and you will allow me in afterwards, I will bow to your ruling.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy knows the position himself.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I will endeavour to be as brief as I can but there are a few specific points I want to make on this Bill. I am sure I will finish in ample time to allow the Deputy to get in before the Minister or any other Member presents himself in the House.

This Bill proposes to amend the Act passed last year. That Act marked a most significant stage of preparation for the single biggest piece of urban renewal to be carried out in our capital city this century. It also advanced the measures outlined by the then Taoiseach, Deputy FitzGerald, last October in relation to boosting employment. Considering this in tandem with the generous provisions of the Finance Act 1986 and the house improvement grants introduced by the previous Government it will be seen clearly that the present Fianna Fáil administration, in contrast, are not committed to a real policy of urban renewal, having vandalised the provisions of the Fine Gael Government for renewal of our housing stock. Despite being pressed by me, this Government have refused to even consider presenting a White Paper on urban renewal. I appeal to them even now to reconsider this or at least to agree to the establishment of an all-party parliamentary committee to examine and report on this matter of urgent public interest. That is something which should be done. A committee of the House, rather like the Committee on Marriage Breakdown, which could report on an all-party basis on the need for urban renewal, identifying areas needing to be dealt with and the order in which that should be done is a matter in which Parliament should involve itself. I would urge the Minister to give that suggestion consideration.

Many of our cities have declining populations while they continue to finance emptying schools and other public buildings in their centres. Our inner cities have churches and hospitals — though a declining species — shops, schools and other infrastructure not yet available in the outer suburbs or, if provided there, at enormous expense to the taxpayer. Yet there is no Government policy on inner city renewal. In a living city is it not desirable that citizens continue to dwell within its inner boundaries? An inner city should not become exclusively crime-ridden, with empty shells at night, where only shuttered shops, ringing alarm bells and wailing sirens of Garda patrol cars are heard. That is not the type of inner city we want but that is the sort of inner city we will have unless there is clear Government policy on the question of urban renewal.

Dublin Corporation have made a very good job of their programme for inner city housing but where is the response, imagination, input of the private sector? I sincerely hope that there will be adequate provision on the Custom House dock site for a good housing mix with both local authority and private housing. In particular I hope that any extension of the site proposed under the provisions of this Bill will incorporate good mix of private and local authority housing developments.

Whereas the county of Dublin as a whole now have a population of the order of 1.1 million, the population of Dublin city decreased from 567,866 in 1971 to an estimated 490,000 in 1985. That is a decline of 0.5 of 1 per cent between 1971 and 1979. This accelerated to 1.8 per cent between 1979 and 1981. If this rate of decline is allowed to continue the population of Dublin city will have declined by 23.5 per cent in the 20 years up to 1991. The source of those figures is the Dublin Development Plan provided by Dublin Corporation. The year 1991 is a few short years from now. There will be an enormous devastation of our city if we are prepared to have no policy on urban renewal or to stand by and allow the situation to develop whereby the population of the city will have decreased by 23.5 per cent in 20 years. That would be a serious indictment of the administrations which have been in office since 1971 for their failure to come to terms with this problem. At least in the past few years an effort has been made, at least by the local authorities, to resite housing in the inner city. I say to the Minister that unless there is a specific policy of urban renewal we are heading for a crime-ridden empty shell in the inner city of Dublin with a decline in population, falling school numbers and schools in bad repair because of the way grants for repairs are allocated. I ask the Minister to urgently reconsider my suggestion on the need for a White Paper on urban renewal or at least for a parliamentary all-party committee to examine this matter.

Against the background I have just outlined — the fact that the Government do not have an urban renewal policy or a White Paper and do not intend so far to assist Parliament to address and redress this problem — such failure is a crime against our citizens and not just our urban citizens, because all our taxpayers in the long run will have to pay for the cost in terms of crime and vandalism and in terms of ultimate renewal of infrastructure if we do not come to grips with this problem even at this late stage.

The Act now being amended set out to address the problem in only one area, but a major area, of our city. This approach was based on the fact that inner areas of our major urban centres represent a very valuable resource in terms of people, community life, public buildings, commercial and cultural centres and other infrastructure. Allowing resources of this kind to suffer will cost the taxpayer dearly in time to come, not least of all in increased crime and vandalism. The movement of established industries and commercial activities to suburban locations together with high site acquisition and development costs has denuded whole areas of employment potential and contributed to the decline in population. This trend has to be reversed if we are to have a living city. The original Act tried to address this problem in one part of our city.

Development in the past has been very imbalanced. Only 15 per cent of office space provided in Dublin between 1960 and 1984 was on the north side of the city. Yet this Government have effectively neutered the main political animal capable of assisting and reversing this situation, the Dublin Metropolitan Streets Commission. The Government are determined that O'Connell Street will remain a legoland of degenerate architectural design. What chances has the north city got from a Government who intend to ensure that the office development in that part of the city does not improve on the present 15 per cent of the total Dublin office development? What would you expect from a Government who have not even one Deputy from a city area in the Department of the Environment? It is a bit like appointing two city Deputies to the Department of Agriculture. I say that without any reflection on the Deputies concerned but it is an indication of a lack of understanding of the problem facing our cities the fact that there is not an urban Deputy in the Department of the Environment. That is regrettable. I do not say that on any personal basis in regard to the two Deputies who are Ministers at that Department and who are quite capable of doing the work.

Any review of urban policy should include a review of the activities of An Bord Pleanála who appear to have made a major contribution to a decline in the standard of development in many cases. An Bord Pleanála should be required to account for their stewardship. There is no reason an independent board should not continue in operation but being independent and unaccountable is not the same thing. If the Minister was to take a walk slowly along O'Connell Street and go from door to door — leaving aside the attempts which have been made by Clarks shoe shop, Easons and people of that kind to improve the streetscape by purely personal effort — and if he was to look at the other legoland, Burgerland developments which have been allowed to take place in our city he would find that a large number of them were given permission on appeal by An Bord Pleanála. An Bord Pleanála should be accountable for their stewardship. I do not think that being accountable should in any way affect their independence. If somebody contributes to the sort of degeneration that has taken place in our main city they should be asked to account for it. That is something which should be considered.

There seems to have been an evolution in recent years which has taken away accountability in many areas of public life. We had the case this morning of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I am one of those people who believes that the DPP should be independent but being independent does not mean you are not accountable. The same applies to An Bord Pleanála. It is not good for democracy and it certainly is not good for urban renewal that there is a lack of accountability in this area.

With regard to the designated areas, outside the Custom House Docks site, will the Minister tell the House what progress has been made in the designated areas of Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Waterford and Galway to promote the very substantial tax incentives for owner occupier dwellings and for commercial properties set out by the previous Government? A tax allowance of up to 5 per cent is given on the expenditure incurred by an individual in respect of a dwelling newly constructed or refurbished during the period 23 October 1985 to 31 May 1989. This is in addition to mortgage interest relief and is available each year for ten years. During the same period a double rent allowance as an expense to computing taxable income is available for commercial development in the same designated areas. Have the local authorities made any progress? I doubt it very much. Will the Minister, when replying to the debate, tell the House what progress local authorities have made in getting off the ground the possible developments which were allowed for in the designated areas throughout the country? It seems that the Minister should not only get on his bike but should get some members of the local authorities on the crossbar and bring them with him because they do not seem to be motivated on their own and it is time they were motivated.

There are areas of my constituency from Ushers Island down which could be developed if somebody made the effort. It seems — and I hope I am not doing somebody wrong — that no major effort is being made by the local authorities to sell those designated areas. I have outlined the great incentives that exist for non-commercial and for commercial properties. Will the Minister tell us how many developments have taken place in the cities I have mentioned as a result of this legislation? It seems the local authorities are not on their bikes and that the Minister should do something about the matter.

It is a matter of regret that section 11 of the Finance Act, 1987, just published, does not extend the tax incentive of the business expansion scheme to the Custom House docks site despite the fact that the 10 per cent corporation tax rate applies. However, I will return to that on Committee Stage of the Finance Bill. I do not know if the fact that this scheme does not extend to the Custom House docks site is an oversight or if it was intended that it might apply, but perhaps the Minister would discuss the matter with his colleague, the Minister for Finance, because that site would be very suitable for that tax incentive.

This Government sadly lack the credibility to carry the day with any potential investor. However, the two Ministers at the Department of the Environment, despite their lack of urban credentials, are two able operators and are well served by the small but able staff of the Custom House Docks Development Authority with whom I recently met and was highly impressed.

When looking at the area of urban renewal the Minister might look at some areas where the counties and cities are being disfigured by cornerstones and paving stones bearing the names of politicians who seem to want all and sundry to know they opened this road or that estate. In my view they are contributing to urban blight by this sort of nonsense.

I want to quote very briefly some pertinent passages from "Tourism and the Environment", a report by the Irish Tourist Industry Confederation, published in October 1986. They say:

Tourism is a national industry in Ireland which, directly and indirectly employs 85,000 people, earns nearly £850 million in revenue for Ireland each year and contributes just over £400 million in taxes to Government.

The physical environment is an important, if not the important, factor in Ireland's tourism product. Year after year tourists are attracted to Ireland by the beauty of our countryside and the friendly atmosphere of our towns and cities. The protection and development of our environment must therefore be an integral part of the national tourism development effort.

It is extremely difficult for us to develop along the lines proposed in that report unless we have a substantial committed national policy on urban renewal which has been set out by the Government and the Parliament of the day. There is no such policy today, and that is a matter for regret. The report goes on:

The Government's White Paper on Tourism, published in September 1985, recognises that the environment is of primary importance to the overall tourism product and it warns that the economic and employment benefits of tourism would be seriously eroded if environmental conditions were permitted to decline. Careful management of the environment is therefore an economic necessity as well as a social issue. It declares that it makes sound economic sense to invest in environmental management and pollution control and the preservation and development of amenities.

It is not just a matter of preserving our environment for our own citizens, which is desirable in itself because of problems with crime; it is not just a problem of developing a site like the Custom House docks site and the adjoining areas which contribute to blight and to terrible problems faced by our urban community, but a matter of economic and social importance, as is clearly stated in this report. I would like to quote one short passage from the same report. It says:

The attraction of our cities, towns and villages stems to a large extent from the overall impression gleaned from a combination of facades and spaces, changes and levels, contrasting materials, hard and soft landscaping and street furniture ...

Quite often, however, it is not the individual buildings which matter so much as the overall composition and this can be damaged by piecemeal renewal.

This report specifically says "this can be damaged by piecemeal renewal" and the report goes on to condemn dereliction. Not only from the point of view of our own citizens or removing decay so that people can live in a good environment, a crime-fee environment where these people can use their skills and be happy to live, but from the point of view of our economic and social development as well as our peaceful development, it is vitally important in this area of public affairs that the Government develop a specific policy.

I urge the Minister to let us have a White Paper on urban renewal. If he is not prepared to do that let us have an all-party committee which will report on urban renewal. The committee will then be dissolved and the House will try to pursue the issues they have identified. If the Minister takes on that suggestion he will have done a great public service.

Mr. Kemmy

Today we are considering the development of an historic waterfront site in the heart of Dublin. I regret Deputy Gregory has left the Chamber because I brought in a copy of the planning scheme produced by the Custom House Docks Development Authority. I believe it is important to discuss this Bill in conjunction with this document. I am not against the glossy cover on the document because I would be ashamed of any semi-State body which produced a shoddy document. If you have something to say, it is important that you say it properly, and to have a document like this which is well presented and well printed is a good thing.

This document has literary qualities, interspersed with the details and drawings or quotations from James Joyce, Brendan Behan, Flann O'Brien, Samuel Beckett, Derek Mahon, Máirtín Ó Direáin and Louis MacNeice. There is nothing wrong with that. They have all written well about Dublin and Dublin should not be ashamed of what they have written. This document could be considered a souvenir. I would not knock this document although there might be some gaps between aspiration and realisation. That remains to be seen. At this stage I would not agree with criticising the document because it is well laid out and presented. I like the details and drawings contained in it.

The planning scheme is ambitious and the aims are to reach certain standards. The document states that the Government are seeking to provide a framework for the regeneration and revitalisation of this area. It is further hoped to set the stage to help to stimulate creative responses for the full development of the Custom House docks area. That perhaps is a bit high-flown but it is laudable. If all the plans are fulfilled this area will become a national prototype. However, there is one very obvious flaw in the scheme.

If we are going to have proper urban renewal and a regeneration and revitalisation of our inner cities, we must bring the people back to live in these centres. At present a great deal of our centre city areas are like a mint with a hole in the middle. Unless we include housing people and jobs in our urban renewal plans we will not have a real renewal of our cities. This is the one big flaw I see in the scheme. Financial services which have already been mentioned are one thing but people are another. Unless we provide housing and jobs in the plans for the Custom House docks site the scheme will not be complete. In other words, there is need for a good mix. Despite those misgivings, I do not think the scheme should be dismissed out of hand. It could prove to be a useful exercise and, undoubtedly, it will be a welcome boost to the industry. This important project offers a unique opportunity to add to and improve the social, economic and environmental qualities of Dublin, a city that has a rich legacy in architecture and culture.

There is no reason why good design, good materials and good functional buildings should not go hand-in-hand in this project. I welcome the decision to invite submissions in respect of the scheme. It is a useful democratic exercise. I note that the canal lock is to be retained and that the cobbles, stone sets and other stonework features will be preserved. That is good because those features will prove a big attraction. I hope George's Quay is retained and that we can correct some of the mistakes of the past in that area.

I welcome the decision to integrate cultural life in the whole project. It remains to be seen how far that will advance. I would like to see some works of sculpture in the area. In my view the use of pieces of sculpture would enhance the decoration of the area. It would also create employment for sculptors and greatly enhance the concept. We have often been accused of not devoting enough attention to our buildings, our rivers and our waterways and there is some truth in that. We could learn a good deal about this from continental cities who have made great use of their rivers and waterways. I was pleased to note the inclusion of a provision for the use of Irish made materials and I hope that intention is fulfilled. We have all condemned the importation of food as a scandal but the importation of building materials is equally scandalous. It is not generally known we import more than 50 per cent of the bricks used in our houses, schools, factories, office blocks and so on. It is an indictment of our building industry and a sad reflection on us all that we cannot produce our own building materials, particularly bricks. I hope the scheme under discussion will see a reversal of that sad pattern. All our cities are crying out for urban renewal programmes and I hope the Dublin scheme will be a prototype for schemes in other cities. The Minister has a vital role to play in overseeing this project. His role is a pivotal one and I hope he will carry it out wisely and well.

Mr. Stafford

I welcome the decision to extend the provisions of the Bill to cover the area I represent on Dublin City Council and in Dáil Éireann. When the scheme was first mooted I expressed the hope that it would involve a certain amount of housing in conjunction with office development. The site is unique for Dublin in that it is very big and is ideal for development under one authority. At first I objected to the scheme on the grounds that the decision to make one authority responsible for the project was removing some of the powers of the local authority. However, I accept that the project can succeed under the direction of one person. I have no doubt the Minister will ensure it is not a one day wonder. I am confident the development will proceed speedily.

In most countries dock areas have changed dramatically in recent years because of the change to container traffic. Employment in most ports has dropped. I have lived and worked in that area all my life and I can recall when thousands of people worked there but the advent of container traffic has led to the disappearance of most of the skilled and unskilled jobs.

The only approach to this area is by the quays or by passing under two very low bridges from Sheriff Street and Seville Place. The provision of a new roadway will enhance the approach to the site. It has been said that housing conditions in that area are very bad but a stone's throw away from it are some of the finest houses built in the country. Those houses were built at the direction of the Taoiseach some years ago. Such development brought new life into that area. A local authority cannot bring life back to such an area. It is important when encouraging the business community to move into the area that we get people to return there to live.

Those living on the north side have often considered they do not get the benefit of anything that is going. There is the view that there is a Dublin 4 mentality in Government circles. They appear to hold the view that an office block not located on the south side will not attract tenants. I have no doubt that the projects proposed will succeed. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that the old buildings there are restored. I should like to compliment those responsible for the restoration of the building used last week for the launching of this programme. A magnificent job was done on that old building. Everybody commented on the wonderful restoration work and I was pleased to hear it is intended to use it as an office. I hope the waterways in the area are maintained. I have been impressed by such renewal work in other cities. I have heard of an area in Boston which up to nine years ago was an no-go area and where today, as a result of the development carried out, it is very expensive to rent property. That project has the proper mix of housing and office development.

Properly planned projects like this are always supported by the business community and local people. In my view the Minister should approach those involved in organising the annual boat show and suggest to them that they hold next year's event at that site. We should consider putting a boom across the Liffey at this site and take into consideration the problems that arise when the tide goes out. It is important to remember that development work like this will be of benefit to the entire city. It is sad to see the derelict sites on Bachelor's Walk. Restoration work there, which carries 50 per cent grants, is very slow. Unless the Government support the Custom House docks proposal 100 per cent it will not be successful. I wish the Minister and the board every success and I am sure that Dublin Corporation will help in every possible way. I appeal to the Minister to include extra housing in the scheme.

Some Members referred to the fact that local people might not be considered but it is obvious there will be skilled jobs in this area and we should be planning, through the IDA and different training courses, to make sure that some local people are employed in the development and building of the scheme and in maintaining it afterwards. People who live near the area would have the advantage of being able to walk to work and we should direct the various authorities to train these people. I congratulate the Minister and I wish the scheme every success.

Mr. Nealon

The development of the Custom House Docks site was a concept of the previous Government and was carried out with great enthusiasm and vigour by the former Minister, Deputy Boland, and his Minister of State, Deputy Fergus O'Brien. I am glad the Government and the Minister are also pursuing this redevelopment in a vigorous manner. It may be an enthusiasm born of necessity to a certain extent because having failed to inject the £200 million which they promised into the construction industry, and indeed having extracted nearly that amount by abolishing grants and so on, they had to do something.

My interest is in promoting the idea of a cultural complex within the development, in whatever form it will take. In so far as this Bill provides for the possibility of an extra area being taken in at some time, it removes the only argument that might have been advanced against a cultural centre, in other words, pressure on existing space. The concept of a cultural complex was put forward by me as Minister of State for the Arts and Culture, was strongly backed by the then Taoiseach, Deputy FitzGerald, and was enthusiastically taken on by the then Minister for the Environment, Deputy Boland, who has always been very supportive of culture and the arts.

The idea put forward was that the cultural complex should be located in what is known as Stack A which is often called the Crimean Banqueting Hall. This has the added advantage of being a protected building; it is of considerable architectural importance mainly because of the unique cast iron frame construction designed by John Wren. Because of this architectural quality it is a protected building and was the subject of a planning board permission stating that the banqueting hall should be retained because of its historical and architectural interest. Incidentally, this building — now a warehouse — has a covered area of 1.8 acres. I do not say it is the only area in which there could be a cultural complex but because of the protected nature of the building it is natural that it should be designated for this.

A national gallery of modern art, a national folk museum and a national museum of science and technology are proposed for the complex. All these institutions are badly needed in the capital and indeed in the country as a whole. There it a need for a national gallery of modern art. The present National Gallery had a cut-off fund in the thirties as far as acquisitions are concerned because they do not have the space to handle any more pictures. Therefore, there is no national showcase for the works of contemporary Irish artists and the public have very little access to them. There is a degree of urgency about this, as the Minister knows, because of the recent munificent donation by Sir Sidney Nolan of about 50 of his paintings valued between £2 million and £4 million. A home must quickly be found for these works of art.

I know of many other people, some based in Ireland and others in the United States, who would be quite willing to bequeath their collections to this country provided there was an appropriate home for them. Because of that, and for other reasons, it is very important to have a national gallery of modern art. The site has been examined by the director of the National Gallery and by architects, conversion possibilities have also been explored and it would be an ideal centre.

The second area for which this might be used — the Minister should push the idea — is for a national folk museum to house our excellent folk collection. This has languished in storage in Daingean for some time and before that in the Royal Hospital, Kilmainham. Some of the boxes which were nailed down by a now retired professor of folklore at University College, Dublin about 57 years ago and were not opened until last year when an excellent conservation and preservation job was done. I am very glad the national folk collection is in an excellent state and ready to be put on show provided we have a showcase for it. I am not suggesting a dead museum but a live activity one in which there would be exhibitions and people showing how things were done in the past which would be of great interest to visitors. That would be a great advantage in the area as would a national museum of science and technology. We have none here although they are all over the United States and are extraordinarily popular on the Continent. They are also great crowd pullers, are highly educational and they show what can be done as far as technological developments are concerned. They also follow the idea of an activity museum in which people participate and are very attractive for students and children.

These are some of the possibilities that exist in this area. The location would be ideal because it is so near the centre of the city and is easily reached from train and bus stations. I know the personal interest which the Minister for the Environment has taken in the development in Castlebar and the support he has given in the area of culture and art in his native county. I also know he will be very much in favour of furthering the idea of a cultural complex in the Custom House Docks site. In advocating this, I suggest that far from taking away from the commercial value of the project the Minister would be greatly enhancing the potential commercial value of this area. Indeed, with the presence of a prestige complex of the type I have been speaking about and getting the movement of people for constantly changing exhibitions — I understand the Authority are going along with this idea — I believe that developers who would come in there and in turn would seek to have something like this included to give an overall balance to the area would get movement of people, which is so essential, and would ensure that there would not be a closedown at 5 o'clock or 5.30 p.m.

I believe passionately in this. It might be possible to get Stack A refurbished and ready for the museum development at very little cost because of the advantage it would bring to that area. It would be of major benefit to Dublin and of lasting benefit to the country as a whole in the educational, arts and culture areas. As Deputy Mitchell said, it would also be of major benefit to tourism. About 68 per cent of our visitors from abroad designate this as being of major importance so far as they are concerned.

I urge the Minister to resist in the strongest possible way any sort of pressure that might be brought on him, down along the line, for short term gain, seeking to have the idea of a cultural complex either postponed or not provided right in the heart of the initial development. It will be something of which he will be proud, something of which the whole country can be proud. It will be a major addition to the capital city and will fill three major gaps we now suffer from in our institutions. If we lose this opportunity — we can get a suitable building in a suitable place at a reasonable cost — none of these three buildings will be seen on the ground in the lifetime of any Member of the present Dáil. It is an opportunity to be grasped.

I suggest to the Minister, as a west of Ireland man, that the various concessions given to the county boroughs, including Waterford and Limerick and now extended to Galway, should be extended to my native town of Sligo. I understand this has been taken very seriously by the Minister for Finance, also a Sligoman. In Sligo town we have a rundown area similar to Galway and some of the other cities. The extension of designation to those areas would lead to their revitalisation and revamping. That would bring capital into those areas and there would be no need for expenditure by the Government, apart from a minor tax concession. If that is not given those areas will remain derelict. We are to have a new bridge across our river, and I understand the Minister will be announcing it shortly. This will open up the view of the rundown areas. I understand the Minister is considering the extension of these designations and concessions. The case made by Sligo Chamber of Commerce is compelling. I cannot see a flaw in the argument.

To return to my main theme, I am confident that the Minister, because of his previous history in regard to these matters, will not bow to whatever pressure commercial people bring on him, that he will insist on the establishment of a cultural complex there. Though I conceived the idea myself, I would not have the slightest objection if it were called after him. The main thing is that we get it off the ground.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Flynn)

I should like to thank Deputies who contributed to the debate. I will try to respond in a general way to the points raised. There will be ample time to debate some of the other points on the sections on Committee Stage. I will try to give a broad outline in my reply to some of the matters raised. Lest there be any doubt about the matter, I want to stress first that this is an enabling measure. The Bill does not extend the existing remit of the Custom House Dock Development Authority by even one square inch. It will enable the area to be extended by order of the Minister for the Environment, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, but with the exception of the river frontage, which I will comment on later, it is not the Government's intention to extend redevelopment work to any further areas until the redevelopment of the existing Customs House Docks site is under way.

However, there are important reasons that this Bill is appropriate and timely and why it needs to be passed as soon as possible. Most important, I am aware that potential developers who have visited the site and the surrounding areas have expressed some concern about the impact of any development of the land surrounding the site, particularly those lands to the east which comprise in the main under-utilised dockland developments. The Government are and always have been committed to the eventual redevelopment of all derelict and semiderelict sites in the docks area but it is both opportune and necessary to translate that commitment into a concrete measure. The passing of this measure will demonstrate clearly the Government's intention and will enable the Authority to allay any fears that potential development consortia may have regarding the future of the land surrounding the existing site.

Once again I emphasise that it is the Government's intention to tackle the redevelopment programme on a logical and progressive basis, beginning with the Custom House Docks site. The second major reason the Bill is needed now is to enable an immediate extension of the area in a southerly direction to take in the Customs House Quay and out to the centre of the river. This was the original boundary proposed by Fianna Fáil in 1982 but it was not the one adopted by the previous administration who, for one reason or another, seems to have lost sight of the potential benefits of the waterside nature of the site.

One of the most important objectives of the redevelopment will be to maximise the quayside and the river as an integral part of the fabric of the city and to exploit its value for the purposes of communication, recreation and amenity as a unifying link in the appearance and organisation of the city as a whole. Unless the quays and part of the river are included in the site it will not be possible for the Authority or potential developers to maximise the benefits of the river. When one considers the two large docks, St. George's and the Inner Dock, which are contained in the site, it is obvious that the river and the water and the dock basins can play a critical role in the overall development of the site. The development of the quayside has arisen in discussions between the Authority and potential developers. For that reason also it is critical that the present measure be enacted as quickly as possible.

A third reason for bringing this measure before the House at this time is the urgent need to increase the number of ordinary members of the Authority from four to seven. As I have already said, this increase is needed to broaden the range of espertise available on the Authority to include persons who have direct experience in the financing and carrying out of large scale development proposals. It should be obvious to all concerned that the redevelopment of the existing Custom House Docks site will be an enormous undertaking by any standards and in terms of cost, complexity and time-scale, will be quite unlike anything which has been seen in this city before now. Deputies will appreciate that the existing ordinary members of the Authority serve in a part time capacity and will be unable to devote all of their time to the needs of the Authority. For that reason alone an increase in the size of the membership is warranted but on top of that the importance which must now attach to the development of the international financial services centre on the site makes it imperative that the Authority has available to them appropriate expertise in that area. Furthermore, the Authority have indicated that they will expect a creative approach to both the design and the funding of the redevelopment. In that connection, it will be critical for the Authority to have as much expertise as possible to assess the proposals which will be brought forward.

What I have just said might suggest that the membership should be extended considerably beyond the proposed extra three but I believe also that the Authority will be most effective and efficient if their size is kept to the absolute minimum necessary to discharge their obligations. That is why I would not propose to appoint any more than three extra ordinary members and the total membership of the Authority, including the full time chairman, would then be eight members. I cannot emphasise enough the importance the Government attach to the redevelopment project. The Taoiseach, other Ministers and I have already devoted an enormous amount of time and effort to facilitating and helping this project. The improved range of incentives now available, the shorter time scale for the commencement of the development, which is now the aim of the Authority, and the bringing of this measure before the House are evidence of the Government's commitment.

I could spend some time detailing the many efforts and initiatives undertaken by the Government during the last few months in the interests of this project but that is not my main reason in mentioning them. What I want to emphasise is that while the Government are fully committed and will do everything in their power to advance the redevelopment work there is on the other side of the coin a need for private developers to respond in kind. I want to make it clear that the Government regard the development of the Custom House Docks as important not just in the context of Dublin but in the national context and, accordingly, I expect the community as a whole to adopt a positive and progressive attitude and to make full use of the opportunities the Government have now put before them. I do know that a number of Irish consortia have expressed an interest in the site. That is both heartening and gratifying.

Mr. Flynn

I do not share that view. I believe that the financial services centre will be so strong that it will be the attraction there initially, but it will bring so many other things with it. In the planning scheme, other developments are also expected and considered and will be regarded as an essential part of the total package. The centre is getting the most media attention at the moment, I agree, but that is only to be expected because of the great interest shown. It will be a magnificent success, the success story of the past 60 years. Obviously, that is why it is attracting attention. However, the other aspects of the development will be of considerable importance and will go to make up the total package, another good reason for the extension eastwards of the site earlier than had been anticipated by Deputy Boland and his friends. I sincerely hope that is the case. With the amount of interest being shown both here and abroad it is obvious that there will be a great need to extend the site in the not too distant future. I look forward to that and welcome it.

I reject the point made by Deputy Boland in so far as he sees some confusion in the developers' minds. The opposite is the case. The purpose of this Bill is to remove any doubts on the part of developers who are concerned about the area. The Government have indicated that additional areas will be added to and started up only when the redevelopment of the existing site is well under way. From conversations I have had with the chairman of the Authority and with some other interested parties, I found that they were unanimous in their welcome of the stated intention of the Government in the introduction of this legislation to extend the site and carry out the other functions that I have indicated. I am sorry that Deputy Boland cannot see it quite in that light but he will find outside the House that my attitude in this regard is the attitude generally of all who are interested in this development.

Deputy Gibbons welcomed the Bill very much and wanted to see a greater alliance between commercial and potential development on the site. That is good thinking and is in accordance with everything I have been saying. He is concerned about the number of gas holes in Dublin and while it has no relevance to this debate I would want it known to all and sundry that so am I and so are others who are sitting close by now. Steps are being taken to see to it that that matter is looked into as well. It is our intention, and not just intention but wish, that long before the millennium starts this matter will have been attended to.

Deputy Fitzpatrick was very supportive of the measure. He can rest assured the momentum will be kept up in so far as the development of the site is concerned. I am very aware of the dereliction, the unemployment and the need for development that exists in the inner city. It is not my intention to put any obstacles in the way of an early start-up of this development.

Deputy Gregory made an interesting contribution from many points of view but perhaps it is necessary for me to correct him on a few fundamentals in so far as his interest in this site is concerned. Quite rightly, he said he has been interested in the development of the area for some time, and his interest is well known. He is critical of the fact that the Sheriff Street community were not contacted or consulted in relation to the development nor were they invited to the launch of the planning scheme last week. It is well to remember that the Custom House Docks Development Authority issued a public invitation to all interested persons and bodies to make suggestions and submissions in relation to the redevelopment at the site area and ample opportunity was given to all and sundry to do that. Deputy Gregory might be interested to know — because obviously he is not aware of this — that submissions were received by the Authority from the North Wall Community Association, the Westland Row Community Council, the Living City Group and the Alliance for Work Forum. I take it these are bodies, associations and organisations that have a particular interest in the inner city development. They showed their interest in the development by putting it in writing.

The reception for the launch of the planning scheme took place on 4 June 1987. All elected representatives, Deputies and city councillors for the area in which the Custom House Docks site is located were invited by the Authority to attend the launch of the planning scheme. In any event, it was up to the Authority to invite whoever they wished. I am aware that the president of the North Wall Community Association was in attendance. I am not aware of any other group who were there but that association was represented. Perhaps they have not been in contact with Deputy Gregory in recent days.

Deputy Gregory referred also to the glossy planning scheme booklet in a rather disparaging way. He was best answered in that regard by Deputy Kemmy who indicated that it was the only type of publication that would have sufficed. I was surprised Deputy Gregory did not recognise and support the benefits that will obviously accrue to his constitutents as a result of this development. The Sheriff Street community do not represent any threat to me, to the development or to the Authority. I cannot imagine why Deputy Gregory went off on the tack, that we should in any way feel threatened by them. His attitude in this regard was quite extraordinary.

Some of his remarks were quite insular. One would have thought that the plight of the disadvantaged in the community in that area would have been eased and lessened by this development. I thought he would have been most supportive and welcoming of the development. There was an element of contradiction in his argument. He said the Sheriff Street flats had been provided in the early thirties for people who were working on the docks. As far as I am concerned, what is needed now are jobs to replace the lost dockside jobs and that is what will happen. Thousands of people will be employed for a number of years on the construction of this development and after that there will be thousands of jobs, a whole range of activities. I sincerely wish that many of his constitutents will get work in this development. Listening to his contribution, it ran through my mind that Deputy Gregory holds some of his constituents in very poor regard but I will not go into that any further.

The Deputy tried to suggest I was more concerned with development and investors than with his constituents. If he were here, I would have to ask him what would be the future of his beloved inner city without investors and developers? I cannot accept the threatening attitude he adopted at the end of his contribution, that if I or any of the people involved in the development attempted to do anything to upset his constituents in the Sheriff Street flats it would be resisted to the point of some kind of violent response. I feel he has got the message wrong. What he should be doing is welcoming something which is going to create a new environment in the middle of the city which will reinvigorate it and provide the jobs and the opportunities, for whatever length of time, for the people from his own community. I must say I was very disappointed.

Deputy Gregory was taken aback because he did not know anything about the working party and the various bodies involved so far as housing in the Sheriff Street area is concerned. This working party is at official level and the first meeting will take place next week. I believe there are 19 subcommittees in Dublin Corporation and perhaps Deputy Gregory is not familiar with the workings of them all. I am sure the working party will consult with all the interested parties including members of the corporation and people living in the area. I know that Deputy Gregory will not be left out of the consultations. He has always shown a very great interest in this area. I am now showing some interest in this area and I hope he will see the benefit of my interest in the near future.

Deputy Mitchell reiterated his interest in a White Paper on urban renewal. He is concerned about the decline in population of the city during the past 20 years. He may have some difficulties so far as his prognosis for the development of the inner city is concerned, that it might not go the way he would like and lead, as he said, to a crime-ridden empty shell. The reason the Fianna Fáil Government are taking on this development is to ensure that it will not end up as that kind of an area. This high level, classy development will give the extra push that is absolutely essential on the north side of the River Liffey that will bring about a new lifestyle and a new environment for the entire centre city. It will be a magnificent contribution and I hope it will eliminate the fears that have been expressed by Deputy Mitchell in that regard.

The planning scheme was welcomed by Deputy Kemmy and I thank him for that. He was concerned about the lack of housing, jobs and people but I ask him to address himself further to the scheme. It is all about jobs and people. There is a substantial element of residential development attached to the planning scheme and many people seem to have missed that point. He is concerned also that many of the existing excellent features on the site such as some of the stacks, St. George's Dock and other important features would be retained. He is not going to be disappointed in that regard.

I thank Deputy Stafford for his support for the legislation. Everybody is of the opinion that the existing beautiful buildings on the dock site which are so important from an architectural point of view should be retained. That is very well catered for in the planning scheme. It is my intention to press ahead with the idea that we should retain what is beautiful and add to it in the first phase of the development of the dock site.

I have dealt with the aspects that Deputy Nealon raised. By and large I was very pleased with the reception that this important enabling legislation received. If there are other aspects Deputies would like clarified or expanded on on Committee Stage, I would be most happy to deal with them, but before Deputy Boland puts down the amendments I would ask him to give some consideration to the explanations I have given so that it might somewhat shorten the need for Committee Stage in regard to some of the items he raised. There is nothing sinister in anything I have done. My heart is in this project. All I am interested in is seeing the development start at the earliest possible time so that we can bring some good news to the inner city. It is overdue and this Government are determined to rectify that.

Mr. Boland

I do not think it can so easily be dealt with on Committee Stage. I asked the Minister if he could explain why the provision for the extension of the area has not been provided for in the Finance Bill as the tax incentives for the area are specifically provided for in the Fiannce Act. As that involves other legislation it would not be so easy for us to deal with it on Committee Stage. I would ask the Minister to give some explanation now to this very puzzling aspect.

Mr. Flynn

The Government strategy there was deliberate. We intend to deal with the incentives on a gradual basis as and when the new areas are added on taking account of the development envisaged at any particular time. The Finance Bill contains the additional incentive of the 10 per cent corporation tax for firms trading in the international financial services sector and that is attached to the first area but no extension eastwards of the site will take place until the existing developments have already been undertaken. The Deputy supported that point of view except for the one out to the river. I intend proposing that we take in the riverside and into the middle of the river immediately because the developers have asked that that be taken in.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 10 Jun 1987

Urban Renewal (Amendment) Bill, 1987: Second Stage (Resumed).

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 10 Jun 1987