Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 19 May 1992

Vol. 419 No. 9

Private Members' Business. - Establishment of Greater Dublin Authority: Motion.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I move:

"That Dáil Éireann, mindful of the problems which have now reached acute proportions in Dublin, namely—

(1) a crime rate treble that of the rest of the country,

(2) unemployment of up to 70 per cent in certain areas,

(3) the collapse of the housing programme for 8,500 families on waiting lists and many in substandard local authority flat complexes,

(4) the continuing depopulation of its inner city areas with the dereliction and the huge adjustment problems this has caused.

(5) traffic chaos caused by a lack of coherent transport and road policy,

(6) the passive, underused and even decaying amenities of the bay, the docks, the canals, the zoo, and the assets of our heritage,

(7) the very poor level of education advancement achieved by some of its children,

(8) the lack of any proper community involvement in decision making;

calls for a complete overhaul of city government which would

(i) establish a single greater Dublin Authority to achieve coherent planning for the whole Dublin area,

(ii) confer on that Authority new executive powers over local job creation, transport, tourism and urban renewal,

(iii) confer new powers of scrutiny in relation to other Departments and Public Authorities making decisions affecting the economic and social progress of Dublin and

(iv) develop a second tier of Government with devolved responsibilities which would encourage greater community participation in decision making about their area."

This is a very important motion as regards the city and county of Dublin. Nobody could deny that Dublin City and County have very grievous problems. Because the Fine Gael Party attach so much importance to this motion we are anxious that as many of our Dublin Deputies as possible be permitted to participate in this debate. With your permission, therefore, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to share my time with Deputies Shatter, Doyle and Cosgrave.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that proposal satisfactory? Agreed.

Mr. J. Mitchell

Dublin is a city with many advantages and many problems. Some of those problems are inevitable in any city but many arise from the fact that in Dublin city and county nobody is in charge. The local authorities act in blissful disregard of each other, although nominally there is one city and county manager. The county development plan and the city development plan are not alone unco-ordinated but are, in fact, frequently in contradiction with each other. As a result, massive and numerous shopping centres have been planned and, even worse, permitted on the outskirts of the city following the sprawl of housing. That process has accentuated the decline of the city centre as a place either to live in or to shop in. In this way Dublin has become a doughnut. A doughnut city is one with a ring of development at its edge but with no heart.

The House will hear in the course of this debate a very valid account of the experiences of citizens of this city and, indeed, of their public representatives. More important, Members will hear very positive proposals to put somebody in charge of Dublin. There needs to be someone not only in charge of traditional local authority items but also in charge of many other matters such as economic and tourism development, crime prevention and transport, for which there is absolutely no central co-ordinating body at present. Despite improvements from the implementation of the provisions of the Urban Renewal Act, 1986, Dublin's inner city is still full of environmental obnoxia. There are still too many derelict sites and buildings, vacant lots, urban blight, most of which is caused by official neglect, deed or omission.

It is not an exaggeration to say that Dublin's inner city decay has arisen largely because of what could be described as official vandalism. Moreover, some of the worst planning mistakes have been perpetrated by official agencies, such as Dublin Corporation, in the case of the civic offices development at Wood Quay, and the Central Bank in Dame Street. Those planning monstrosities are minor compared with the planning mistakes made in Dublin over the past 20 years. New suburbs have sprawled across former green belts, advancing ever further into the country, indeed overflowing into the adjoining counties of Wicklow, Kildare and Meath, requiring connecting roads to the city centre, and to each other, thus creating the need for ever more journeys. We must remember that more journeys mean additional economic costs, more energy consumption and more pollution. In addition, these suburbs require new schools, churches, health centres, postoffices, Garda stations, parks, community centres and so on, while similar utilities in the city centre are under-utilised or redundant. Enormous public funds were borrowed, adding further to the national debt, to provide facilities already readily available in the inner city and inner suburbs. From every conceivable financial, planning, environmental and social consideration the unco-ordinated sprawl of Dublin city over the past 20 years has been a major mistake.

The descent into inner city decline was not merely a process of the dereliction of buildings. It was also a process of the dereliction of culture — the verve, wit and literature for which Dublin had been famous over centuries, quintessentially a tradition and product of the proximity and intimacy of people living at close quarters with each other, having been exchanged for a bland mid-Atlantic culture lived out in semi-detached suburbia, indistinguishable from suburbia in any industrial town in England, usually called a similar name.

Not all our crime wave is attributable to this cultural desert but some of it does arise from this dearth of culture. Part of the explanation for the growing crime levels in Dublin is to be found in what I might describe as the cultural subfactors, such as little sense of tradition or belonging; poor social mix; bland anonymity in over-spread-out suburbs and the alienating effect of the delapidated inner city environment.

Of course Dublin is not exempt from problems found to be unavoidable in other cities throughout the developed world, nor should we fail to recognise many improvements which have taken place in the city especially since the Urban Renewal Act, 1986 was introduced by Fine Gael. Unfortunately, progress since then has been much less than expected. Both the Dublin Transport Authority and the Metropolitan Streets Commission were abolished only weeks after Fine Gael left office in 1987, they having been part and parcel of Fine Gael's plan to transform Dublin. Fianna Fáil, and later the Progressive Democrats, not alone abolished these co-ordinating agencies but, in creating three local authorities where there had been one, have further splintered the administration and planning of Dublin, the reverse of what is required.

Fine Gael's plans for Dublin are quite different. We propose to establish one greater Dublin authority or corporation which will elect members and be presided over by the Lord Mayor. Among other things they would be responsible, first, for all traffic matters and public transport planning; second, crime prevention in liaison with the Garda and local communities; third, overall planning; fourth, all second-level education and, finally, the development of our tourist industry and economy generally.

On the initiative of Fine Gael the Dublin city development plan now contains an objective that its inner city population be doubled within the next ten years, increasing the population from 71,000 to 150,000, still less than it was 25 years ago. This goal will require the provision, on average, of an additional 2,250 dwellings per annum between the canals. This would be a prime task of our proposed greater Dublin corporation who would also discourage all further development on the outskirts of the city, thereby preventing further sprawl.

Our proposals for the re-population of the inner city take full account of the need for social mix. Between the canals I envisage the creation or re-creation of some high class residential squares and streets as well as a full price range of housing at which Government tax incentives would be targeted in order to achieve that objective. None of this will occur unless existing run-down flat complexes and housing estates are properly refurbished and, thereafter, properly managed. To this end Fine Gael propose an inner city refurbishment programme costing £10 million per annum over the next ten years.

It is worth recalling, while considering the state of our city, that no building of note or elegance has been built in Dublin since Independence. It was in the days of British rule that buildings such as the Custom House, the Bank of Ireland, the Four Courts, the GPO, King's Inns and Trinity College were built. There have been some notable restorations in recent years, such as the Royal Hospital Kilmainham, Dublin Castle and Government Buildings. However, more than mere restoration is now called for. For example, the Dublin civic offices and the Central Bank building cannot remain as the only architectural commentary of this era. We owe it to past and future generations to plan and provide new buildings of note and elegance so that each generation can leave an impressive mark on the architectural heritage of this city. For example, in France, noted for the elegance of their cities, they call such urban renewal ideas grand objectifs. Dublin needs to set and plan some grand objectives of its own. This constitutes not alone our duty to posterity but is the key to restoring the city's elegance, life and verve.

One of the main detractors from the quality of life in our inner city is its crime problem. I do not propose to comment on this at any great length, since our shadow Minister for Justice, Deputy Shatter will follow me. Suffice it to say that, so far as the citizens of this city and county are concerned, they feel officialdom has failed them in relation to crime and-or its prevention. They feel there is a great deal of complacency on the part of the Government, perhaps even a great lack of understanding in our courts of the extent to which their lives have been upset by crime and vandalism. The vast majority of people are reasonable — they do not want hairshirt or reactionary measures — but they do want effective laws and effective law enforcement. No contributor to a motion in relation to the renewal of life in Dublin, or to the renewal of Dublin city, can avoid commenting or dwelling on the overall questions of its attendant crime and vandalism.

Another matter that detracts from the quality of city life is traffic — a major problem in this city and county. As chairman of the city's traffic subcommittee I heard a submission on the part of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce to the effect that, more than taxes or any other economic consideration, what most troubles their members in Dublin is traffic congestion and delays. I was not surprised to hear this because there is nobody in charge of traffic in Dublin. There are the Departments of the Environment, Tourism, Transport and Communications and Justice, Dublin Corporation and, henceforth, three local authorities but no person in charge of traffic overall. The Garda Commissioner is in charge of traffic law enforcement, he is the traffic authority, with the local authorities responsible for the building of roads. Fine Gael propose, as part of a new greater Dublin corporation, the reinstatement of the Dublin Transport Authority unwisely abolished by the present Government on their election in 1987. Fine Gael propose that that authority have all the necessary powers in relation to traffic management and control, expenditure, enforcement, in addition to a key role in the planning of public transport facilities.

I am sorry we do not have time for a longer debate on this issue which is very important not just to Dublin city and county but to all Irish men and women. All citizens want to be proud of their capital city. I hope this debate will spark off some new thinking and, more importantly, some new action which will help restore to this city not only the environment but also the culture, wit and quality of life of the decades and centuries gone by.

Mr. Shatter

There has been a nationwide rise in crime. Last year there was an 8 per cent increase in crime and it is estimated by the Garda that there will also be an increase of 8 per cent this year. The Dublin crime rate is treble that of the rest of the country. There is a continuing growth in crime throughout Dublin. A number of recent horrific incidents illustrate the problems with which we are confronted. For example, on Sunday evening last in Inchicore a 22 year old man was attacked by two men who slashed him across the chest and arms with a carving knife. They then poured petrol over him and threatened to set him on fire unless he handed over his money. The man, who lives locally, handed over his wallet containing £80. This barbaric and horrific attack illustrates the level to which crime has sunk in our capital city.

In Dublin there are approximately 1,400 burglaries every month, that is 50 for every day of the year; 1,000 cars are broken into every month, that is, 32 cars a day and approximately 700 cars are taken every month for so-called joyriding, that is 23 cars every day.

We have within our communities too many victims of burglaries, robberies, muggings and assaults. There are streets within the city and county in which people are afraid to walk on their own at night for fear of attack. In some parts of Dublin elderly people living alone are fearful of answering their doors, not only at night time but during the day also. Both the young and the elderly are frequently harassed and intimidated by gangs of youths using abusive language and who are under the influence of alcohol.

We have too much talk from the Government about the problem and too little action. We are told that the Minister for Justice has been taking public relations advice from Terry Prone on how to handle the media and portray a caring image. We say to the Minister for Justice that he should stop the public relations gimmickry and get on with the job — less Prone talk and more action is what is required.

Fine Gael want a crime action plan to be implemented. The crime wave in Dublin must be urgently tackled not only for the sake of all of those who live in Dublin and visit Dublin, but also to safeguard our tourist industry. A crime action plan should contain a large number of measures, including the following: a substantial increase in community policing; the enactment of new laws making it an offence to intimidate and harass other persons or to behave in a manner that is threatening or abusive or which causes fear; the enactment of new laws to confiscate the proceeds of crime and to update financial penalties that can be imposed; the holding of a Constitutional referendum to extend power to the courts to refuse bail in circumstances where a court is satisfied that there is a substantial risk that if a person awaiting trial were to be released on bail further offences would be committed; increased use of community service orders; further expansion of the juvenile liaison scheme; the establishment of a drugs action force to counteract the growing problem in Dublin of drugs being made available to children in schools and clubs and to remove from our streets the evil purveyors of drugs; the enactment of a new juvenile justice Bill to replace the outdated Children's Act of 1908; an end to overcrowding in prisons and the provision of additional custodial accommodation for both adults and juveniles and the immediate bringing into force of the Criminal Law (Forensic Evidence) Act passed by the Dáil in 1990 so that the Garda can use the technique of genetic fingerprinting to identify the perpetrators of crimes of violence, rape and sexual assault.

The Government's failure to implement the 1990 Act is tantamount to criminal neglect. It is reasonable to speculate that if this act had been in force last summer when the horrific murder of a German tourist took place in the Phoenix Park, the technique of genetic fingerprinting could have been used to successfully identify all of those guilty of this murder. In such circumstances, different verdicts from the verdicts brought in by the court in recent days might have been secured.

The current overcrowding in our prisons ensures that where a sentence of imprisonment is carried out, it provides a training in crime and adds to community alienation instead of providing a real deterrent and a mechanism for reintegrating prisoners into our society when they have finished their terms of imprisonment. The overcrowding has also resulted in many adults and juveniles not fully serving sentences of imprisonment and detention and being released into the community believing themselves immune from legal sanction if they continue a life of crime. The so-called revolving-door syndrome is undermining the morale of the Garda who find that too many of those they arrest and bring before the courts are released unsupervised back into the community because there is nowhere to send them. Many of those who are released feel free to commit further crimes and regard themselves as virtually immune from the law.

The people of Dublin are entitled to feel safe on their own streets at night and to feel that their children can freely play within their housing estates without being intimidated and attacked. Elderly people are entitled to feel safe in their homes at night. At present far too many do not.

This is a complacent Government, content to engage in public relations exercises while doing nothing meaningful to tackle the growth of crime in Dublin. The Garda are aware of the problem. They suffer a deep frustration. The Government's failure to provide the Garda with the resources and manpower they require and with a modern code of criminal law means that the Garda have to fight against crime with one arm tied behind their backs. The Government's failure to provide necessary custodial places and detention centres is seriously undermining Garda morale, as it is widely known that even if persons guilty of offences are caught and sentenced they are unlikely to serve their full sentences. Far too often what appears to be a Garda success is undermined by a failure of political commitment.

Seven years ago the Law Reform Commission published comprehensive recommendations for a new Dublin Police Act to reform the outdated legislation of 1842, which is still in force. Nothing has been done to implement the commission's recommendations. The Garda have to resort to using this grossly defective and outdated legislation far too frequently. It contains some interesting provisions.

What relevance to the problems of Dublin has an Act which requires "drivers of carriages and riders of horses to keep to the left when passing oncoming traffic"? What relevance to the problems of Dublin has an Act which makes it an offence for a person to burn, dress or cleanse any cask or tub on the street? What relevance to the problems of Dublin has an Act which makes it an offence "to empty any privy between the hours of 6 o'clock in the morning and 12 at night"? What relevance to the problems of Dublin is a law which prohibits "the beating or shaking in any thoroughfare of any carpet, rug or mat (except door mats) before the hour of 8 o'clock in the morning"?

Finally, it must be asked, what relevance to the problems of Dublin is an Act which makes it an offence to "keep any pig sty to the front of any street or road in any town within the Dublin Metropolitan District"? This Act was originally designed to give specific powers to the police, now the Garda, to address the problems of crime in Dublin. It is crying out for reform. The people of Dublin are crying out for reform and action. Perhaps the rural roots of the seanachaí of Castlebar, the present Minister for Justice has a deep affection for some of these provisions which are acting as an obstacle to reforming the Dublin Police Act.

Mr. Doyle

For many years the greater Dublin area was regarded as the most prosperous in Ireland. During the four decades after Independence it faired particularly well in the area of manufacturing and service-type industries. However, its dominant position was seriously eroded during the past two decades. During the eighties the net job losses in Dublin accelerated and indigenous industries recorded a loss of 17,000 jobs while foreign owned industries lost 5,000 jobs. Since our entry to the EC in 1973 Irish and foreign owned industries in the Dublin area have lost over 25,000 jobs. The increasing competitive environment in the EC and the changing demand for older, industrial products placed traditional firms in a difficult position, with many of them contracting out some of their activities, or closing down. The most significant losses occurred in the food, drink, tobacco, textile and clothing industries. Almost every sector of indigenous industry was adversely affected.

Dublin's legacy of a high proportion of such traditional declining industries represents a distinctive disadvantage. At the same time many new emerging firms have tended to locate away from the east coast due to incentives to do so. These incentives have been offered by succesive Governments. This movement has resulted in a high proportion of growing industries locating outside the Dublin area. This was based on Government policy and on the premise that Dublin could look after itself. Unfortunately, this is no longer true, with 29 per cent of the population Dublin has 31 per cent of the national labour force and has 33 per cent of national unemployment.

A unique concentration of the nation's problems in its capital city brings with it a depressing effect, both socially and commercially. More than 18 per cent of the available labour force are unemployed. On top of that more than 40,000 who would otherwise be part of the labour force have emigrated from the capital since 1981. The problem is so severe that a five to seven year prospectus is needed to create a reasonable prospect of dealing with it. By 1996 the labour force will have grown by 60,000. If no new jobs are created the total unemployment in Dublin will be well over 108,000.

It would be most unrealistic at this stage to contemplate zero unemployment by the year 1996. A very challenging target would be the creation of 53,000 jobs, thus leaving 11 per cent of the labour force unemployed as against the present 18 per cent. Since 1985 only 3,000 net new jobs were created in the capital, or 750 a year. To achieve the target which I have set out of 53,000 net new jobs by 1996 the job creation rate would have to be stepped up from 750 a year to about 7,500 a year.

As outlined in the Fine Gael Document, The Jobs Economy, one of the quickest ways of providing jobs in a capital city such as Dublin is in the service industries, the tourist industry being the principal one. Tourism must be vigorously promoted making use of Dublin's all-year-round attractions. Above all, we need a national convention centre to handle international conventions of over 2,000 people. This would have a galvanising effect on tourism development.

Birmingham has had such an investment. Like other cities which fought their way back to economic growth through tourism it is finding that the convention centre is its core investment. It has 22 hotels and an airport, with retail development totalling £2.5 million of new investment. Tourism-related jobs in Birmingham have increased from 10,000 in 1975 to 70,000 in 1985 and 90,000 in 1990. The conference centre is expected to lead to the creation of 12,000 to 15,000 jobs in the next two years. Before the initiative for a convention centre was taken at Birmingham the city was a drab, run-down city, but today it is commercially alive and very attractive to tourists. Dublin, if it had a convention centre, would have a better starting point than Birmingham. It is something that I have asked for and promoted for many years. Indeed, the previous Taoiseach was aware of the value of a convention centre for Dublin and set up an inter-departmental committee to examine the feasibility of establishing a convention centre at the rear of the old UCD building in Earlsfort Terrace. Perhaps the Minister for the Environment would state what progress that inter-departmental committee have made in relation to a convention centre for Dublin.

I now wish to say a few words about the conservation and preservation of our city. Much has been written in recent times about the disintegration of our capital city, but few solutions have been found to arrest the problem. The architectural character of Dublin is essentially constituted by three elements. First, there are a number of buildings of international architectural importance. Second, there are extensive areas of Georgian architecture, north and south of the river Liffey, complemented by open-spaced and wide street layouts. Third, in suburban areas there are extensive residential areas of mainly Victorian character. Each of these categories which constitutes the essential character of Dublin that has suffered through neglect over the past decades, but of all of these the most seriously affected area is the north Georgian city.

The north Georgian city is confronted by two serious and related problems. The first is a visible physical one relating to the deterioration of the physical fabric through age and neglect. The second problem is an economic one which results from a historical lack of demand for space in these buildings, a deficiency which has contributed substantially to its physical decay. The reversal of this decay in a market-led urban economy is dependent on the creation of concessions which will permit or encourage the generation of demand sufficient to underwrite the continued maintenance and upkeep of historic buildings.

Deputy Mitchell mentioned the Urban Renewal Act of 1986 which has encouraged a number of new developments in and around the Liffey quays, particularly in the vicinity of Christ Church Cathedral. However, the financial incentives available in designated areas are heavily biased towards new development, thus ignoring the declining stock of historic buildings. As we look at Dublin today one has to accept that Dublin Corporation, through their mechanism of the development plan and zoning and listing procedures, have failed to arrest the neglect and deterioration of buildings in the inner city. The conservation and preservation of Dublin is almost outside the scope of Dublin corporation unless they get substantial financial assistance from central Government. Legislation would also be required which would give greater powers to local authorities such as Dublin Corporation to prevent the neglect of buildings.

Financial assistance could be made under two headings. The 1986 Urban Renewal Act incentives could provide a model. They are at least indicative of the Government's willingness to forgo taxation in the field of urban renewal. The scheme should be extended and a new package of incentives should be specially geared towards conservation as the overwhelming need is to secure the physical fabric of the city.

The north Georgian city area needs special attention. An urban development authority modeled on the London Docklands Development Corporation, and the Custom House Docks Authority should be established. This authority should have special responsibility for the area, and special funding would cover the acquisition of derelict sites, the repair of buildings and the environmental and infrastructural works. In order to finance such an authority central Government would have to be prepared to grant £100 million over a period of ten years. This sum is not extraordinarily high in view of the fact that the Government have already spent over £60 million — money which was well spent — of taxpayers' money on refurbishment of the Royal Hospital, Kilmainham, Dublin Castle and Government Buildings.

I raise these issues because conservation and preservation have two main beneficiaries, namely, tourism and employment. Tourists are attracted in growing numbers to medieval cities. Up to 1967 York was bypassed as a tourist centre, but due to its promotion as a medieval city it is now a major tourist attraction. The same applied to Edinburgh and, to a lesser extent, to Glasgow. Dublin will benefit in the same way as these cities have in the past if the necessary steps are taken to refurbish and preserve the city. If not, Dublin will have nothing to offer tourists in 20 years' time.

Dr. Lee

At the outset I congratulate Deputy Mitchell for his foresight in putting this composite motion before the House. Because of the time restraints and as I am Fine Gael's spokesperson on crime prevention, I shall confine my remarks solely to the crime rate in Dublin, which is three times greater than in the rest of the country.

During March and April 1992 I carried out a crime survey in my new Dáil constituency of Dublin North Central, a constituency which covers the North Strand, Ballybough, Croke Park, Fairview, Marino, Clontarf, Killester, Beaumont, Artane, Donnycarney and Coolock. We issued 25,000 questionnaires to constituents in a constituency which spans all levels of society. Fifty per cent of the people said that the neighbourhood watch scheme is not working properly. Fifty-six per cent said that a business watch scheme is necessary. Eighty four per cent of citizens say that there is not a visible presence of gardaí on the street, day and night. Eighty four per cent do not feel safe inside or outside their homes day or night. Eighty five per cent maintain that we should have a national crime prevention week. Eighty six per cent maintain that we should have more plain clothes crime prevention units in operation on our streets. Eighty seven per cent of the citizens of Dublin want a charter for the victims of crime. Eighty eight per cent of the people of this city want bail to be restricted for habitual criminals. Eighty eight per cent, almost nine out of ten people, want more detention centres for young offenders. Ninety-six per cent of our citizens in Dublin want assets that are acquired criminally to be confiscated. This comprenhensive sample of people, taken from all strata of society, confirms my deep felt belief that crime is endemic in this city and that successive Ministers for Justice of the present Government have shown a frightening lack of understanding of the serious problems we Dubliners face daily as we go about our business. It is unforgiveable.

Indeed, the present Minister for Justice speaks in vague generalities and with a hyped up PR machine behind him. He must think that the people of this city are fools. I would remind him that we are not, and that we are entitled to feel safe. We have a constitutional right to be safe in our homes. The recent withdrawal of 50 uniformed gardaí from the streets of Dublin for Border protection duty is a slap in the face to the citizens of this city. This action is totally unacceptable. It is a charter for criminals and it will further undermine the confidence of the citizens of Dublin in the beleagured Garda force.

Coming on the heels of that are charges of contempt by the Minister for Justice for the Garda Representative Association at their annual conference last month. In yesterday's Irish Independent the Garda Sergeants and Inspectors Association described the Minister's appearance in Wexford and his address to the conference as being unsatisfactory and the association have called for a special debate at their next meeting on the Minister's address. That is unheard of in the history of this State. The sum total of all the Minister's actions is a body blow to the morale of our grossly understaffed Garda force, as is the Minister's pathetic attempt to pick up a few brownie points for himself by promising a determined co-ordinated onslaught on white-collar crime while denuding the streets of Dublin of gardaí. To make the citizens of this city feel safe, I call on the Minister for Justice and the Government to provide immediately for a more visible presence of gardaí on the streets of Dublin, day and night, for assets acquired criminally to be confiscated, for more detention centres for young offenders, for bail to be restricted for habitual offenders and for more plain clothes Garda crime prevention units to be introduced on a permanent basis, especially with the tourist season coming.

I also urge the Minister to have another look at the neighbourhood watch scheme and to streamline it in view of the results of the survey which showed that 50 per cent of the population of Dublin North Central do not think it works properly. I also call for the introduction of an annual national crime prevention week and I call on the Minister to encourage the business watch scheme to be embraced more widely by the business community.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Smith)

I have read this motion a number of times to try to make out what it means. It talks of the establishment of a "Single Greater Dublin Authority" and also about developing a "second tier of Government", presumably below the authority. What seems to be envisaged is one giant authority with numerous off-shoots. What is to be the size of this giant which, under the terms of the motion, is to have executive powers and to relate to "the whole Dublin area"? From its very name, it seems that it would be greater than Dublin, but how much greater? Would the Greater Dublin authority include parts of Wicklow, or Kildare, or Meath? Are some of these to be annexed to Dublin? Unfortunately, hastily conceived and ill-thought out proposals find no need to address such basic questions. This is a refuelled Fine Gael juggernaut careeing downhill with no steering wheel, no brakes and no goods, but with plenty of easy options.

Fine Gael produced a document in 1990 which advocated 16 lower level bodies in Dublin. Are we to take it, therefore, that what is now proposed is a Greater Dublin Authority with 16 new second tier authorities? Up to now Fine Gael have supported the establishment of three new county councils in Dublin, in place——

Mr. G. Mitchell

We did not.

Mr. Smith

——of the existing county council and Dún Laoghaire Corporation. I presume they still do. What of Dublin Corporation? Is it to be abolished or to remain?

Unless we wipe out the corporation and the county council, what would now appear to be on offer is a Greater Dublin authority of indeterminate size, a Dublin City authority, the three new County Councils and a whole family of 16 entirely new local authorities. It is fairly evident that not much thought or serious consideration has been given to the question of local government in Dublin by the proposers of this motion. Of course, like the proposers of the motion, we can all agree that crime is bad; that unemployment is far too high; that education, housing and transport should be improved — but we are taking concrete steps to tackle these matters. On this side, we do not believe in jotting down the first ideas that come to mind and presenting them as a solution to real problems.

Let me take a brief look at the recent background to local government reorganisation in Dublin. In 1985, the Fine Gael-Labour Government proposed to establish three new county councils in place of Dublin County Council and Dún Laoghaire Corporation. What was done? Lines were drawn on a map and what were called "electoral counties" were conjured up. What practical result has been achieved by 1987 when that Government went out of office? Nothing, beyond lines on a map, and an increase in the membership of Dublin County Council from 36 to 78, which made the operation of the council unwieldy. The existing county council continued to operate with 78 members and the promised three new county councils were not established.

In 1989, we proposed the establishment of an all-party Oireachtas committee to look at the question of local government funding, functions and structures.

Mr. Doyle

Not funding.

Mr. Smith

Fine Gael refused to participate — not a very good indicator or a real commitment to the local government system. In more recent times we have again seen a refusal to participate in an all-party committee focused on the economic and social well-being of this country by the same party which regularly advocates a far more developed parliamentary committee system.

Faced with the refusal of Fine Gael to participate in an all-party committee on local government reform, the Government determined to press ahead with developing reform proposals through alternative mechanisms. An advisory expert committee was appointed and completed their report at the end of 1990. In March 1991 proposals for the reform of local government were published by Government. For the Dublin area, the three county councils and existing city structure proposed by the advisory expert committee was accepted, and the Local Government Act, 1991, allowed the 1991 local elections to be held on this basis.

The provisions of the 1991 Act, dealing with reorganisation in Dublin, are entirely different from what was attempted in 1985. The 1991 Act has put in motion a process leading towards the establishment of the three new county councils. It sets out a framework within which the preparations for, and the transition towards their establishment can take place. This involved the establishment of three area committes by Dublin County Council, the appointment of three area managers and the preparation of a reorganisation report jointly by the area managers in consultation with their area committees and the Dublin City and County Manager.

What has happened? The reorganisation process is well under way. Pursuant to the Act, a special competition was held by the Local Appointments Commission and three area managers were recruited and took up office last September. Also in accordance with the Act, three area committees Fingal, South Dublin and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown were established in February this year by Dublin County Council and are operating with delegated functions. These are the forerunners of the new county councils.

The next important step is for the three area managers, in consultation with the area committees to prepare the reorganisation report and this work is in hands. Under the Act, this report will outline the detailed arrangements necessary for the creation of three new administrative counties, the establishment of new county councils in place of the area committees and the abolition of Dublin County Council and Dún Laoghaire Corporation. The report must deal with the various relevant matters including the allocation of assets and liabilities; property; staff; financial transfers etc. and the question of the co-ordination and joint provision of services between the three new counties and the city.

The many issues which arise will be considered in the light of the proposals in the reorganisation report. In this way, the 1991 Act leaves it to the local authorities in the first instance to develop proposals for detailed working arrangements. As a firm believer in local democracy, I consider this is the first correct approach — and it is the only practical approach in a complex matter like this. The report will provide a full analysis of the situation and until I receive and study it, I will not rule out any particular arrangement for co-ordination or for any other purpose. It may be that special measures will be required in relation to certain aspects of local authority operations in Dublin to ensure essential co-ordination. I have an open mind on this at this stage. But I will not rush forward headlong with ill-thought-out ideas, with no regard to need, cost, performance or viability. I will address the issues in the light of a proper analysis, be it in relation to the operation of the new local authorities in Dublin or as regards transportation in Dublin and surrounding areas to which I will refer later.

I have gone into some detail to explain the whole Dublin reorganisation process which has been put in place. It is complicated because complex matters are involved. But action is under way, properly throught out and planned. That is the general approach of this Government. The top-of-the-head approach adopted in 1985 meant that nothing happened.

Proposals for the establishment of regional authorities as recommended by the advisory expert committee will be finalised very shortly. These will address the need to place Dublin within a proper regional framework for strategic planning and for the co-ordination of public services. The Government fully recognise the importance of this kind of co-ordination but we do not propose to approach the question in a heavyhanded, top down bureaucratic sort of way. That is, I fear, what would result from the creation of the sort of super-authority advocated in this motion.

Instead, we are addressing the need for co-ordination through a system which will be both flexible and comprehensive and which will not only be effective but also democratic. Above all, we are determined to achieve a proper balance between the need to maximise operational efficiency while ensuring that the democratic representational quality of local government is enhanced to the fullest possible extent.

I believe that the role of the regional authority could be of particular value in the Dublin area. Because of its broadly-based co-ordinating role, the regional authority would be in a position to achieve results without conflict. It would not lead to the confusion as to the roles of existing authorities which would be an inevitable result of the sort of Greater Dublin authority which is proposed in this motion. The regional authority could play an especially important role in bringing together the various local authorities so as to provide a forum in which the necessary level of broad strategic co-ordination could be achieved and to provide the necessary backdrop against which the plans and services of the individual authorities could be better developed.

Mr. Doyle

The Minister did not say a word about funding.

Mr. Smith

To move now from the question of local government reform, I will outline some of the practical and realistic steps being taken by this Government to come to grips with issues referred to in the motion. It goes without saying, of course, that I reject the exaggeration, embellishment and overstatement in the language of the motion generally, but time does not permit me to deal separately with each issue.

The problem of urban decline is being tackled with imagination and vigour in Dublin and I am delighted that the debate on this motion affords me the opportunity to put some of the facts on the record. The urban renewal scheme, in recent years, is generating a self-sustaining and dynamic process of renewal in areas that previously appeared to be devoid of any development potential. It is directly responsible in Dublin alone for projects with an estimated value in excess of £100 million which have either been completed or are in progress, with a further £165 million worth of schemes in planning. This is in addition to the Custom House Docks development valued at some £400 million.

The success of the scheme in Dublin has been nothing short of spectacular. For example, between 1975 and 1986 Dublin Corporation did not receive one planning application for development or redevelopment along the quays. This has all changed now.

Mr. Doyle

Not until Deputy Bruton's Urban Renewal Act of 1986.

Mr. J. Mitchell

It was Deputy John Bruton's Act.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We all have to act in accordance with Standing Orders. Deputy Mitchell will have the opportunity of replying to the debate.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I look forward to that.

Mr. Smith

I am quite happy to acknowledge that it was the Labour-Fine Gael Coalition who put that Act on the Statute book, but it took the confidence generated by the next Government in 1987 for the public and the business community to acknowledge the incentives.

Mr. Doyle

There were applications before that.

Mr. Smith

To claim that the inner city areas of the city continue to be "depopulated" is to ignore the new private residential developments taking place in designated areas along the quays, in High Street, in Parliament Street, and in Bolton Street, with further developments planned for Ellis Quay, Gardiner Street and Patrick Street, to name but a few. Such has been the demand for good quality housing in central locations that the spin-off into adjacent non-designated areas is proof that people's perception about living in the city has changed. Dublin city is once again becoming a vibrant living city in which people not only work but also live and spend their leisure time.

The inner city is, of course, the location for many of the old schemes of local authority houses and flats, some of which were in need of major refurbishment and renewal which could not be financed in the ordinary way by the corporation. To meet this need, over £25 million in grants has been allocated to the corporation since 1987, with the annual figure increasing from £1.25 million in 1987, with the annual figure increasing from £1.25 million in 1987 to £6.3 million this year. The eight estates to which the local authority attach the highest priority have been designated for funding under the remedial works scheme and the results being achieved are quite dramatic. Under the new bathrooms sub-programme, an additional £1.55 million has been allocated to the corporation in 1991 and 1992 to allow these basic facilities to be installed in some 400 dwellings. All of this expenditure is contributing in no small way to the maintenance of stable communities, in comfortable living conditions, in the inner city. We intend to continue to go down that road.

The renewal and development of the Temple Bar area is set to become one of the most significant developments in Dublin in many years. The objective is to build on what has been taking place spontaneously in the area and to create a living, bustling cultural and tourist quarter which will attract a significant number of visitors with a variety of restaurants, speciality shops, galleries and theatres. It is also the objective of the Government to promote the provision of significant residential accommodation for students and others who wish to live in the Temple bar area.

The largest and most ambitious single development project being undertaken in the city is, of course, the Custom House Docks development. This development, housing the International Financial Services Centre, is now becoming a reality and is tangible proof that with commitment and co-operation this Government are succeeding in promoting the transformation of formerly obsolete blotches on our cityscape.

The urban renewal scheme is, of course, based on private sector investment which is being attracted to the designated areas by the generous taxation and other incentives which are available. The Government have been contributing directly in various other ways to the improvement of the amenities of the city and to the preservation of its cultural and architectural heritage. Examples of major projects completed in recent years include the restoration of the Royal Hospital Kilmainham where a thriving museum of modern art has now been established, the restoration of the Custom House, the refurbishment of Government buildings, the works carried out at the Casino in Marino and at the Memorial Garden in Islandbridge, the ongoing improvement and restoration works at the Phoenix Park, and many others. All of these projects enhance the amenity and environment of Dublin, both for its own citizens and for visitors.

Urban renewal must, of course, be complemented by effective action by local authorities against dereliction and that is why a considerably enhanced framework for such action was established under the Derelict Sites Act, 1990. An important feature of this legislation is that local authorities are now empowered to take action against threatened as well as actual dereliction. The Act also provided for the imposition of a levy on certain derelict sites in urban areas and this is showing itself to be a very real deterrent to leaving property in a derelict state.

Mr. Doyle

There are some interesting names on that list.

Mr. Smith

All the indications are that the Act is operating effectively and that the Dublin authorities are making active use of its provisions in their efforts to combat dereliction. In fact, 103 sites have been entered in the derelict sites registers in Dublin, with 23 subsequently being removed as remedial works were carried out to render them non-derelict. I will continue to urge the Dublin authorities to use the derelict sites legislation in harmony with the provisions of the urban renewal scheme to ensure the attainment of the greatest possible improvement in the condition of the urban environment.

The motion under discussion speaks of a high crime rate in Dublin. Crime is an inescapable aspect of today's modern society, particularly in large urban centres. Indeed, the experience in this regard in many western countries, which are much better placed than Ireland in terms of resources, is far worse than ours. Tackling the crime problem is one of the Government's priorities. This is being given effect through vitally important measures such as neighbourhood watch, the development of Garda community policing arrangements, the Garda schools programme, the juvenile liaison by the Garda on practical measures to deal with crime problems experienced in urban areas.

However, it is clear that crime cannot be dealt with by law enforcement alone — the problem requires a multi-disciplinary approach which takes into account the underlying problems of particular urban areaa. An inter-departmental group on urban crime has been engaged in an examination of the situation in urban areas that are particularly hard hit by criminal activity and its first report is expected shortly by the Minister for Justice. This will provide a basis for action by the various agencies concerned.

The motion also speaks of transport and roads policy which is another of the areas where this Government are taking practical measures to effect real improvements. Over the past five years, we have spent approximately £130 million on major road improvement schemes around the periphery of Dublin, designed to improve traffic flow and to eliminate heavy commercial traffic from residential and other areas. Examples of these include the Shankill by-pass, the Western Parkway, the Blanchardstown by-pass and the Chapelizod by-pass. We are committed to further heavy expenditure on other major schemes of a similar nature over the coming years, particularly in completing the northern and southern sections of the ring road.

We are now adopting a new and radical approach to dealing with Dublin's wider transportation problems. Last year, a baseline study was undertaken which reviewed previous transportation studies, assessed the transportation situation since 1971, and carried out a programme of public consultation — all of which provided an input to the recommended terms of reference for Phase II of the study. This phase has now begun and is known as the Dublin Transportation Initiative. I attach particular importance to the fact that this is an integrated initiative. It deals with all transport modes — walking, cycling, road, rail and bus — and also looks at how we can make optimum use of our existing transport infrastructure and facilities in Dublin. It is also integrated in the sense that it looks at the interaction between transportation and other policies, such as land use, economic development and the environment.

I also want to emphasise that DTI is adopting an open approach involving a two-way consultative process with the general public, institutions and interest groups. It seeks to establish a "vision of Dublin"— a consensus view of the type of city in which people wish to live, work and enjoy their leisure time and aims to develop a transport strategy and programme which will build on that vision. There is significant public consultation, not only the usual discussions with institutions and interest groups, but market research and community meetings to establish the views of the wider general public. There is also an emphasis on public participation at an early stage, while all options are still genuinely open, and again at a later stage as strategies and plans are developed and refined.

I look forward to the wholehearted support of all parties in this House for this bold new initiative, which will, in my view, provide the basis for giving Dublin a transportation system suitable to its status as a major European capital city and which addresses the real needs of the people who live and work in the metropolitan area. More importantly, it will provide a strategy in which Dubliners will have a very real sense of ownership, since it will have been developed with their full and effective participation.

An interim report from the initiative is expected in September and a final report is planned for April 1993. This is a tight timetable for such a major body of work, but, that said, it does not mean that nothing will happen in the short term to alleviate Dublin's transport problems. A number of steps have already been taken. A computerised traffic control system has been installed in part of the city centre, with financial support to Dublin Corporation from my Department. Known as SCATS, it adjusts to real traffic conditions rather than to pre-programmed historical traffic patterns. The Garda have increased their enforcement of road traffic law, most notably by the use of new tow trucks which have been very effective in tackling illegal parking.

I have notified Dublin Corporation of my approval of their proposals for the spending of £3 million of accumulated capital receipts from parking charges. This money will be used to fund the following measures: the implementation of a further phase of the SCATS programme; the introduction of traffic calming measures in both the cabra and Crumlin areas; the provision of cycle facilities and the carrying out of a series of minor road improvement schemes.

I am satisfied that these measures will have a positive impact on the safety and convenience of road users and will benefit the environment in the city. The extension of the SCATS programme will have a significant positive impact on traffic flows while the introduction of traffic calming measures in both the Cabra and areas, will reduce unnecessary traffic intrusion and should result in a much safer local environment, especially for children.

I have asked Dublin Corporation to consider earmarking future parking fees income to provide on-street or off-street parking facilities for both heavy goods vehicles, buses and coaches. This would help solve two problems — the intrusion caused by the parking of heavy goods vehicles in residential areas and the adverse impact on traffic flows and on amenity generally of bus and coach parking in busy city centre streets.

The House has had the opportunity in the last six months, in dealing with my Department's extensive legislative programme, to debate issues relating to roads, planning, the environment and, most recently, housing in the Dublin area. With the pressure of time, I refrain therefore from covering again ground that has been well-trodden during these debates. But I am entitled to point to the scale and depth of that legislative programme as evidence of our commitment to working on a broad front to improve the living and working environment in Dublin, as in other areas, and to equipping our local authorities and other public authorities with the powers they need to respond to the problems of the day.

All of what I have been speaking of relates to action: action to ensure adequate analysis, to formulate appropriate proposals and to implement them. That is the general thrust of this Government's policies and actions, not to promulgate panaceas for all our ills on half a page but to face difficult issues and to produce and implement practical measures to address them. It is on this basis that our programme of local government reform is proceeding. In this way it will succeed. The needs of the Dublin area are being addressed on the basis of a coherent strategy in the local government context: by realistic practical measures in the case of dereliction, urban renewal, transport and crime prevention. Dublin's needs will not be met by what seems to be another of Fine Gael's instant plans for all seasons but by action on the basis of a well-founded programme of realistic measures which can and will be implemented.

Before concluding, I should say there are other major problems with regard to the concept of major bureaucratic institution being seen as the be all and end all of solving Dublin's problems. I am not here tonight to say we do not still have on our desk major tasks and major problems to overcome. I do not stand here tonight to say I have all the answers. I would have very much liked, in the context of a motion such as this, that Fine Gael would have addressed the real issues, would have dealt with the question of financial resources and not the rather loose mention of proposals and strategies which do not have a coherent plan for financial resource management and for the development of this city as a whole.

If the concept of a greater Dublin is the answer to all these problems then the logical result is that we should have one Department to serve the whole of Ireland. All the emphasis in modern thinking has been to devolve authority, to release new energies on the ground in local democracy and local participation——

Mr. J. Mitchell

Give us one indication of what you have done in that respect.

Mr. Smith

——to focus real attention on individual groups with special expertise to solve their particular problems in their own way. I look forward even at this late stage to the rest of the debate to hear from Fine Gael how they intend to implement this greater Dublin authority. I will listen with particular interest to the question of how the additional resources are to be found for crime, housing and all these areas where we are stretched and are anxious——

Mr. Doyle

There is nothing about unemployment.

Mr. Smith

We will deal with these issues in the course of the debate. My time is limited but they will be specifically dealt with tomorrow night.

Mr. J. Mitchell

By a backbench committee.

Mr. Smith

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"—mindful of the action which has already been taken by the Government to initiate comprehensive reorganisation and reform of the local government system in the Dublin area;

—noting the emphasis on sustained economic growth, increased employment and social advancement in the Government's Programme for Economic and Social Progress;

—and welcoming its specific programmes in relation to areas such as urban renewal, housing and transportation.

calls on the Government to continue its balanced, integrated approach to securing the future economic and social development of the Dublin area".

Mr. Taylor

I seek the agreement of the House to share my time with Deputy Ryan tomorrow evening.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Taylor

The Minister was talking in the latter unscripted section of his speech about the need for groups of experts to advance the needs of Dublin. I would like to remind him of that well known group of experts, namely the Dublin county council from his own party who, over the last decade or so, carried out a rezoning programme throughout County Dublin with tremendous skill where it was not required and set about making very substantial profits for backers of the Fianna Fáil Party and, let me say, with the aid and assistance of some — though not all — Fine Gael councillors on those same councils over the last decade.

The depredations of those experts and that expertise have wrecked havoc with the development of Dublin county and left an unfortunate legacy. There has been some turnabout in the Fianna Fáil group of experts in recent times but they are not totally converted as yet. The Minister ought to take a look at the record over the years and see the relentless, consistent motions proposed to rezone greenland areas — doing away with green space — and even amenity lands. Everything was fair game to those notorious rezoners. As a wag put it, they would have rezoned their own grandmother's back bedroom if there was money in it for some of the party's backers. That has been the sad saga over many years until now.

We in the Labour Party welcome this motion as a timely opportunity to debate the problems and needs of the capital city of Ireland and of County Dublin. At the conclusion of the debate we will be supporting this motion. I would, however, make one general point of criticism of the motion in that it makes no reference whatsoever to the resources that are necessary if any of the fine aspirations contained in the motion are to be realised. To that extent the motion is unreal. We have to begin by facing the reality that Dublin cannot be revitalised to the extent necessary without a detailed consideration of resources. It ill becomes the Minister to make that point because he represents the Government and it is their responsibility to ensure that the necessary resources are provided to carry out essential improvements to the infrastructure in Dublin.

I do not advocate the position that we should simply throw money at the problems but it is impossible to build houses without money, to address educational inequality without money and impossible to create viable, sustainable jobs without investment. The Minister made the point that much high quality housing has been provided through section 23 and section 29 schemes and so on, and there is an element of truth in that. The crying need in this city and county of Dublin is not so much for high priced housing, which was never a problem and could always be obtained, but for dealing with those local authority housing lists which are getting longer by the day and causing such misery and such problems for so many of the Dublin families and so many of the young people.

However, we should enter this debate and recognise that Dublin is and remains a great European city, a proud place in which to live and a good place in which to raise a family. With all its problems Dublin is a community that is capable of fighting back and of retaining the pride and spirit of a great community.

Having said that, it is undeniable that Dublin needs to be revitalised. Quality public services, quality public transport and a living inner city are essential if Dublin is to work. In the Labour Party we want to see an end to the division of Dublin by class and income. We want to see a Dublin where public amenity transcends private gain.

In the local elections last year the Labour Party outlined a detailed strategy for Dublin.

Debate adjourned.