Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I find a bittersweet irony in what is being debated when I think back to 1982 and what was agreed between my predecessor, the late Deputy Tony Gregory, and the late Taoiseach, Charles Haughey. It is in that context that I look at what is proposed today. They agreed "the Gregory deal", although Tony always disliked the word "deal" and for him it was a programme. He was able to negotiate a programme because he was in the enviable position of holding the balance of power and his vote would decide who the next Taoiseach, and consequently the next Government, would be. The area he represented, which is part of the Bill, had been under-represented, misrepresented or not represented at all until then. It took the independent voice of Tony Gregory, with the community support he had, to negotiate a programme he hoped would make a real difference to issues such as housing, unemployment, education and health that remain with us today.

His proposal for housing was a major investment in the construction industry with specific targets in house building and an immediate commencement of 400 units. The programme would provide for additional craftsmen to work with Dublin City Council and a special fund to acquire land for long-term housing purposes. There would be a tax on derelict sites, office development, banks and financial institutions on development land which would contribute to the funding required. In the health sector, it showed that it was not a parochial document because it proposed free medical cards for all social welfare pensioners, action for Travellers, and regular rigorous inspections of institutions caring for children, the elderly and those with a disability. In education, it would provide for better teacher-pupil ratios, psychological services, home-school liaison officers, measures for the transition from school to work and youth projects.

It also contained a proposal for an inner-city development authority, which is significant in today's context. It would have its own fund, its own authority and specific areas with which to deal. The initial budget envisaged in 1982 was in excess of IR£2 million. The chairperson was to have a background in public affairs or business, would have been nominated by Tony and would have had the power to nominate five other members. There would be representatives from various public bodies, some of which no longer exist, representing industry, labour, finance, environment, the Industrial Development Authority and An Chomhairle Oiliúna, as well as others who had special knowledge of the north inner city.

So much of the programme was negotiated by Tony, his brother Noel, Mick Rafferty and Fergus McCabe. It had a transformative potential and one can imagine the difference it would have made if it had had a significant lifespan. The work began and, eventually, the Larkin Community College was established, but six months later the Haughey Government was voted out of office. What followed was indifference and neglect from successive Governments, creating an environment in which the drug trade flourished, which devastated communities and tore families apart. The schools, youth projects and drug projects persevered, however, and regrettably in the times of economic distress and recession they bore the brunt with the massive cuts they faced. I do not know why communities like the north inner city suffer disproportionately in a recession but that was the result of the decisions made by the political parties here. The statistics and data are skewed by the presence of the IFSC, but the statistics for the area itself suggest high numbers of unemployed people and lone parents.

While there have been improvements in accession rates to third level education, they are still far below the national average. There is serious overcrowding in housing and it is inappropriate. Then there is addiction, open drug dealing, intimidation and drug debt which all lead to violence and murders. When I read this Bill, therefore, I must ask what difference it will make to the lives of those who live in the north inner city.

There is another context in which to consider the Bill, namely the programme implementation board, PIB, that was initiated by the Government following the violence. Under the chairmanship of Michael Stone, it comprises senior representatives from Departments and the local community. The link between the 1982 Gregory deal and the PIB is Fergus McCabe who is in the Visitors' Gallery this evening. One possibility for the Bill is that the more formal structure it proposes could have a better chance of delivering what is necessary to bring about the transformation that the Gregory deal would have brought had successive Governments supported it and not abandoned the communities. Unfortunately, there was no interest in doing that until the outbreak of violence and the murders happened. I criticise the lack of elements of a social programme and there is no recognition of the drugs context out of which everything came. There is also the possibility that it might become merely another development company with an SDZ aspect, which would facilitate inappropriate fast-track planning, much of which has not benefitted residents to date. There is also a danger of it becoming a bureaucratic quango that will make no difference but will create more problems. There have been enough examples of this in the past.

If the legislation progresses, the provisions that are required can be addressed on Committee Stage. The serving officers from the Department will have to be senior serving officers. The Department of Children and Youth Affairs and Tusla will have to be represented because we know the impact of what is happening on the young people, children and teenagers in the north inner city.

In parts of that area, 50% of the population comprises members of new communities. There is no reference to their integration or representation. Three people from the local community is too few. The North Inner City Community Coalition was mentioned but there must be a specific democratic process for their selection. Three quarters of whatever number is agreed should be designated for those living in the area for some time, as they know what is needed. The chairperson must also be independent. If successful, it must build on the PIB, and include its chairman, as it is involved in the issues.

Finally, what is happening in the north inner city is not happening on its own, so whatever emerges there can be used a blueprint for other areas of disadvantage.

See this speech in context