Josepha Madigan (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Excuse me, it includes him. It also includes 1916 relatives groups, city councillors and street traders. Its role is to represent and work with all stakeholders, including the owners of the site surrounding the State-owned national monument at Nos. 14 to 17. The idea is to broker regeneration solutions that can be supported by all concerned.

The site around the national monument extends from Moore Street to the Carlton cinema on O’Connell Street and takes in most of the ground, laneways and buildings in between. It is largely in the ownership of a single entity and equates roughly to the area that the Bill envisages would be given national monument status. Some of it is quite run down, parts of it are underutilised and it needs significant investment and vision to get it back on its feet.

In facing this challenge, the Moore Street advisory group has as its guide, "The Moore Street Report - Securing History", which was produced by a consultative forum that was set up by my predecessor after the original High Court judgment, of which Deputy Tóibín was also a member. The report, which was unanimously approved all by the members of the forum, including the Deputy, set out a range of recommendations designed to ensure there would be appropriate recognition of the history of the street and its part in the Rising and that this would be reflected in the regeneration of the Dublin central site. The Moore Street advisory group is actively engaged in meaningful and positive discussions with the owner of the Dublin central site about the implementation of these recommendations and the future of the site.

I was pleased to learn from the chair of the advisory group, Professor Tom Collins, that these discussions are going well and are progressing positively in the main. I understand that there is now a formal framework for engagement between the advisory group and the site owners.

This provides for open and frequent meetings between the parties to discuss options, to explore opportunities and to review progress. I am also aware the owner has significantly modified the previous plans for the site which may have been a motivating factor for the Deputy in drafting the Bill some time back. The revised plans for the Dublin central site now being drawn up by newly appointed architects are seen to be much more sympathetic to its traditions and history than was the previous development conceived back in Celtic tiger days. They also envisage keeping buildings that were not part of the earlier design.

The new plans have been shown to the members of the advisory group and the Deputy will have seen them. The chair of the advisory group is on record that the members were entirely supportive of what was now being conceived. The extent of the design change being contemplated may be gauged from the recent statement by the company indicating that it believes that a fresh planning approval will be needed and that this would be applied for next year.

The talks between the advisory group and the landowner were possibly a bit slower to get under way than what some stakeholders would have preferred. That may also have been part of what prompted the drafting of the Bill some months back. Perhaps the Deputy did not believe back then that the owner would engage to the extent that is happening now and to such good effect. Matters have indeed moved on considerably since then. In the meantime, there have been several meetings between the landowner and the members of the advisory group which have provided valuable opportunities for both sides to sketch out their ideas and principles of what would work best for the area for the future.

I am delighted the revised plans are so respectful of the history and culture of the area and that they strongly embrace both its past and the street traders who give the area much of its character and appeal. What is now in prospect is a much more sympathetic mix of residential, commercial and public realm. This is backed up by the chair of the advisory group whom I met recently and who told me the new vision has been positively received by the members of the group.

The developer is also in discussion with my Department on possible cultural uses within the Dublin central site. This is another facet of the change of direction from the previous development proposal to an outlook now that would welcome more cultural and public space uses within the site. My Department is looking into possible options, particularly within the Gaeltacht and the culture divisions, and in consultation with the Office of Public Works.

In light of all the foregoing, I am convinced that, rather than progressing Deputy Tóibín’s Bill, the future of this part of Dublin city would be far better served by all the stakeholders and Members, the Deputy included, continuing to engage with and supporting the ongoing process that is making such positive progress under the stewardship of the Moore Street advisory group. The group is talking to and engaging meaningfully with the owner of most of the area encompassed by the Bill. Real headway is being made to reshape the regeneration plans for the area in a way which is respectful to local culture, history and, in particular, to the events and traces of the 1916 Rising.

Apart from the new plans being more sensitive to history and heritage, they also have huge employment potential. Figures relating to what is now being planned indicate that it would generate up to 9,000 jobs. While 6,000 of these would relate to the construction phase, the other 3,000 would be long-term, permanent jobs based in the locality and be open to the local community. With a new planning application envisaged for next year, construction to start in 2020 and the redeveloped site to open in 2023, these jobs would come on-stream relatively quickly and give a significant boost to the whole economy of Dublin’s north inner city in a timescale to which we can all look forward. While I accept there may be a positive sentiment behind the Bill, it is not necessary, helpful nor useful at this time. It would not actually achieve anything worthwhile in terms of monument protection either. Suffice to say, the Bill would be no more than an ineffectual gesture insofar as how it would interact with the existing national monuments legislative framework.

We have an amendment to a generally applicable legislative provision for the sole purpose of dealing not only with a single issue but with just one individual case. It is an amendment that quite simply does not work from a legal or procedural point of view if its actual intention is to bring the streets and buildings referred to in it under the protections of the National Monuments Acts. If that is the objective that it also envisages, which I believe is an undesirable proposition, then the development of a large section of Dublin north inner city would be determined by the Minister responsible for the National Monuments Acts rather than by local representatives and the local authority under the planning system. That is hardly a good idea and hardly a development the Deputy’s party would favour either.

It is also the case that I am in the process of bringing forward a comprehensive revision of the National Monuments Acts which I would hope to see before the Oireachtas in the next few months. This will provide a much simpler and more effective way of recording and classifying historical monuments. There will be an opportunity for all Members to input to that process if they perceive there is a need to look at how the updated protection regime would measure up against any specific challenges on the ground. That is another reason I do not consider such a limited and case specific amendment appropriate or necessary at this point.

All the advancement of this Bill would do is to create an unnecessary distraction and introduce an unhelpful diversion into the discussions now under way with the owner of the Dublin central site under the aegis of the Moore Street advisory group. These discussions are going well. They are yielding positive results and they have the potential to produce an outcome that will revitalise this whole area. The Deputy hardly wants to jeopardise the 9,000 jobs that are in prospect. Up to 3,000 of these would be permanent and located in the constituency of the leader of his party. Does the Deputy think that is what the community wants? Does he believe that the present stagnation is what the street traders want either? I imagine they all want to see a renewed and vibrant area with thousands of people working in it, drawing in many times more visitors to contribute to and grow the economy and the supports and amenities that would follow. The Bill would certainly do nothing to bring that prospect forward. In fact, I would fear the opposite.

I want instead to give my support to the real prospect there is now of a positive meeting of minds between stakeholders to continue to encourage these parties to go on with the discussions through the Moore Street advisory group in order that we can all look forward to the beginning of the regeneration of this area which everyone has been crying out for some time.

The buildings at Nos. 14-17 Moore Street, complete and original, are in the ownership of the State. The Government is ready to bring to fruition the restoration and 1916 commemorative centre project as soon as there is an agreed vision for the wider site of which they form part. I want to protect these buildings, which include key locations from the 1916 Rising, for the Irish nation and all its citizens and in honour of all those who took part in the Rising. The commemorative centre will complement the new visitor centre in the GPO. If we take a snapshot of that entire geographical area and consider the GPO, the proposed 1916 centre in Moore Street, the tenement museum in Henrietta Street, the proposed development of the Abbey Theatre and the Parnell Square central library, along with the connectivity between those sites, there is the potential for a huge lift for Dublin’s north inner city area. I want to help rather than hinder that.

Against the background of all the positives I have outlined, in particular the significant headway made by the Moore Street advisory group whose work is currently at a key stage, I am afraid that the Deputy’s Bill can only be seen as having the potential to upset all that progress. It could also put at risk the chances of a successful outcome in the future. In turn, this could endanger investment in the regeneration of a significant part of Dublin’s north inner city with all the consequences this entails for employment and for economic gain for the local community, for the street traders and for local businesses which must be struggling in the present situation.

For that reason, the Government cannot agree to Second Stage proceeding while the work of the Moore Street advisory group is still ongoing and while it has a real and genuine prospect of succeeding, none of which the Bill would help if it were to continue at this particular time.

See this speech in context