Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Cuireann sé áthas orm deis a bheith agam cúpla focal a rá maidir leis an mBille seo. Táim thar a bheith sásta go bhfuil sé á phlé sa Teach. Creidim féin go bhfuil sé fíorthábhachtach ní amháin na láithrigh atá gar do Shráid Uí Chonaill ach gach láthair a bhaineann le 1916, chomh fada agus atá siad fanta anois, a chaomhnú agus a athnuaigh. Is ceann de na rudaí gur mhaith liom a fheicéail ná go mbeadh leacht soiléir curtha ar na foirgnimh ar fad a bhain leis an Éirí Amach. Ar ndóigh tá spéis faoi leith agamsa in ionad bácéireachta Uí Bheoláin. Chomh maith leis sin, is rud é nach n-aithníonn daoine go ginearálta ná go raibh Halla an Bhaile i nDroichead na Dothra lárnach san Éirí Amach. Ar ndóigh tuigimid faoi Clanwilliam House - nach bhfuil ann níos mó, faraor géar - ach sílím féin go mba cheart go mbeadh, ar a laghad, leacht ar na foirgnimh seo ar fad agus ar an gcineál ceann céanna ar fud na cathrach.

I am delighted to be here with my two colleagues. It is fair to say to Deputy Browne that Wexford has been involved in risings going back to 1798, and it was very involved in the Easter Rising. I am particularly pleased to be here with my colleague, Deputy Seán Haughey, whose grandfather, Seán Lemass, was in Moore Street in 1916. I often tease Deputy Haughey by saying Seán Lemass was one of the young people who was involved in the criminal damage to the buildings we now wish to preserve. I am sure he, as a young lad of 16, was one of the more active members of the squad that put the tunnels through the walls.

I believe the court case was a watershed. It is a pity it had to come to that but I believe it had great importance. After the court case and the fallout everybody accepted the principle that Moore Street should be preserved. Unlike Deputy Tóibín I believe the Court of Appeal got it right because the national consequences of the High Court judgment, which were non-specific to Moore Street, could have been disastrous right around the State. One of the things to come out of that was the Moore Street forum where people from all sides, views and political parties got around the table and in a very short time produced this report. It basically cemented a clear vision, on a cross-party basis and involving all the relevant groups, that incorporated the key elements of the court case. Recommendation No. 3 of the report states:

The Group supports the retention of Moore Street and adjacent lanes so as to broadly capture the sense of how it would have appeared in 1916 – this covers the street and lanes, key buildings, street paving and lighting. It recognises that this needs to be approached on a practical and authentic basis given that a number of structures in place actually postdate Independence. The preservation of the existing lines of the street and the lanes and the restoration of streetscapes are essential.

Recommendation No. 4 states:

The retention of historical structures and of the line and form of the block 10 – 25 Moore Street is also integral to this approach. Collectively these buildings can offer a mix of cultural, historic and commercial spaces. Quite critically, opportunities arise for the State to provide the centre point of historical focus and cultural celebration within 10 – 25 Moore Street.

In those recommendations there is a clear manifesto of what the new advisory committee is setting out to achieve. I believe the only way we can do that is in trying the collaborative approach of sitting around the table with the group that owns an awful lot of the land in the area. What this group does on the rest of that land also has an impact on the Moore Street area. For example, the original Chartered Land permission was for a very high building that would have overshadowed everything in Moore Street. The current proposal is much more modest.

As the Government amendment outlines, I believe we should keep with the processes we have put in place. The initial forum clearly sets out a vision and our job now is to deliver on that vision. They should be able to do that without hindrance. I agree, however, that there has been a long break between the end of the previous forum and where we are today, without the kind of progress all of us would like to see. We need to get a new dynamic and energy going. It has taken a long time to bring Hammerson to the table, and I regret that. A confidence building exercise was needed and I believe there was a change of mind about interacting with the forum, and recognising that the forum uniquely has a wide variety of voices involved in it and is reflective of a wide variety of views. I accept that Hammerson is now at the table and we should go forward.

I have been involved in many projects during my life and there are always the bumpy moments or the delays one wishes did not happen. When those things happen, the challenge is not to walk away or go off on some tangent but to stick with a good process that will bring results. I believe that we should now lay out our work programme on how to go forward.

I agree with a lot of what Deputies O'Sullivan and Tóibín have said. It is time for us once and for all to do a professional survey of the whole street from Nos. 10 to 25 to find out, without question, exactly what is in all those buildings and to get full agreement with the advisory committee on what aspects pre-date 1916. We also need to keep in the frame that there are certain places where replication of what was there might be appropriate. We need to keep the streetscapes as they were but we also have to balance that with the reality that we need to have a viable development on that site to finish its dereliction once and for all.

I agree with the need to have an immediate plan for Nos. 4 to 17, which are in State ownership. I ask the Minister, Deputy Madigan, that there would be intensified engagement with the State because in the national development plan the State has made provision for a possible new site for a museum. I believe this site has the footfall and it is near the Luas and rail lines. There is also talk of an Irish language cultural centre and I understand from what the Minister has said that this should certainly be considered for this area. We need to move forward speedily with that proposal in the national development plan.

While the Bill may find itself in a situation where there was not continuous and successful engagement with the developer, some have said that the plan may go back to the Chartered Land permission. In that scenario, where we would have engaged in a meaningful way and if they were to walk away and take the nuclear option, the Bill may then be needed in a hurry. In the meantime we are much better to work through the advisory committee, working steadily in the process that we all agreed to and working collaboratively. It is fair to say the Bill was never discussed in detail by the advisory committee. We need to work collaboratively. It takes great patience to do it that way. If we can get agreement from the developer and from every party at the advisory group table, and if we all go forward together, then I would be hopeful that we could see the restoration of Moore Street to what we all dream of. I do not believe that anyone here is of a different view. I believe we are all agreed that we could see the development of Moore Street in a way that fits in with history rather than a continuous stand-off that leaves the street as one of the most derelict and neglected parts of our capital city so near to the GPO. We will support the Government amendment on the basis that at this moment we should not deflect. As Pearse said in his poem, ba cheart dúinn ár n-aghaidh a thabhairt ar an mbóthar seo romhainn - I think we should keep our focus on the road in front of us and not get deflected. If we do that collaboratively we will be successful in ensuring a sympathetic development of Moore Street and the O'Connell Street area.

See this speech in context