Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin North Central, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I appreciate the opportunity to speak about the commemorations and what the State is doing. I appreciate the motivation behind the Bill. As Senator Darragh O'Brien has quite rightly stated, this is something on which we can have a cross-party discussion on how best to move forward. I know the issue intimately as I used to represent the north inner city area on Dublin City Council. One of the first meetings I attended when I was elected to the council in 2004 concerned the saving of No. 16 Moore Street. Much has happened since, thanks to the previous Government and recent announcements by this Government. No. 16 is the key building and most people focused on it, but the focus has moved to the declaration of the national monument by the previous Government in 2007 and the announcement of a decision made earlier this year to acquire the four buildings for the State. We have come a long way in a short space of time.

This is a fantastic opportunity in the history of our Republic as we face the centenary of 1916 to reassess what we are about as a country. We should consider the values of this Republic and what we believe in. There are many people in our society who need this commemoration. I am thinking of the people on the edge of society. In this Chamber, for example, we have discussed direct provision, the national drugs strategy and those suffering from drug addiction and issues relating to disadvantage. We have discussed people from the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual communities and new communities. There are many people, including children, living in the country who have no familial connection with what happened in 1916, as some would, but who need this commemoration. It will lead to a new evaluation of the values that underpin our Republic. Many of the commemorative events planned are focused on what we want for the next 100 years. We must have a proper investigation of what happened 100 years ago in order that people can appreciate the sacrifices made. We must never shy away from the reality that 1916 was the birth of the Republic in which we now live. It is also important that we constantly reimagine and reaffirm those values written into the Proclamation, including equal rights and opportunities for all our citizens, cherishing all the children of the nation equally. I have a family connection with 1916 but I do not consider myself in any way having more of a claim over those events than anyone else, and no one else is making that suggestion. We need to appreciate what happened in that week but we must ask why we are doing this. We are doing it to ensure we can have a proper appreciation of the values that must underpin the modern Republic in which we all live.

In responding to the Bill I want to be as open-minded and positive as I can. I appreciate that the motivations behind it are sound, decent, progressive and forward-thinking. Much of this contribution must be quite technical but I hope it will add to the debate to give reasons that the Government is not in a position to accept the Bill. The primary aim of the Bill is to establish two new limited companies known as Moore Street Renewal Limited and Moore Street Properties Limited, respectively, to provide the grounds on which certain approvals can be made relating to existing or proposed buildings and premises in the Moore Street area and to have a development company for the Moore Street area. The development company will have functions for the compulsory acquisition of land in that area, and the Minister for Finance will have a power to guarantee borrowings by Moore Street Properties Limited.

Unfortunately, while appreciating the constructive motivations behind the Bill, the Government does not support it for a variety of reasons which I will outline. First, I have to point out that the role of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht is primarily concerned with the protection and conservation of the national monument comprising Nos. 14 to 17 Moore Street. The Minister has no role in planning and development in the wider Moore Street area, which is the preserve of the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government in conjunction with the relevant local planning authority or other designated development authority. It could be foreseen as a conflict of roles where, on the one hand, the Minister is charged with safeguarding our built heritage, notably the national monument on Nos. 14 to 17 Moore Street and, on the other hand, would be supporting development that could adversely impact the national monument and other historic buildings or fabric in the Moore Street area.

Second, when it comes to urban development and regeneration my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, has primacy but his Department is already active with various initiatives that beneficially affect the Moore Street area and the proposed Bill would only serve to complicate rather than streamline the various measures in place. For example, in 2012, the Government published Putting People First - Action Programme for Effective Local Government. At its core, this programme seeks the local government system to be the primary vehicle for overall economic and community development at the local level, including the regeneration aspects of that brief. That action programme, more widely, sets out an overall vision for local government to be the principal vehicle of governance and public service at local level, leading economic, social and community development, delivering efficient and good value services, and representing citizens and local communities effectively and accountably.

Consistent with this overall vision, Government policy is to build on the local government process and not to establish separate or parallel public bodies or organisations distinct from the local government system unless, in exceptional circumstances, the need for this is clearly demonstrated. The proponents of the Bill may suggest this is an exceptional circumstance but that is why we are here having this discussion.

As previously outlined by Senator Eamonn Coghlan, with the dissolution of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority and the preparations in place to transit Temple Bar Cultural Trust to local authority control, which were established by previous Governments to pursue regeneration of large components of the overall structure of the Dublin City Council area, and at a strategic level, regeneration initiatives have moved on to a new phase that build on enhanced local authority capability in this area rather than setting up new bodies.

Third, under the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, Dublin City Council as both local government and planning consent authority is the most appropriate entity to manage the ongoing development of this important inner city area of Dublin. Already, sections of Moore Street and the auxiliary lanes are within the current O'Connell Street architectural conservation area, ACA, designated in July 2001, and the O'Connell Street area of special planning control adopted by Dublin City Council in September 2009.

The main objectives of the Bill are unclear in terms of compliance with the current Dublin city development plan process and objectives for the inner city area of Dublin. In part, such a development approach as proposed in the Bill could be impractical given the variation of private, commercial and publicly owned properties within its remit, and the process involved in setting up the supporting statutory provisions could be difficult.

Also, the size of the area in question and its variation of property types does not, on a practical level, lend itself to the type of development model envisaged. Management of a national monument is best developed, managed and promoted as specific proposals in tandem with Dublin City Council and other key stakeholders.

The mechanisms I have outlined operate within the wider policy framework of the Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017, which is currently under review.

It remains open to the city council to prepare a statutory local area plan for the area under the provisions of the Planning Act, for which Dublin City Council would be the relevant authority to oversee implementation of such a plan. Therefore, an extensive array of planning policies and actions has been put in place for which the city council is the statutory implementation body. Moreover, after extensive levels of scrutiny at local authority and An Bord Pleanála levels, a planning permission for comprehensive redevelopment is in place, within which arrangements have recently been agreed as regards the securing of the 1916 Rising related national monument.

Taking all of the above into account, the local government planning policy and development consent, and conservation policy and implementation issues pertaining to this area, have been broadly settled and it is therefore unclear what additional clarity or impetus could be brought to the accepted need for the regeneration of this area over and above the role of Dublin City Council. I have full confidence in Dublin City Council to manage the area using the policy already settled and the measures already in place.

Fourth, I have already mentioned that Government policy is to build on the local government process and not to establish separate or parallel public bodies or organisations distinct from the local government system. However, there is a much wider dimension to this, and there is a context for it in terms of the previous Administration's tenure. That Government commissioned the officially named Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programme, An Bord Snip Nua, to examine, among other issues, the rationalisation of State agencies with a view to saving money in the delivery of services. Those same principles still apply today and it would be more than remiss of this Government were it to support a proposal to set up a new company with a board, a chief executive and staff which would represent an additional and costly layer of administration and which is at variance with current Government policy aimed at rationalising public services so as to deliver such services in an integrated, transparent and cost-efficient manner.

While I appreciate the good intentions behind this Bill, and the contributions of all Members this evening have been worthy of the debate - we should continue in that way - I am of the opinion that the current approach taken by the Minister and the Government in acquiring the national monument on Moore Street, which was greatly applauded at the time, is the correct approach and should be commended. I am confident that this will protect the buildings for the Irish nation and its citizens. The buildings and the proposed interpretative centre on that site will be a fitting commemoration of the 1916 Rising and its leaders and will complement the new visitor centre being developed in the GPO.

If we take a snapshot of that entire geographical area and consider the work ongoing on the interpretive centre at the GPO, the proposal for an interpretive centre in Moore Street, the tenement museum in Henrietta Street, the proposed development of the Abbey Theatre and the Parnell Square central library, that entire centre, and the connectivity between those sites, will lift the north inner city area. The north inner city area is worthy of that. It needs it. The city of Dublin needs it. Our nation needs it and, as I stated at the outset, future generations need it as well.

While I appreciate the motivations behind the Bill, commend those who have drafted it and understand what they are trying to do, we do not believe that a new model is necessary. The proposal the Government has put in place in terms of acquiring the four buildings from Nos. 14 to 17 Moore Street was a positive move. That is the vehicle in which we should proceed. A huge amount of work has taken place in the past ten years from the time of the original campaign to the designation of the national monument by the previous Government in 2007 to the acquisition of the four buildings.

I appreciate Senator O'Brien's point that we should not be doing this as a rushed measure to get something done for next Easter because it is hoped this will last for the next 100 years. However, we want to be able to say next Easter that something identifiable is taking place at this site and that we are moving to a space where we can have a proper understanding of the motivations behind those who fought in 1916 and the Republic in which we now live. I believe we have the mechanism now to achieve that. We are further along the way than we were this time last year. I believe the vehicle the Government has put in place is the appropriate one. Reluctantly, I am not willing to accept the Bill today but from the huge attendances at the consultation meetings taking place in communities around the country to the cross-party involvement in the various committees that have been set up around the commemorations, I believe this commemoration is owned by everybody in this land. It is not being used as a party political football, and that is to our credit in this House. I hope it will continue in that vein.