Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Senator Norris has set the tone for this debate, as has his motion. I compliment Senators Barrett and Norris in tabling the motion. Unless there are some people who are passionate about issues like this and prepared to give leadership in a consistent way this would fall between two stools.

In the main, the planning code in Ireland has a lot to recommend it. Many planning officials throughout the country are exceptionally diligent in their work but during the Celtic tiger we saw situations about which one could not really be happy, whether in towns or in cities. In view of rapid development in cities, particularly Dublin, very often the economic requirements and the opportunities took precedence over good planning.Senator Norris cites an exceptionally good case, the main street of Dublin, O'Connell Street. I do not think any of us is overly happy about it. One wonders what visitors to the country think when they are on it. They know about the country's exceptional heritage and the custodial approach we take to it. I would say they are somewhat surprised that we have allowed things to get out of hand to the extent they have.

Why do people take on a pioneering role on an issue such as this? There is no better example than Senator David Norris when it comes to Georgian Dublin. He is not just an advocate, he is also a very proactive campaigner. One of the reasons is that we all like to have an environment that makes us feel good and that we can enjoy to the maximum. It is a sense of pride in ourselves as a people that we want to protect our heritage, architectural, cultural and otherwise. It would be a sad day if we were ever to lose that sense of place and that sense of pride.

Senator David Norris refers in the motion to the living city initiative which was first announced in October 2012. Almost three years on it has not been implemented. One of the main reasons for this was the stalling of European aid. That was the marker put down at the time. The constraints now being put on the initiative are absolutely huge because it is quite clear that Georgian buildings will not benefit from the initiative because it will be about inner city development in areas where there are high rates of unemployment. When constraints are applied to a living city initiative, it certainly does not augur well for the future. It should be borne in mind that we have had living city initiatives in the past, of which there was not a great take-up and they did not succeed as a result. I have grave doubts that this initiative will succeed, through no fault of the Government. Progress has been made in all other cities in Ireland. Negotiations with the Revenue Commissioners are at a very advanced stage on what will qualify for the tax exemption. However, it seems that things will move at a very slow pace, particularly if the bottom line is profit, as will be the case when one is talking about working on buildings and those who will invest in this work. They will look at the bottom line on the balance sheet which will decide what progress will be made. The motion moves outside that box, which is a good idea. It asks not Dublin City Council but also the Government to come with a master plan.

The first reaction of any government is to state the matter is within the remit of the local authority. One third of the population of Ireland is in Dublin which is not like any of the other cities. It requires exceptional radical attention in the areas being discussed. It behoves the Government, with all of our support in adding in any way we can to the debate in a positive way, to take on board the spirit of the motion. If not, there will still be people campaigning but without resources and legislative backup. People who campaign are very often seen as marginal. Some of us showed the same passion when discussing the issue of Moore Street not so long ago. We were arguing in the context of its historical significance. We went the extra mile in arguing a development of Moore Street could have huge economic value. I would say the very same about Georgian Dublin, even though that is not the main reason which is motivating us to make a case here today. However, it is an important one because, after all, if it is a tourist attraction, if it is high on people's list of places to visit, we are talking about a financial investment. If we want to argue what it might cost to do what is being requested, we should look at the money that would be generated. I will go one step further - I do not want to be defeatist in any way - and say if we do not do it, we will be the poorer for it as a people. We will also be the poorer for it economically because our heritage will be gradually eroded and downgraded such that, eventually, people will ask how did we let it happen. We know full well that what helped us to succeed in the past in tourism was that we focused on that which made us different. We focused on our exclusive heritage, not something one could get in New York, Paris or anyplace else. What motivates Senators David Norris, Sean D. Barrett and Feargal Quinn is what is unique to us. The worst thing that can happen is that in years to come we will be crying that we did not do it. The issue is now on the agenda and I hope the motion will be passed if the Government enters into a partnership with us in what we are trying to achieve.