David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The eight minutes is very elastic. The Minister is very welcome, and I welcome the Bill. I refer to the Minister's contribution. He spoke at length about urban decay, regeneration and that expenditure can include the preservation and protection of structures of special architectural, historical or cultural interest and so on. That is wonderful stuff, but it is all words. It does not mean anything. I have not seen the slightest indication of a serious attempt in this area by the Government. What about Aldborough House, which is in the possession of the State? It is in a state of complete collapse. The roof and the windows are gone. It is all very well to come into the Seanad and blather about these issues.

I wrote to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, about regeneration, which I took up in a series of debates here, and he promised the Living City initiative. He then limited it to Limerick and Waterford. We eventually persuaded him to extend it to Dublin, and some civil servant in his Department limited it to buildings of 230 sq. metres, the size of a medium bungalow. It was said that was done to deliberately exclude what he called mansions. There is a house in Frederick Street that is in decay, which I mentioned six months ago. It fell down in recent weeks. That house would be excluded from any conservation grant. This was on the recommendation of some crowd called Indecon Economic Consultants. I would have thought we would have had a belly full of economic consultants in this city. They talk about splitting up houses. That is the very thing we are trying to reverse - the tenementisation of Georgian Dublin.

In the Minister's most recent letter to me he stated that this is targeted at those areas most in need of attention. He should tell that to the people who live in the inner city.

The Bill is misnamed. This could be done under the Trade Descriptions Act. It is the Urban Regeneration and Housing Bill. It should be the other way around. The principal focus, as we have heard constantly from the Minister, is housing. That is fine, but he should be open about it and not put in the Bill this tissue of concern for architectural heritage because nobody believes him. I am fed up with that. I had some interest in this Government because I thought it might do something, but it is not doing anything.

With regard to definitions, in section 3(b) under "Definitions" there is a reference to the entitlement to receive the rack rent of the land, but the rack rent is not defined.Perhaps there is a common usage in law, although not very common because nobody knows about it, but I believe that it should be spelled out. I ask the Minister, in a revision of this Bill, to spell out and define rack rent. For most people, rack rent means what it historically meant which was, in the old days, if one improved one's land as a tenant then the landlord shoved up the rent. That was rack renting. That is where the term came from and that is what it means. If it means something then we need a clear definition.

Section 5(1)(a) refers to a vacant site that consists of residential land and lists three qualifications. As I read them originally I thought they were alternatives but I take it that they are not and should be taken together. I refer to the bottom of page 6 of the Bill. Again, this detail should be made clearer.

Section 5(2), on page 7, reads: "“site” means any area of land exceeding 0.05 hectares", which is very small, "identified by a planning authority in its functional area but does not include any structure that is a person's home". Why not? If somebody is living in a dump and the place is collapsing surely there is a communal responsibility? Rehouse the person or do the house up but do not exempt them from it. We will have a lot of eyesores around the place in that case so I am against this exemption. I do not see why we have it in the legislation. Perhaps it is some constitutional thing.

I approve of the following two provisions on page 8, in section 6(6), which reads:

a planning authority shall determine whether or not the site being vacant or idle has adverse effects on existing amenities or reduces the amenity by reference to whether—

(a) land or structures in the area were, or are, in a ruinous or neglected condition,

(b) anti-social behaviour was or is taking place in the area.

Splendid but let us have a bit of action. Nobody takes any action on these things. There are houses all around Dublin that are collapsing as we speak and not a damn thing is done about it.