Seán Barrett
Question:2 Mr. Barrett asked the Minister for the Environment the criteria used to designate certain areas throughout the country for the urban renewal scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2404/94]
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Urban Renewal.
Pat Rabbitte
Question:17 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for the Environment the criteria used by his Department in designating areas for urban renewal; the level at which such decisions are made within his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2302/94]
Michael McDowell
Question:23 Mr. M. McDowell asked the Minister for the Environment the basis on which he satisfied himself that all of the areas designated for urban renewal in Longford town are in need of renewal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2331/94]
John Bruton
Question:36 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Minister for the Environment the precise criteria by which particular parts of towns are chosen for urban renewal status as against other parts of the same town; the persons by whom the decisions are taken; the procedures, if any, that exist to ensure transparency and lack of favouritism in the making of decisions of this kind which can have the effect of enriching some property owners rather than others. [58/94]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2, 17, 23 and 36 together.
The Urban Renewal Act, 1986, empowers the Minister for the Environment, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to designate areas in which he is satisfied there is a special need to promote urban renewal. Areas are selected having regard to factors such as the extent of urban decay, location and general characteristics, potential for redevelopment, historical or architectural significance, the need to promote residential accommodation, and the size and status of the towns concerned.
In relation to all the most recent designations, consultations took place with the local authorities concerned and these were supplemented by consideration of the relevant development plans, inspections of all areas by officials of my Department and consideration of submissions made by interested groups. Given that a range of tax incentives is applied to designated areas by order of the Minister for Finance, all decisions in relation to areas selected for designation were treated as strictly confidential until a formal public announcement was made.
The designation of areas for the purposes of urban renewal is a matter for the Minister for the Environment with the consent of the Minister for Finance. The powers of the Minister for the Environment in this regard were delegated to me under the provisions of the Environment (Delegation of Ministerial Functions) (No. 2) Order, 1993. In practice, however, the final designations were agreed by the Minister and myself, taking full account of the advice of our officials.
I am fully satisfied that there is a special need to promote urban renewal in each of the areas designated under the new scheme.
Will the Minister agree that this is a lucrative business if one is lucky enough to have one's property designated under the scheme? Why were some areas chosen and others not? I understand that a number of areas which applied were not designated. I am sure the Minister is aware of the series of articles written by Mr. Frank McDonald in The Irish Times which highlighted some serious decisions taken by the Minister. For example, in Longford only one side of the street was chosen, properties owned by the Taoiseach's wife and friends. In Wexford certain properties were selected in the quay area and others were not.
Members should be slow to reflect on other Members of the House and especially members of their families.
This information was published.
Please, Deputy. The Deputy knows the procedures of the House and I am not concerned about what happens outside it.
This is public knowledge. Can the Minister justify why certain properties owned by people with clear political connections and from which large sums of money can be made were chosen and others were left out?
The Deputy has made his point.
Will the Minister agree that this type of carry-on results in Irish politics being questioned every day of the week? Will the Minister comment on the allegations that large sums of money were donated to Fianna Fáil——
That is nonsense.
—— I am not sure about the Labour Party — as a result of people wishing to have properties designated.
Deputy Barrett should take account of the success of the scheme.
I asked how areas are chosen.
The Deputy asked a number of questions, let us hear the Minister of State's reply.
The scheme attracted investment of approximately £1.4 billion of private money.
To help some people.
Galway did very well in spite of the propaganda.
We did well under Mr. Boland's scheme.
Deputy McCormack is not permitted to intervene.
I was merely responding to the Minister.
The Deputy intervened on a number of occasions, but he is not entitled to do so. Supplementary questions are confined to the Members who tabled priority questions.
I was answering the Minister.
The Deputy may not intervene any further. If he does I will have to ask him to leave. He is guilty of gross disorder during the time allocated to questions for priority and he is well aware of that.
So is the Minister.
The profitability of the scheme for individuals was raised. The purpose of a tax based renewal scheme is to attract private investment for derelict and run down locations. The alternative would be to grant-aid development in such areas. We believe the incentive approach is more efficient and few would argue that the scheme has not been an outstanding success to date. An incentive approach to urban renewal means somebody will make money. The purpose of the scheme is to give incentives to attract people into areas——
Why is one side of the road chosen and the other not?
——that otherwise would not be developed and in doing so to enable the investors to make a profit. If we did not have that option the scheme would fail.
In selecting areas for designation I have been guided by the physical needs of the areas concerned, not the ownership of the properties. In most cases I do not know, and do not need to know, the owners of the properties concerned. That is not a consideration in selecting areas. If I had to establish ownership before designating an area, it would be a recipe for inaction and inactivity.
On the designation of areas in Longford, under the previous urban renewal scheme the Longford designated area comprised 21 acres, including Great Water Street, Bridge Street, Main Street, Richmond Street, Little Water Street and Church Street. Two areas are included in the new scheme, due west of Main Street and the other at Bridge Street. The following points are relevant to why those areas were selected. The areas designated form a natural extension of the areas designated under the original scheme and will complete the renewal of the town centre area. Both of the areas designated were commended to me by the local authority.
The larger area designated includes Market Square which is in local authority ownership and contains a large semi-derelict storage shed. That part of the town is run down and in need of renewal. To the north of Market Square, again adjoining the old area, the shop frontages are generally in a fair condition. However, it was considered prudent to include archways as they provide access to extremely run down backlands by two archway laneways. The smaller area at Bridge Street encompasses an old used cinema and the entrance to an unsightly meat factory. That area is in a prominent location and needs upgrading.
While some individual sites within the designated area may be in a relatively good condition and are unlikely to benefit from the scheme, it is necessary to include them to create cohesive urban renewal areas rather than a series of disjointed blocks.
Almost 15 of the 20 minutes available to us have been spent——
I am sure the Chair can imagine the frustration I am experiencing.
——dealing with these priority questions and I am sure the House will agree that it is not fair, equitable or just to other Members who have tabled priority questions.
I have been on my feet for approximately 30 seconds in total.
The Deputy heard me. I cannot permit a Member to take up a disproportionate amount of this time and this is certainly true in this case.
That is grossly unfair to us.
I will allow the Deputy a brief question.
I have been on my feet for a mere 30 seconds out of the 15 minutes.
Deputy Barrett's two questions have taken up an extraordinary amount of time.
I did not ask a statement; I asked a simple question.
The Deputy got a comprehensive answer.
Why are some areas chosen and others not? Will the Minister agree that the system of designation is open to massive political corruption which should be stopped immediately?
The word "corruption" should not be used unless it can be substantiated by way of proper motion.
Will the Minister agree that the process should be handed over to the planning authorities?
I am proceeding to Question No. 3.