I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I wish to share my time with the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Molloy.
Urban Renewal Bill, 1998: Second Stage.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Members will be familiar with the impact which previous urban renewal schemes have had on many of our cities and towns. Much of the large scale dereliction and urban decline which prevailed until the late 1980s has been eliminated. Areas previously written off have attracted extensive investment in commercial and residential development bringing new life to the core of cities and towns which were in serious decline. It would not be overstating the case to say that the success of the various urban renewal initiatives taken since 1986 has exceeded our wildest expectations. We have undoubtedly been fortunate that the later years of the urban renewal schemes have coincided with the strongest period of growth ever experienced.
It is too easy to forget the economic circumstances which dominated the 1980s; circumstances which discouraged investment generally and led to no investment in the less attractive urban areas. There is no doubt that much of the development which the tax incentive based urban renewal schemes have brought about would not have occurred without the benefit of those incentives and it certainly would not have happened in the areas where it has taken place.
At a time of strong economic growth, high levels of investment, a booming construction industry and pressure on house prices, it is legitimate to ask if there is any need to continue with the tax incentive based urban renewal schemes. The answer to that is emphatically "yes", provided we start to look at urban renewal from a different point of view — one which takes account of the social dimension to urban renewal policy.
It will be a key goal of the new scheme provided for in the Bill to nurture and enhance the social dimension to urban renewal. This requires the integration of issues such as community development, education and training and employment and local economic development opportunities into future plans for physical urban renewal. The objective will be to ensure that the benefits of urban renewal accrue to the many poorer communities in disadvantaged urban areas and not just to developers, investors and new residents.
This new policy focus is intended to be responsive to the deep-rooted, spatial, socio-economic divisions in many urban areas. It also forms part of the new public policy approach to tackling poverty and social exclusion, reflecting the growing view that marginalisation and poverty can only be addressed through changes in core policies and service delivery structures and systems.
Urban disadvantage and poverty are linked in three ways. First, there is a higher risk of poverty in areas of urban deprivation.
Debate adjourned.