Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 23 Jun 2000

Vol. 522 No. 1

Town Renewal Bill, 2000: Committee and Remaining Stages.

SECTION 1.

Mr. Dukes

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, subsection (1), to delete line 37, and in page 4, to delete lines 1 and 2.

I am sorry for the Minister of State, that he was sent in here to try to defend things the other Minister of State said at the beginning of the debate. If the Minister of State would care to look back at my remarks, he will find that my criticisms were directed principally at the overblown language used by the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Molloy, and at some of the technical aspects of the Bill. I notice there is still no answer from the Minister of State on how many of the 102 towns listed in the press release will benefit from a designation.

Amendment No. 1 concerns one of the features that runs through this Bill – the element of arbitrariness. The provision which Deputy Gilmore and I propose to delete is one which simply sets out arbitrarily, without any explanation, to exclude towns in County Dublin from the benefit of this scheme. There may be an argument for doing it, but the argument needs to be made. Why, for example, exclude Balbriggan, Skerries, Rush, Lusk, The Naul, Dalkey, Stepaside, Ballybrack, Shankill and even Clondalkin. They are all excluded and every one of them, as I know from my childhood, was and still is a town with an identifiable centre, an identifiable entity. The same can be said of Clondalkin and Glasthule, and it can certainly be said of Skerries and of Balbriggan.

Why exclude those from the provisions of this Bill? Why exclude the potential to support a community and the development of a community in the way that this Bill sets out to do in towns countrywide? I have no idea. This element of arbitrariness runs all through this Bill. It is arbitrary in the way the selection is made. The Minister of State has objected to my exaggeration of the role of the Minister for Finance. I tabled an amendment for later on which perhaps the Minister of State could accept, that would remove the arbitrariness of the role of the Minister for Finance in this and that would respect subsidiarity, which the Minister has now discovered.

The provisions of this Bill, the arbitrariness of which is illustrated in section 1, give a totally arbitrary role to the Minister for Finance in these designations. Having invited local authorities to do the job for which the Minister of State rightly commended him, he takes all decisions out of their hands as to which towns will be designated.

I invite the Minister of State to accept amendment No. 1 and to signal that he accepts the other amendments tabled in Deputy Gilmore's name and mine, intended to remove the arbitrary character of this Bill.

Mr. Gilmore

We have until just 1.30 p.m. I regret that we do not have a longer period to have a proper Committee Stage debate on this Bill and, in particular, this amendment. There is no excuse for excluding the entire area of County Dublin in this Bill. As Deputy Dukes says, there are many towns in Dublin which would benefit from a town renewal scheme. We should stop defining towns as constructions which are surrounded by countryside. There are such things as urban towns. Deputy Dukes identified some of them there as I did on Second Stage, such as Ballybrack, Shankill, Cabinteely, Cornelscourt, Glasthule, Balbriggan, Newcastle and Clondalkin. These are all towns which would benefit from the town renewal scheme.

I ask the Minister of State in the limited time available to include Dublin again in this Bill. The provision taking Dublin out of this Bill is an attack by this Government on Dublin and the towns of Dublin. It should be discontinued and Dublin should be included in this scheme.

Mr. D. Wallace

This scheme is specifically designed to promote the physical renewal of smaller towns with a heavy focus on residential development in run down areas thus revitalising them as living communities. I am confident that selective application of the incentives to the smaller towns will have the desired effect. Towns in the counties specified in this section as drafted are suburban in character due to their close proximity to Dublin city and attract many people who commute to the city. Land and house prices are indicative of the already high demand for housing in these sectors. The Government is satisfied there is no need for special incentives for the area. In these circumstances, I regret it is not possible to accept this amendment.

Mr. Dukes

I do not accept the Minister of State's statement.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, subsection (1), line 15, after "exceed" to insert "approximately".

This Bill limits the provisions of the town renewal scheme to towns which do not exceed 6,000 persons in the Census of Population. Instead of saying "not exceed 6,000", we should state "approximately 6,000". In other words, 6,000 should be a guideline rather than an absolute limit. It is nonsensical that if a town has a population of 6,050 it does not qualify under the scheme. A form of approximation should be used rather than absolute limits which can create anomalies.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

As it is now 1.30 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of 22 June: "That sections 1 to 10, inclusive, the Schedule and Title are hereby agreed to in Committee and the Bill is accordingly reported to the House without amendment, Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."

Question put and agreed to.