Before Committee Stage begins I want to inform the House that amendments Nos. 1 and 2 have been ruled out of order on the grounds of being outside the scope of the Bill and involving a charge on the Revenue respectively.
SECTION 1.
Urban Renewal Bill, 1986: Committee Stage.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
Would the Minister agree that this is a limited Bill? When I say that I do not say it in any derogatory sense or as denigrating the Bill in any way. The Bill has a specific purpose, a very good purpose, on which we all agree. While the 1982 urban renewal legislation could be applied to many and different urban areas this Bill is related specifically to the Dublin area and to Waterford, Galway, Limerick and Cork. Would it be more appropriate to have that inserted in the Bill by stating, for instance: "This Act may be cited as the Urban Renewal (Custom House Docks and Designated Areas) Act, 1986" or in some way to mention as well the cities of Waterford, Galway, Limerick and Cork? I do not say this in criticism of the Bill but the purpose of the Bill should be clearly stated in the short title.
It is the parliamentary draftsman who provides the title for the Bill and this Bill deals with urban renewal. It is a very concise name, rather than defining particular areas. This is a standard form of section providing for the short title by which the Bill, when enacted, may be cited. In other words it is just a name on the Bill. We accept this title. The function of this legislation is to deal with urban renewal. I accept it as such.
I accept what the Minister says. I see this as the first of many Bills dealing with urban renewal. This specific purpose should be included in the brief description. I accept what the Minister says.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
Section 2 is interestingly referred to as the interpretation section. When I read the section first I had hoped it would be referred to as the definition section. I raise that point because I am concerned at the interpretation which this Bill gives to the phrase "designated area". Section 2 of the Bill tells us that "designated area" has the meaning assigned to it by section 6. Section 6 of the Bill simply tells us that, first, the Custom House Docks area shall be a designated area for the purposes of the Bill, and, secondly, that an area which is affected by an order under section 6 (2) shall be a designated area. Section 6 (2) simply states that the Minister may, for the purposes of the section, by order, declare an area to be a designated area where he is satisfied that there is a special need to promote urban renewal therein and may by such order describe such an area in whatever manner he thinks fit. I would like to ask the Minister if he would agree with me that the interpretation section, so far as designated area is concerned, and section 6 (2) lead us nowhere.
This Bill in one sense is defective in that it does not contain a proper definition of "designated area".
Section 2 (1) contains definitions in so far as they are necessary. The appropriate Minister is defined for the purpose of section 9 (3). "The authority" means the Custom House Dock Development Authority. "The Board" is defined as the Dublin Port and Docks Board for the purposes of section 13. "The company" is defined for the purposes of paragraph 1 of the definition of "statutory body" in section 2. Section 2 of the Companies Act, 1963, defines "company" as a company formed and registered under the Act, or an existing company. "An existing company" means a company formed and registered in the State under the earlier Companies Act. "Development plan" is defined for the purposes of section 12 (3). "Local authority" is defined for the purposes of paragraph (c) of the definition of statutory body and for the purposes of sections 7, 10 and 20. The Local Government Act, 1941, section 2 (2), defines local authority as a council of a county, a corporation of a county or other borough, a council of an urban district,.... commissioners of a town, and.... (b) a committee or joint committee or board or joint board, whether corporate or unincorporated, appointed by or under statute to perform the functions or any of the functions of any of the bodies mentioned, .... and (c) a committee or joint committee or board or joint board whether corporate or unincorporated other than a vocational educational committee or a committee of agriculture of or appointed by one or more of the bodies mentioned. "Statutory body" is defined for the purpose of section 9 (5). Section 2 is a standard drafting provision under which "performance of functions" is defined to include the exercise of a power or duty. Section 1 includes powers and duties. Subsection (3) is the standard draft provision.
I do not accept there is any conflict here, or that the Bill is defective in any form at all. Section 2 is just basically for definitions.
I want to pursue the point I am making. I have no difficulty at all with section 6 (1) (a) which provides that the Custom House Docks area is a designated area. We are talking about the interpretation of "designated area" in section 2. Section 2 says that "designated area" has the meaning assigned to it by section 6. I have no difficulty with section 6 (1) (a) which provides one type of designated area. The other type of designated area is that which the Bill attempts to define in section 6 (2). It refers to an area which the Minister declares to be a designated area. What is, therefore, a designated area? I would say that this Bill, in section 2, in so far as it attempts to interpret "designated area" is totally misleading. It leads us nowhere, because there is no interpretation of the term "designated area". There is no definition of the term "designated area". I do not think it is sufficient or fair of the parliamentary draftsman to allow the Minister to present to the Houses of the Oireachtas a Bill which does not give a precise definition and, which leads us on a roundabout which gets us nowhere.
We all know, if we refer to section 6 (2), that there is a wish to promote urban renewal. That exists in so far as every urban area is concerned. My concern is that if one reads the interpretation section, which is section 2 and if one examines the phrase "designated area", if one follows through to section 6, which is the direction one is given in section 2, one is led nowhere. This Bill is defective in that there is no proper statutory interpretation available within the confines of this Bill of the phrase "designated area". That is in so far as section 6 (1) (b) refers to such an area.
When the Minister is making the Order after the Bill is passed, he will then designate the areas which we are talking about in this Bill. He will define them.
The Minister may define them but the purpose of the Oireachtas is to introduce legislation which gives a little clarity to the law. We are introducing extremely important legislation on which the recent Finance Act has some bearing. Yet there is no precise definition of what is a designated area. It is not a matter for the Minister, at a future date, to sit in the Custom House and look out over the River Liffey and decide what will be a designated area. We are here attempting to legislate. We have before us, on Committee Stage of this Bill, an interpretation section. One of the phrases we are trying to interpret is "designated area". This Bill is very defective in that there is no clear definition. I have no worry at all about the Minister sitting in the Custom House and trying to define "designated area". I know that he will be there for a long time. A long time may be a mere five or ten years. Beyond that period there may be people sitting in the Custom House whose interpretation of "designated area" may be very different from the Minister's interpretation.
When I come to section 6 I will deal with that. First of all, the designated areas were designated in the Finance Bill, as the House is probably aware. The designation in this Bill is purely for the purposes of rate relief, and has not any financial implications. In the Schedule to the Finance Bill the particular areas of designation were clearly defined, literally street by street. From the point of view of financial provisions that is dealt with in the Finance Act. It is the only way it can be dealt with. When I come to section 6, I will outline the position more fully.
There is nothing irregular about the legislation. The legislation is normal legislation, given that it is encompassed in two pieces of legislation. The financial arrangements have to be made in the Finance Bill. That is where all the areas in the Schedule were properly designated, literally street by street, for the purposes of granting tax relief. In the same areas rate relief will apply. There is not any ambiguity with regard to the actual areas of designation within the law of the land.
It seems that these sections are quite comprehensive regarding interpretation and yet when we come to section 7 (3) there is a reference to "occupier". I went back from that section to this interpretation section and I see that there is no definition of "occupier". I would like to ask the Minister if he thinks it might be necessary to define the word "occupier". This is an important section. Is that definition sufficiently determined by statute so that it does not need a definition?
We are advised by the parliamentary draftsman that it is not necessary to define it.
I have one other point which relates to the definition or interpretation of the phrase "statutory body". Section 2 (1)(g) reads: "a board or other body established by or under statute." I think that is a pretty interesting and very embracing phrase. The point I want to put to the Minister is this: does that phrase not, in fact, embrace as many of the other things which are specifically deemed to be statutory bodies within the meaning of this Act? If that is so, as I believe it to be, there may be a certain amount of surplusage in the interpretation given by this Bill. What prompted me to raise this, initially, was that on my first reading of the statutory body interpretation I felt that the regional fisheries boards should have been included. I find they are not included. I find they could be covered by (g). If they are covered by (g), then is there not a lot of other surplusage, for instance, local authorities, harbour authorities and health boards, which could all be excluded to make the Bill slightly less bulky, though it is not a bulky Bill. Bills should contain as little as possible.
I would not disagree with you, Senator, about the Bill's lack of bulk. We are advised by the parliamentary draftsman that this is the way to do it. Basically we are in the draftsman's hands when it comes to framing this type of legislation. His best advice is that it should be done in this way. I accept what you are saying. When one is dealing with the parliamentary draftsmen, you have to take their legal expertise and legal advice in the interest of the longstanding tradition in law.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill".
Are the orders in section 4 the same as those referred to in section 6, or is there a distinction here?
Yes. Orders in section 4 include orders in section 6 as well.
Do they exclusively include section 6 or could other orders be made, apart from the orders which are defined in section 6?
There are a pile of orders which can be made. Under section 4, orders can be made amending an order under the Act. Section 6 (2) refers to orders concerning designation of areas. Section 8(1) deals with orders concerning the establishment of a Customs House Dock development area. Section 9 (3) deals with orders concerning assignment of functions to the authority in addition to those already assigned by section 9(1). Section 13(1) deals with orders transferring land owned by the Dublin Port and Docks Board to the Custom House dock development authority. Section 22(1) deals with orders dissolving the authority. They are a list of orders that can be made.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill".
This refers to designated areas. These are already determined, as I understand it, in the Fourth Schedule to the Finance Act. The Minister also told us in his introductory speech that the areas proposed for designation have already been determined and are described in the Fourth Schedule to the Finance Act, 1986. Therefore, it seems to me that we are talking about a specific area. Would the Minister, for example, enlarge those areas or if that is not possible perhaps other areas could be declared to be designated areas for the purpose of this Bill?
Yes, I could designate other areas under the section but they would not carry with them the financial tax breaks we are talking about. All they would carry with them are the tax reliefs. I want to say that it is not my intention to extend or make further designated areas. The question is can I? I can, but without the financial arrangements under the Finance Act 1986.
With the exception of rates.
With the exception of rates.
I would like to ask the Minister in relation to this section where we are dealing with areas which would be designated, other than the Custom House Docks area, where of course, there is a special and separate authority set up under the Bill, how he expects the local authority to respond in relation to the question of dealing with bringing about a degree of excellence in these areas above and beyond the manner to which the local authorities respond at this point in time? I noticed recently in a statement by the Minister for the Environment that he will expect the local authorities — and I have particular interest in this in the Dublin Corporation — to mount an aggressive sales campaign in relation to designated areas in order to publicise a new package by whatever measures seem most appropriate. The corporation will need to see themselves as a development broker bringing land owners and development potential investors together, where necessary and doing everything they can to facilitate development and redevelopment proposals. In short, it would be up to the corporation to show that they have the capacity to act as a development corporation to their area and to use the wide powers they have under the Planning and Development Act to promote and facilitate development. In the course of that speech quite a wide area was mentioned by the Minister all of which, of course, is very welcome. It is very much of an initiative for these areas as distinct from the authority set up for the Custom House Docks area.
The Minister went on to indicate that he intended to ask the corporation in Dublin in relation to designated areas to appoint a suitable senior officer to act as a development co-ordinator in order to review their development plan so as to ensure that the development planning was not inhibiting or inflexible or containing out of date provisions and to make land owned by derelict or vacant sites available on reasonable terms, to initiate a crash programme in these development areas leading towards interim improvements of derelict sites, many of which have a very disfiguring effect on the city, and then to get on to use their compulsory purchase powers, where necessary, to ensure that sites of suitable size and shape are available. More interestingly, it deals with special attention to street cleansing and refuse collection in the designated areas, the handling of unsightly advertising or other material on hoardings and the initiatiation of programmes to affect environmental improvement in designated areas by creating small landscaped areas in vacant lots and the carrying out of tree-planting. It deals with ensuring that footpaths, roadways and public lighting are maintained to a good standard. Special attention is directed towards developing and implementing pedestrianisation schemes where appropriate. Of course these schemes have advanced recently. It deals with reviewing the approach to street furniture and generally to ensuring that their own housekeeping in the areas is greatly improved.
This section does not go into as much detail in relation to designated areas as it does in regard to setting up the very new authority for the Custom House Docks area. Given the performance of Dublin Corporation or of other local authorities in this area how does the Minister expect the corporation to be able to act in this area of development co-ordination? Does he see them getting involved in attracting personnel from outside the corporation who might bring a new breadth of vision and interest to the activities of the corporation. How do they visualise the very exciting proposals, contained in this statement that I mentioned, being implemented?
First of all, in designating all of these areas we did have consultation with all of the local authorities. Indeed, it was on their suggestions that we took on board all of the areas that are there, after full consultations with officials. The local authorities were very keen. I would have to compliment most of them for the progressive way in which they initially were very keen on the ideas and are taking them on board and moving in the direction.
The reason we issued a directive and a statement to the corporation of what we wanted done was that first of all the appointment of a development officer was important. Somebody who is responsible for moving and getting all of this development into place is important. If we leave it to the various Departments, as can happen, nothing will happen because there will be a breakdown in communications and disagreement as to who is ultimately responsible for carrying it through. That was the reason for the need for a development officer who would inform the corporation that they have a responsibility in these areas in regard to site assembly, helping compulsory purchase orders and where they have land themselves information that they would either develop the land themselves or dispose of it at a reasonable price to allow of good development. We have indicated quite clearly that what is required in all of these areas is high standard development. A high standard of development is necessary if we are to improve the image of the particular area of dereliction.
One of the problems is the matter of derelict sites for which local authorities as well as private individuals have a responsibility. We will be bringing for ward legislation before the year is out to have something done about the eradication of derelict sites in order to ensure that people just cannot sit on them for whatever reason they want for years and years. They must be brought forward, or if there are problems at least the sites and the surroundings of them must be brought up to a high environmental standard, so that we will not have this willy-nilly dereliction.
Street cleaning leaves a lot to be desired. There is a very low standard. I am glad we were able to announce today a package of £10 million for the Dublin city centre. It is designed to allow for the improvement of the areas of main shopping streets and getting a commissioner in there to take it on board and to reach a standard. After three years it would be expected that he would hand it back to the local authority at a very high standard. There are standards there to be reached. We have not got standards. There is no level at which to draw a line. That is why we have continuous dereliction and the downward trend within our cities. There is not a standard there. By doing what we are doing in the new Bill we are bringing before this House and the other House shortly that such standards are what we want to achieve. The local authorities have the responsibility for these areas. They have an obligation to initiate schemes and to encourage developers. They will be advertising. We are in the process now of publishing a book on all of these things and the reasons for them and the values in them. Local authorities will get these books and they will be widely circualted. We hear complaints if we take powers from local authorities. We get bad publicity about it. We are not in this case doing it. We are giving them a lot more responsibility. What we are saying and what we did say in our correspondence — and I have been in correspondence with the managers — is that they have got a job to do now and they must get out and do it efficiently, effectively and well. We are telling them they have the tools. I have no doubt that in some local authority and county borough areas things will be happening very shortly.
I welcome every word and portion of the statement of the Minister in relation to designated areas. It will be a great step forward if only we can get the kind of response from the county boroughs as the Minister appears to believe he will get. The Minister and I were elected in the same electoral area in 1974. Shortly afterwards the then Government played a backroom role in relation to ensuring that something was done about inner city housing renewal. Of course, over the decade and more that has passed since there has been a great renewal of that kind in the centre of Dublin. It was brought about more than anything by the decision that was taken accurately at the time against the wishes of the then city manager to appoint a housing co-ordinator responsible for the programme in the centre of the city which was the programme of inner housing renewal. Although he had a wider brief of responsibility for housing generally in the city and county he took particular interest in getting on with the rebuilding of sites that had lain dormant and very inactive although intentions on compul sory purchase orders were in the back ground for decades earlier.
The status of this housing co-ordinator was Assistant City Manager. We were particularly fortunate in the individual, Mr. Molloy, who took over that role in the mid-1970s. I just wonder whether or not the high standard that the Minister talks about — and I would like to see that happen — will be sufficiently demonstrated if we do not get the right calibre of official responsible for these designated areas and for the whole new approach that the Minister envisages. It would be unsatisfactory if that individual is not given in the Dublin context and the scale of the designated areas involved here a status of that kind, because the role he will have to play will run from one department of the corporation to another. Within the operation of the county borough development will have an immensely important effect on designated areas but only if the status of the officer responsible for them means that he is right up at the city manager's table and is able to negotiate with his fellow assistant city managers on matters of detail. Funding will have to back up that detail. I would hope that in the appointment of the individual concerned as senior officer, perhaps the Minister might consider creating an assistant city manager position which would have a role of much greater strength within the office of the county borough to ensure that this question of designation is given the status it deserves.
The managers have been requested to appoint officers in all the areas. A number of them have done it. It is my clear understanding that the person who will be appointed will have full power at management meetings. In Dublin I have no doubt it will be an assistant city manager or a deputy city manager who will be appointed, giving him obviously and all the other managers seats at the same table. It is important that that happens. In other areas the same type of appointments are being made. People of the highest calibre within local authorities are looking after this. Some of them are moving rapidly forward at the moment despite the fact that the Bill has not yet been passed.
Everybody would welcome the legislation which the Minister talks about for dealing with derelict sites provided it is sensitive. Also, I would welcome the guidelines regarding design provided that these are wide enough in scope not to inhibit creativity. With regard to the Minister's reply to my earlier question about designated areas I understand the position to be that the Minister has the power by order to enlarge these areas or to declare other areas designated areas but these areas would not then have all the financial benefits that accrue to these particular ones. In that situation I would say to the Minister that there is no point in having this power because it would be quite ineffective. I would like to ask him if there is any way that financial benefit of the order given in this Bill could be allocated to other areas if he wanted to do that?
The only way that could be done is by bringing in an amendment to the Finance Act. As I indicated, we have a right to make other designated areas but only with the rate relief involved and no other financial provisions. An amendment to the Finance Bill would be required if we felt that tax breaks were needed if we decided on another area. That is not envisaged as of now. I want to make that quite clear.
I listened to the last remarks of Senator FitzGerald and the Minister's response with particular interest. It seems that if we are to promote urban renewal we can do so by a Bill of this nature in one sense. We cannot do so in an absolute sense unless we encourage people back to live in the city centre. For that reason I agree with and support the remarks made by Senator FitzGerald in so far as he spoke in that direction. I do not think we can do that unless there is a firm indication by Government that there is a willingness to introduce the necessary aids to encourage people and to make it attractive for them to live in the city centre. By that I refer in particular to the whole direction of housing policy at the moment whereby people have made available to them very substantial grants to build new houses. People living in local authority houses are now encouraged to give up those houses and to buy or build houses.
There is not the same encouragement to people to come and buy and live in the city centre. That applies not only in Dublin but in the urban cores of all our towns throughout the country. There is a disincentive in relation to the grant levels despite the new house improvement grants. There is a very substantial disincentive in so far as stamp duty is concerned in that there can be a very substantial burden placed on somebody who wishes to live in the city centre because when he acquires a building he is faced with a very heavy stamp duty charge which would not otherwise be payable. If we are to remove from city centres the problems of crime and vandalism which we have at the moment, essentially we can only do that if we bring people back to live in the city centres, to act as a constant vigilant police force there. That is the big problem with Dublin city centre at the moment. I say this as a rural person, as somebody who comes from the other side of this country but who can remember, not too many years ago, coming to Dublin on visits and being able to walk with a feeling of safety around the centre city streets. One could do that because people were living there.
I do not think that this Bill, of itself, will get people back living in the city centre. I do not think, of itself, it will renew the city centre unless the other steps are taken by Government to encourage people to live there. By that I mean special provisions in relation to the abolition of stamp duty on people who acquire dwellings in designated areas and further housing grants for people who attempt to create a dwelling within the city centres. I do not believe urban areas will be renewed if people are kept out of there. Cities like Dublin and other urban centres were built and designated for people to live in. It seems that this Bill on its own will not encourage people back to live in the city centre. I would like to get from the Minister an assurance that the other necessary steps will be taken to encourage people to live in the city centres.
I wholeheartedly agree with Senator Durcan in this. That is the whole thrust of what we are doing here. With regard to the incentives, what we are actually doing is that as well as all the incentives that are available for people purchasing houses today, such as mortgage interest relief for first-time buyers or the mortgage subsidy, if they are building a home within this area they get a 50 per cent write-off of that dwelling over ten years. If they refurbish it they can write off 50 per cent of the refurbishment over ten years, as well as all the other breaks that they get. That is a fairly substantial incentive for people who are contemplating living in the city. No piece of legislation will in itself encourage people to come in. Many other things would have to be done. The indication to the corporation the desire to improve the environment and clean the streets and improve the general attitude towards the environment within the inner city had as its purpose to make it more attractive environmentally for people to come and either work or live there. The incentive of 50 per cent over ten years is a reasonable additional incentive. Unlike the section 23 provision by which the owner gets the concession, when he rents the property he can write the rent off. This is for the end user, the tenant. It is purposely designed to give residents the benefit for residing in the particular areas of the city.
The Bill published today will also have this effect because it will uplift considerably the main spine of our city, running from Grafton Street right across to the foot of Parnell Square and all of the smaller streets intervening. This will be uplifted to a very high standard and make our city more attractive. People will get to know it a little better and will possibly then want to reside in it.
We would hope to have, after consultations with the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána, a different type of law enforcement — the same Garda Síochána but possibly differently structured in the areas we talked about today. All of that will tend to make people aware of the city and encourage them to decide to live there. The only way we can do it is by making the city more attractive. The local authority have a role to play. Central Government in the tax breaks and indeed in what we have introduced today will also, have as much, if not more, impact in helping to improve the overall standard of our city and other cities as well.
I am confident that the breaks we are giving for housing particularly are pitched about right. You can always ask why we did not give 100 per cent but you cannot give too much away: you have to strike a balance. Someone building a house gets £2,000 new house grant plus £3,000 mortgage subsidy plus the 50 per cent write-off for the cost of the building over ten years plus — if they are borrowing the money — interest relief on the mortgage. All of that makes it very attractive for someone to consider residing in the city. I hope it is sufficiently attractive because the problem is something that has worried me. The corporation have done a great job with regard to housing people in the inner city. It has been a lopsided social development and what we want is a good social mix. I hope this Bill will bring about the kind of social mix which is needed in villages, towns and cities. We must have all strands of society getting to know each other and in trying to achieve that we have got the right balance and it is now only a question of time. These benefits apply for three years so things will have to happen quickly if people want to benefit. We should see movement in the next six months and we will then be able to see in what direction it is moving. One hopes it will work and it will not be for want of effort by my Department or myself if this is unsuccessful. It is a new approach which is long overdue in regard to all our cities and it will be a landmark in the campaign to make inner cities more attractive for people to live in.
I welcome the extension of this scheme to Waterford and I thank the Minister and Minister of State for all that they have done to expedite the extension of the scheme to Waterford because when the scheme was announced for Dublin, Cork and Limerick and Waterford found itself in the unenviable position of being the one borough council omitted from the scheme there was consternation, to put it mildly, at local level. The corporation of which I am a member since the last local election and the chamber of commerce and all the various bodies within the city quickly got together and took concerted action in order to draw the attention of the Minister and the Department to the fact that Waterford had — by accident, I hope — been omitted from the scheme and fairly speedily the Minister and the Department conceded that the scheme should be extended to Waterford and also to Galway which was then designated a borough council. So, all five borough councils now have designated areas.
I would like to thank the Minister for his visit to Waterford, hot on the heels of a visit from Minister John Boland who visited us very shortly after he took office to announce that the scheme would be extended to Waterford. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Brien, then came and told us the details of the designated area. The scheme has been very warmly received in Waterford. I understand that there has been a great number of inquiries to the City Hall and to the planning department and one hopes that very soon evidence of this interest will be seen in a tangible, practicable form when some rejuvenation and revitalisation of Waterford becomes apparent to the casual observer. In the designated area which was outlined by Minister Fergus O'Brien on his visit it is quite obvious that the city had become derelict and run down and that some sort of fire-brigade action was needed to bring it up to scratch. There were huge gaps and derelict sites and an all-pervading air of decay — that would be the kindest way to describe it — in the area. Certainly, the incentives contained in the package must make it attractive to developers to get cracking and bring about the necessary change in the area. I would not like this Bill to go through the Seanad without voicing my appreciation of the fact that the scheme has been extended to Waterford.
I would like to concur with what Senator Durcan has said about additional incentives required for people who decide to live in the inner city and to refurbish old houses. I take the Minister's point about the necessity and desirability of having a good social mix. That is certainly significant and makes for better communities. I have noticed in Waterford a tremendous surge of interest in the local authority building in the inner city and a tremendous wish on the part of many families who now live in local authority estates on the outskirts of the city to come back into town where they will not have transportation costs and where they will be near facilities. It will facilitate people who were brought up in the inner city of Waterford and who perforce have had to live outside it in the estates on the periphery.
By and large Waterford has an excellent scheme for building local authority houses within the inner city but the refurbishing of houses by private individuals requires greater State underpinning. I know of cases where people feel a little hard done by. By choice, they would like to refurbish an old house within the inner city area and they do not get the same grants and incentives they would get if they decided to build a new house on the periphery of the city. I know people who have had to take second choice in the matter of housing because they have not been able to avail of incentives and grants to do what they wanted in the inner city. This is a pity because there is no point in talking about the desirability of a social mix if we do not make it easier for people to achieve it and live in the inner city.
Senator Durcan referred to the problems of vandalism and crime which flow from a depopulated and under-populated inner city area and the same applies in Waterford as other centres. We should do all in our power to encourage the social mix and greater population in inner city areas and in order to do that we need to do so much more than just express that as an ideal. We need to put in the financial incentives which make that desirable. A person who wishes to refurbish an old house encounters greater financial difficulty than if he decided to build elsewhere.
Again, I welcome this scheme and I know I speak for many people in the Waterford area who were pleased to have a positive response from the Minister and his Department in this matter.
The Minister mentioned the announcement today in relation to the central trading area and the £10 million package that is to be available towards uplifting that area. I understand that a Bill on this matter is likely to come before the House before the summer recess. I referred earlier to the status of the officer responsible for the designated areas in the county borough and I was very encouraged to hear from the Minister that somebody of the status of assistant city manager will be responsible. He said earlier that he expected a high standard of local authority action in these areas in enticing others to come in and build, improve, rehabilitate and generally to bring accommodation in these areas which are generally run-down up to a new level. It is very important that these areas should be identifiable as compared with the rest of the city and all the various areas that were mentioned to the Minister, park developments, pavements, and so on will have to be uplifted.
Does the Minister envisage funding being available towards getting ahead with some of this work in some parts of the designated areas in advance of others? It will be important for the local authority to show very early its real grasp of the enormity of this task by doing some of the initial remedial work that could be done to attract development, in other words, to demonstrate that this is not going to be dealt with in the manner local authorities have dealt with the surrounding areas of new development in the past but that it would be marked by a change of approach and the high standards the Minister mentioned. I wonder to what extent Dublin Corporation will be funded to get on with this work early. It is important that it be done early. The encouragement that would give to good development would be enormous and I think it will be necessary to ensure the success of these designated areas.
I thank Senator Bulbulia for her kind remarks about including Waterford: we were delighted to do that. With regard to refurbishing a house it has the same tax break as if one were building a new house. You can write 50 per cent of the refurbishment off over ten years plus any of the other benefits that may accrue. There is that incentive. If people like an old house they can refurbish it and write off 50 per cent of the cost of so doing over ten years.
Senator FitzGerald seems to have a little niggle in his mind about the quality or the type of planning the local authority might bring forward. It is the job of the planning authority to ensure that a high standard be developed as we have asked. Ultimately, the independent local authority will make these decisions. If we did not want it that way we should have appointed a separate commission to do the job. On balance, with regard to the areas of designation, I think we are better to leave them in the hands of the local authorities because they are more capable of doing the job.
Unlike the streets commission we talked about today for which money is being made available, there are no grants or tax breaks in that area but there are such in the designated area. There is a limit to what one can do in all of this and, again, it is a question of getting the balance right. The tax breaks in the designated areas are right. It is important to mention them again. Outside Dublin there is a 100 per cent write off on commercial buildings, and a ten-year tax relief for the end user which is the most important benefit of all because if you are going to build you must get people to use. If there is a good attraction for the end user the whole scheme will be a success. The attraction for the end user here is a double rent write off. This in effect means that people who are in business to make a profit can write double rental off which means that they have rent free premises for ten years plus a ten year rate relief. This is a tremendous attraction for people contemplating moving into an area. That will be the incentive that will sell this package. That is the financial incentive that is going into the designated area.
As I indicated quite clearly, the local authority have a role to play here to ensure that the environment is right. It has been their responsibility always to have the environment right. It may have slipped from their grasp over the years but it does not mean that they have to be absolved from the responsibility now. We are setting in place the areas with the kind of tax incentives to make it attractive and the least a local authority should do for their own area is to make it as attractive as possible and create the right environment for people. We are not talking about large sums of money when we are talking about that kind of treatment. To totally spoonfeed local authorities and let them bask in all the benefits that come in is not I think the kind of climate that would create the kind of developments we want. The local authorities are charged with a responsibility to move forward and get these areas developed rapidly. I believe they will do that. I believe the personnel they will appoint will be of an adequate standard. We have all stressed — and I believe that forward planners in the corporation feel the same way — that we want to see in these areas buildings of high quality. If we do that we will further increase development in the surrounding areas because once an area becomes popular people want to locate in or about that area.
What we are doing will be the catalyst encouraging development in other areas and in particular north of the river. That is an area that has been neglected for far too long. In the period 1960 to 1984 only 15 per cent of the office development has been located north of the river. Ten per cent of that was in one area by one particular company. Little or nothing has happened on that side of the city and it is imperative that something does happen. The development of the port and docks area, which is not the designated area we are talking about, should have a tremendous effect in encouraging people to locate north of the river. As a result of this you will see a tremendous renewal in the next ten or 15 years in an area of the city that has lain dormant and derelict for far too long.
I have been teasing this out because I have been aware of the considerable work done by the city planning department in recent years as regards studies of areas of the city in which environmental improvements and uplifting were necessary. Bound books have been produced on what should be done with these areas. The difficulty has been that funding is not normally available to the planning department. The city planning department is not a spending department and for that reason not enough action has taken place at local level. I hope that the city council can be useful in this area by way of the estimates next year. However, I am very concerned that the funding will be available for the start that will be necessary to encourage developers to get involved in these designated areas in advance of some work on the ground, showing the standard of urban renewal that the corporation will for their part undertake. It is important from a timing point of view that the corporation be seen to come in first to make some kind of a mark on the area and to give an indication of what can be expected from them.
Question put and agreed to.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.