Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 30 Jun 1998

Vol. 156 No. 7

Urban Renewal Bill, 1998: Committee and Remaining Stages.

Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Costello

Section 5 (1) states "Each local authority may appoint a company (including a company established by a local authority) to be an authorised company for the purposes of this Act.". Subsection (2) says an authorised company may deal with "any provision of this Act in which that reference occurs falls to be applied". Is the Minister proposing to establish an implementation or management company to oversee implementation of the provisions in the Bill? I am not sure how the integrated area plans will be monitored and implemented. Local authorities have a brief to draw up the plan and forward it to the Department of the Environment and Local Government which, in consultation with the Minister for Finance, will decide whether to accept it and the plan will then be returned to the local authority. Is the local authority responsible for its implementation? Does this section establish an implementation company? If so, are there any structures regarding its operation?

This is a serious matter because there are no details of how the integrated plans will operate. It was different with other plans when we were simply providing tax relief for private investors building office blocks or residential apartments. However, this is an integrated plan which involves a wide range of functions. Who has the authority and expertise to oversee implementation of the plans?

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government (Mr. Molloy)

Section 5(1) provides that a "local authority may appoint a company (including a company established by a local authority) to be an authorised company". Alternatively, the local authority can draw up the integrated plan. There is only one such company in existence so far, namely, the Ballymun Development Company, which is carrying out its functions under the Urban Renewal Act as a local authority may if it draws up its own IAP. Implementation, therefore, would be by the company if authorised to do so by the local authority.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 6 agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Costello

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, before section 7, to insert the following new section:

"(7) As soon as practicable after this Part comes into operation, the Minister shall report to both Houses of the Oireachtas on the implications of extending the availability of home improvement grants in respect of private owner-occupiers of residential property in qualifying areas generally.".

This is an important amendment which I ask the Minister to accept. The ethos of integrated area plans is to broaden the scope to include the range of activities and concerns described in section 7, including introducing a socio-economic dimension, protection of the environment, employment, training and education. Section 7(6) speaks of the "objectives for the improvement of existing residential communities and the development of new such communities, including the development of housing for people of different social backgrounds". My main concern is that no plan to date has included consideration, good, bad or indifferent, of native communities geographically encompassed by them.

People living in these urban communities, including their parents and grandparents, are not given any financial incentive to enable them improve their situation. Incentives are given purely in terms of tax relief. However, very many of these people are not in a position to avail of tax relief. They have a roof over their heads, having purchased their small houses, perhaps from the local authority, when house prices were much lower than at present. Many of these people are elderly and do not have the means to benefit from the tax relief envisaged in the legislation. Consequently, there is no financial benefit to them. Yet these are the people around whom the area plan is constructed. This means there is a serious lacuna unless we find some mechanism of allowing them improve their properties and homes.

The amendment is specific and concerns private owner-occupiers of residential property within qualifying areas. The same principle should apply to urban and rural areas, although this legislation is concerned with urban renewal. We hate to see dereliction continuing in little pockets while private residential accommodation and business and enterprise office blocks are built around them. The Minister should look seriously at this issue.

A prime example is the Custom House Docks development, which is like a fortress and from which there has been no spin-off to the local community. Sheriff Street is located on one side of the development with Amiens Street and part of the north east inner city on the other. To ensure it is an integrated area plan, we must find a means to give some financial incentive. The only way to do so is to provide home improvement grants because of the lack of means of people in this area. I ask the Minister to seriously consider this amendment in the context of the integrated area plans.

Mr. J. Doyle

I am sympathetic to this amendment. The problem is that people living in private accommodation which they own and who have little income are unable to refurbish their dwellings. That is what Senator Costello has in mind. A scheme is operated by the Minister's Department of which I have availed on a number of occasions for people living in such conditions. The scheme is run by the Eastern Health Board and perhaps the Minister might indicate if the other health boards have such a task force in place. The scheme in this area is known as eastern community works, for which the Eastern Health Board receives a grant of £300,000 from the Department which pays for the inspectorate. The labour force is provided by FÁS who carry out repairs for elderly people living in private accommodation who do not have the means to carry out the repairs. The important words in Senator Costello's amendment are "extending availability". I ask the Minister to extend that grant scheme, which works very well and for which £300,000 is made available. If the scheme was extended, it would fulfil the requirement in Senator Costello's amendment.

Mr. Norris

I am also sympathetic to these schemes, which were in operation over the years and were availed of by people who found them extremely useful, particularly those who were a little hard up. There were, however, many cut-backs in this area and virtually none survived. In terms of the general concept of urban renewal, one of the principal problems in areas such as that in which I live is not that owner occupiers do not maintain their property in good condition but that a number of people who have many properties which were formerly residential do absolutely nothing with them and allow them to become completely derelict.

On Second Stage I drew the Minister's attention to a number of these properties and I hope something will be done. The power exists to take such properties into public ownership and restore them. I am very sympathetic to the idea of relatively modest grants being made available to people. I am not under the illusion it will solve the problem of urban blight. That problem will not be solved until and unless we attack problems like that which was exposed two weeks ago in Ireland on Sunday of a Mrs. Underwood who has a property portfolio worth £10 million to £20 million which is all decaying and absolutely nothing is done about her. Twice I have won against her in court and she was sentenced to six months in jail and was fined £35,000, but she got away with it. There is no point giving grants to such people.

Mr. Molloy

While I accept the desirability of a targeted house improvement grant scheme, I do not accept it should necessarily be targeted solely within the integrated area plan. My priority within the necessarily limited funding which is likely to be available for any house improvement grant scheme would rather be to target resources at improving the housing conditions of low income groups and special category needs, such as the elderly and the disabled.

In the context of the Government's, An Action Programme for the Millennium, I am examining possible options to extend the range of measures currently available to assist low income households in securing necessary improvement works to their housing, including the disabled persons house grant. I regret, however, that pending completion of this examination and decision arising from it, I am not in a position to indicate the likely outcome. In the circumstances I must oppose the amendment as being wrongly focused in that it could result in a higher priority being afforded to housing in the integrated plan areas compared to the categories of need to which I referred.

Different points were made by Senators, including one on housing which is owner-occupied. Bringing back these grant schemes is a separate matter from urban renewal tax incentives to achieve certain objectives in the area of urban renewal. Under the terms of this Bill they must have a socio-economic aspect to them so that the indigenous community will be seen to benefit from whatever plans are drawn up. To ensure success in achieving that objective these planned areas are being drawn up at local authority level, where there should be active involvement by councillors and officials and where the local community should have an opportunity to contribute and to be made aware of what is proposed. A wide consultative process is being encouraged to ensure that what is best for the area emerges as the plan from the local authority in the recommendations it makes to the Department.

The issue raised by the amendment is one in which I, as Minister with responsibility for housing, have a special interest. There is a commitment in the Programme for Government to seek to reintroduce a home improvement grant scheme which will focus on those in greatest need — obviously, those on low incomes and people living in homes which they own but which they are unable to repair without some grant assistance. That is a matter of extreme urgency. I would not agree that such a scheme should be introduced and confined to the integrated areas which will be limited areas in the large cities and towns. There will be a number of such areas in Dublin because of its huge population, but in most counties one town will be selected. A certain area within part of a town will be designated for tax benefit to drive the objective the plan aims to achieve. It would be wrong of me as Minister with responsibility for housing to agree to such a selective introduction of a home improvement grant. I agree there is a need for such a grant but this is not the way to introduce it. I have proposals with the Minister for Finance in this area which I hope will be decided on one way or the other by budget time when next year's Estimates are being put together. That is the way to deal with this issue.

We hope that because of the new terms of reference and the bottom up approach to designation on this occasion, the socio-economic objectives will ensure local communities feel they have greater ownership of the plan and involvement in its success. Previously, Ministers arbitrarily selected streets by rule of thumb and great tax incentives were made available to property owners in those areas which achieved the objective of renewal. However, in many cases it was a crude instrument because there was much shadowing and many other businesses suffered. A bloom was created through these tax incentives in a different part of the town. These factors have been looked at carefully in relation to this new generation of urban renewal proposals.

This is a more targeted, selective and focused way of achieving specific objectives than was attempted previously. The local authority is involved on this occasion. Rather than the Minister telling them which areas he is designating, local authorities may make proposals which relate to proper studies which they have carried out. The plan will be integrated and will have an objective, all parts of which will be related to each other. This is not the way in which to achieve a home improvement grant scheme because it would be too narrow in its focus and too discriminating against the vast majority of poor home owners who have low incomes and who cannot afford to repair their houses.

Mr. Costello

I support the Bill and the concept of an area integrated plan as the basis of the Bill. However, I disagree with what the Minister of State describes as a selective scheme in terms of introducing home improvement grants. The Bill is a selective scheme. Its purpose is to select areas of socio-economic deprivation and put together a package of measures that will raise the entirety of the area.

The amendment focuses on a lacuna in the package of proposals. The Minister of State could improve the package if he dealt with the owner occupier. I do not refer to the landlord rented accommodation sector. It has enough incentives, and premises in this sector should be kept up to best standards. If not, the derelict sites legislation should be rigorously imposed.

Mr. Norris

Unfortunately, it is not.

Mr. Costello

I agree. I also agree with Senator Norris's remarks on a landlady in the north inner city who is allowing many properties in her ownership to fall to ruin. The problem should be addressed.

Another element should be included in the Minster of State's selective package, which would deal with deprived socio-economic, disadvantaged areas. Section 7(6)(a)(vi) provides that an integrated area plan may, where appropriate, in relation to the area to which it relates include:

objectives for the improvement of existing residential communities and the development of new such communities, including the development of housing for people of different social backgrounds,

This covers people who will not benefit by the package of tax incentives but who would benefit from a selective package of home improvement grants. They are residential occupiers within the area specified geographically by the Bill. By leaving them out, a pocket of disadvantage and dereliction will remain which will be an eyesore and be contrary to the intention of the legislation both in social and human terms.

Mr. Molloy

As in the past, we are seeking to achieve these objectives through tax incentives. This is not a grant awarding scheme. Senator Norris raised the issue of landlords who allow properties to fallow into dereliction and decay. A landlord whose tenant lives in a privately owned building which is not being looked after can be reported to the local authority for not maintaining the building in a good and proper condition, as laid down under the Housing Act. In such cases the local authority is obliged to have an engineer undertake a survey of the building. If he concludes it is not in a fit condition and does not comply with the requirements of the Act, he shall draw up a list of the works required, give an estimate of their cost and communicate to the owner of the dwelling directly, or, in the case of an absentee landlord, the rent collector, usually a solicitor, to the effect that such works must be undertaken. If the owner refuses, the local authority has the power under the Act to undertake them and bill the owner with the cost. If Senator Norris is aware of tenants who have been left in the terrible conditions he has outlined, he should report it to the local authorities.

Mr. Norris

I raised this very important case during the passage of the Derelict Sites Bill.

Mr. Molloy

It is not the derelict site legislation.

That deals with abandoned buildings.

Mr. Norris

There is a similar provision under the derelict sites legislation. Everything has been done. This person has been in court.

Mr. Molloy

It is the Housing Act, not the derelict sites legislation.

Mr. Norris

A schedule of repairs has been produced and indicated to the landlady and she has been sentenced and convicted for not carrying them out. However, the sentence has never been implemented, which is the problem. There is no teeth in the legislation. No corporation or Department will do anything about it. People like this get away with murder throughout Dublin city. I have personally funded actions against this person, which cost me a lot of money. I would like a little official support in future.

Mr. Molloy

In some cases where I have come across this in my constituency it has resulted in people being rehoused by the landlord.

Amendment put and declared lost.

SECTION 7.

Mr. J. Doyle

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 6, after line 50, to insert the following new subsection:

"(8) The adoption of an Integrated Area Plan shall be a reserved function of a local authority.".

Although the adoption of the integrated plans is a managerial function there was widespread consultation in my local authority with regard to the sections of the north inner city covered by the Coombe, the Liberties, O'Connell Street, and the Kilmainham-Inchicore area, which was the subject of an area plan before the integrated plans system was adopted. A colleague of Senator Costello, Alderman Connaughton, has a special interest in that area. To Dublin Corporation's credit, it printed five separate booklets outlining in detail the five integrated plan areas in detail, which made interesting reading. I hope Senator Norris found the copy for the north inner city I gave him of benefit.

Mr. Norris

Yes.

Mr. J. Doyle

However, to my amazement I discovered that in other areas in other parts of the country there had not been this consultation process. The integrated plans are similar to development plans; therefore, when they are adopted by local authorities they should have a reserve function in respect of them. I will not press the amendment because on Second Stage the Minister was kind enough to agree with me that if there is another round of integrated plans, they should be the subject of a reserve function. This is not possible with the current plans, because they have already been submitted. The purpose of the amendment is to put down a marker for the future that this approach should be adopted.

Mr. Costello

I agree with Senator Doyle. Dublin Corporation was assiduous in the degree and level of consultation it employed in adopting the five integrated area plans it has presented to the Minister for his support. This should be the model throughout the country. The local authority is the proper body to be responsible for the plans.

I raised the question of the home improvement grants because in its proposals to the Minister, Dublin Corporation recommended that such grants should be an integral part of the package. The local authority is the best body to understand the generality and the entirety of elements that should make up the package. It would be good to have this incorporated in the legislation.

Mr. Molloy

The proposed framework for the new urban renewal scheme was notified to each county and city manager on 14 May 1997. Within that framework it was indicated that selection and prioritisation of areas for integrated area plans and the preparation of plans for areas so prioritised would be the responsibility of the relevant city corporation or county council. No indication was given of any intention to make the selection and prioritisation of areas and the preparation of plans a reserved function. Accordingly, it was a matter for each authority to decide on their own arrangements with regard to the exercise of their functions in relation to integrated area plans.

The guidelines issued in relation to the selection of priority areas for the purposes of the new scheme and on the content of IAPs emphasised that wide cross-sectoral consultation and involvement should form an essential element in the preparation of each IAP.

The process of identifying priority areas and preparing IAPs has been under way since autumn of last year with the requirement that completed plans be submitted to my Department by the end of March. While the extent of the consultation which took place may have varied from one area to another, my understanding is that in general most plans were, in the course of their preparation, brought before and considered by the relevant local authority elected members. In any event, the process has now advanced to the assessment stage involving the expert advisory panel which I appointed for this purpose. It would not now be practical to revisit the completed plans through accepting the proposed amendment. However, I have noted the Senator's comments carefully and it would be my intention that if a process such as this should arise again in the future, the adoption of integrated area plans will be formally made a reserved function of relevant elected representatives. I agree with Senator Doyle's comments but I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 7 agreed to.

SECTION 8.

An Cathaoirleach

Amendment No. 3 in the name of Senator Costello is out of order.

Amendment No. 3 not moved.

Section 8 agreed to.

Section 9 agreed to.

NEW SECTIONS.

Mr. Norris

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 7, before section 10, to insert the following new section:

"10.—The area of Parnell Street from Parnell Monument to Gardiner Street shall be designated as a special incentive area."

I think a good job has been done in regard to integrated area plans being a reserved function of local authorities and I thank Senator Doyle for making the Dublin Corporation plan available to Members. As someone who lives there, I notice no treatment whatsoever is accorded to the area between the Parnell Monument and Gardiner Street which is undoubtedly one of the worst blots on the face of Dublin. I have raised this issue in as many fora as I could. An advertisement appeared in the newspapers some six months ago seeking submissions to the Dublin Regional Authority which was applying for EU Structural Funds. I would like to quote part of the detailed submission I made to the authority:

I feel in any resuscitation of Dublin, it is absolutely vital that the north of the city should no longer be ignored. The era of neglect of north side Dublin should be comprehensively brought to an end, especially under this Government with its enlightened northside Taoiseach.

There are a number of major areas of blight. One of the most significant is the whole stretch of Parnell Street. The worst part of this is between O'Connell Street and Gardiner Street. When I was on the panel of the Faces of Dublin Business Awards, I succeeded in getting the remit of this group extended to take in Capel Street and Parnell Street. Whereas this had a significant impact in increasing the profile and business appearance of Capel Street, it had only a modest effect in Parnell Street, although it did have some. It seems to me that that important street in terms of public visibility and centrality requires special incentives. To date, successive Governments have done sweet damn all except to dump a half way house for prisoners and drug addicts in the old Kennedy's bakery (no doubt a worthy cause but not one which I see Dublin 4 or Foxrock queueing up to attract!). What I would suggest would be a carefully worked out programme of incentives which should be initiated to encourage an architecturally, socially and commercially appropriate development of this street. Moreover, if anything could be done to alter or remove the worst architectural blight on the north side of the city, namely, telephone house on Marlborough Street, that would be a wonderful bonus.

Perhaps, the Minister could arrange for semtex to be decommissioned inside telephone house, thereby serving two functions, the removal of semtex and the removal of one of the most appalling buildings in the city.

The Government and the Corporation have cooperated in drawing up a very imaginative plan to resuscitate O'Connell Street and that general area. Perhaps the Minister could reassure me that something is in the pipeline for the very neglected area I have outlined. If not, people will promenade along O'Connell Street and spill out into an appalling area.

Everything possible which could be done to make the area worse has been done, not only the location of a half way house for drug addicts in a distinguished old building but the granting of planning permissions and licences for four of the worst dens of iniquity in the city, namely, Fibber Magee's where drug addicts are constantly being arrested, Rumours night club, the Back Gate and P. J. McGrath's. I previously warned that if action was not taken to address this problem, murder would be committed. I have been proved right on more than one occasion since I made that statement.

This problem may not appear to be directly related to architecture but I suggest it is. Unless we provide incentives and implement the planning regulations and unless the Garda and Judiciary are prepared to carefully consider the granting of licences to these kind of premises, the blight will continue. I suggest that any plan which does not take that stretch of O'Connell Street into account cannot really be regarded as an integrated area plan at all as it would be leaving out one of the principal elements of the jigsaw. Perhaps I have not read the material sufficiently carefully but the Dublin Corporation plan does not seem to deal extensively with this area. Even if the Minister is unable to accept my amendment, perhaps he will give some indication that the Government will focus attention on this disaster area.

I would like to pay tribute to some of the business people who have stayed in the area through difficult times, decent pub owners and small reputable businesses, such as We Fit Doors, Westbrook Garage and others which provide employment and maintain decent premises. They are not being helped. I see small businesses driven out of the area on a regular basis by the intolerable conditions which prevail there.

Mr. Costello

I concur with Senator Norris's concerns about Parnell Street. The particular stretch to which he referred seems to have been squeezed out somewhat as the other side has been incorporated into the O'Connell Street project and previous incentive projects in the HARP area. The stretch from O'Connell Street to Gardiner Street has been neglected and should be incorporated into some plan. It does not come under the north-east inner city plan and is, to a large degree, left in limbo. Although one side of the street has received some designation, the street should be treated as an integrated project in its own right.

It is obviously not the Minister's responsibility to draw up the plans. How receptive will he be to further local authority IAPs in the coming years? I understand approximately 78 proposals have been received upon which the Minister must deliberate and make recommendations to the Minister for Finance. What will happen future IAP applications? Will it be possible for Senator Norris, for example, to write to Dublin Corporation and request the city manager to compile an integrated plan for Parnell Street and other areas? Would the Minister be prepared to consider such a plan within the terms of the Urban Renewal Bill and within the period of its operation? Will there be a further tranche of applications in 1999 or 2000?

Mr. J. Doyle

I am delighted Senator Norris made a submission to the Dublin Regional Authority to assist it in securing funding post 1999. As its vice-chairman, I was responsible for that aspect of the authority's remit. It was difficult to get some of the public bodies to make representations. I am thankful for Senator Norris' contribution but I do not know if funding from Europe will be spent on these integrated programmes in the way we intended .

Before I gave Senator Norris Dublin Corporation's plans for the north inner city, I noticed that part of Parnell Street was included. We were not involved as members in drawing up the IAPs and were not questioned about which areas we would like included. In future it would be helpful if elected corporation members and members of the public could make contributions to the local authority, similar to the development plan but on a smaller scale, so that the areas of greatest need could be highlighted. That was a weakness in the system which existed until now. In future some provision should be made for that input.

Mr. Norris

Does the Senator agree that Parnell Street is a good example?

Mr. J. Doyle

I would be foolish to disagree.

Mr. Coghlan

Does the Minister agree?

Mr. J. Doyle

He is sympathetic.

Mr. Molloy

The Senator knows my mind on many issues.

Section 372B of the Finance Act, 1998, provides that the Minister for Finance may on the recommendation of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, which recommendation must take account of an integrated area plan submitted by a local authority or a company established by a local authority, direct that an area or areas within the boundary of an area to which an integrated area plan relates shall be a qualifying area for the purposes of one or more of the urban renewal reliefs provided for under the Act.

The primary purpose of the legislation before the House is to provide a statutory framework for the renewal of selected urban areas on the basis of integrated area plans prepared by local authorities or authorised companies taking account of criteria drawn up by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. The legislation sets out in detail the requirements in relation to the format and content of integrated area plans and provides that these plans may contain, or be accompanied by, recommendations from the local authority or authorised company concerned that an area or areas within the boundary of an area to which a plan relates shall be a qualifying area for the purposes of one or more of the urban renewal reliefs.

It is a matter for each local authority or authorised company, at the request of the relevant local authority, to decide on the area or areas for which an integrated plan or plans are to be prepared and submitted to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. It is subsequently a matter for the Minister to decide on the making of recommendations to the Minister for Finance to the effect that an area or areas within the area covered by a plan shall be a qualifying area for the purpose of the urban renewal incentives. The Minister for Finance makes the ultimate decision on the application of the incentives having considered the Minister for the Environment and Local Government's recommendations.

It would be inappropriate in legislation of this nature to single out any one area for the application of incentives. The basis on which the case can be made for any particular area considered by the relevant Ministers and ultimately decided upon is clearly set out in the Bill and in the Finance Act, 1998. I assure the Senator that where a local authority has decided to prepare and submit to my Department an integrated area plan for any particular area, the case for applying urban renewal relief in support of any such plan will be given careful consideration. Until such time as all the plans submitted to my Department have been considered, however, and the necessary clearances to the application of any proposal sent or obtained from the European Commission, it will not be possible to be more specific in relation to the areas in which incentives will apply. In those circumstances I cannot accept this amendment.

Senator Norris mentioned a particular area in the amendment. Bearing in mind that this is an attempt to have a bottom-up approach and that the local authorities are to come forward with the proposals, the amendment would seek to give the Minister the right to assert that a certain area shall be included. That is out of line with the spirit of the legislation and goes against the subsidiarity principle which we seek to continue to apply.

The attempts to develop integrated area plans have been publicised since I came into the Department and my predecessor would have made references to it. There was an opportunity for the public and local authority members to have a say in which areas should receive help. In Dublin, because of the large population, there will be more than one integrated area plan approved. Reference has already been made to the integrated area plan which Dublin Corporation has put together for the north inner city area which borders on the area Senator Norris mentioned. The O'Connell Street plan also borders on the area mentioned. Some of the streets mentioned have already been included in these plans. It was a matter for Dublin Corporation to submit them at that stage. It has submitted other plans for other parts of the city. I do not know what number will finally be approved.

Mr. J. Doyle

Five.

Mr. Molloy

Five plans have been submitted but the number to be approved is another issue.

Senator Norris referred to some of the areas as disaster areas. I walked around the north inner city with the Taoiseach early one morning and I have never seen anything as disastrous as the area in the vicinity of Sean MacDermott Street. If any area needed attention at Government level and incentives to assist the local authority to rejuvenate it and give the community there some chance of a decent life, that is it. I have never seen a worse area and I hope that is not repeated throughout Dublin city. We should give it top priority and I am pleased that Dublin Corporation decided to focus on that area with an IAP. I am sure Senator Doyle has shown the Senator the north inner city plan. It is excellent.

Mr. Costello

Will it definitely receive the Minister's recommendation?

Mr. Molloy

It has to go through due process but with the care and attention shown in it and the comprehensiveness of it, it is likely to be accepted.

Mr. Moylan

The Senator can read between the lines.

Mr. J. Doyle

It is ten to one on.

Mr. Molloy

It is a sad reflection of the lack of strength in the economy in the past that such areas could be neglected for so long. I am interested in looking at the area Senator Norris mentioned as it borders that area. By the stroke of a pen some of that area may have been left out but some of it is included in the plan.

I hope these plans will succeed. It is not a grant aided matter. The house improvement grant is not the way to achieve what is required. We must deal with that on a national basis.

I issued guidelines on 24 November and my predecessor issued preliminary guidelines in May 1997. Everyone knew they had to do this job and that proposals should be brought before the members. The emphasis was on extensive consultation, participation and partnership. That is one of the headings in the guidelines I issued. On Committee Stage in the other House I stressed that the guidelines must be consulted when reading the Urban Renewal Bill; much of the detail is in the guidelines.

The guidelines state that wide cross sectoral consultation and involvement should form an essential element in IAP preparation. Any city manager reading that guideline should have arranged for the participation of his members and the public in the preparation of these plans. Some local authorities held public meetings and invited all organisations in the community to make proposals. The need for such consultation will first arise at the initial data gathering stage when the needs, strengths and weaknesses of the area are being analysed. The second opportunity will arise when key issues have been identified and draft strategies have been formulated. The section goes on to lay emphasis on the need for wide consultation. The opportunity was there for people to suggest that a particular area should be included.

I cannot accept the amendment as it is very specific and cuts across the spirit of the issue. This is a decision that should have been made at local level. However, if Dublin Corporation suggested to the Department that it may be possible to include part of this area in one of adjoining IAPs, then this proposal would be examined. The initiative would have to be taken by the corporation.

Mr. Norris

I thank the Minister of State for his detailed and careful reply and I am extremely heartened by his last comment. I am not a member of the local authority but I try to respond to newspaper advertisements and have made various submissions. I do not recall seeing the advertisement about the integrated plan. Perhaps I thought I had submitted something under some other heading. I have no record of the North Great George's Street Preservation Society receiving any consultation document. There is a strong group in this area — the Parnell Street traders — and I do not think they have been involved either. This may be an oversight and I am not making any accusations.

However, I intended the ask the Minister of State the question he answered at the end of his speech, namely, if we managed to draw the attention of the City Manager and the corporation to the apparent inadvertent exclusion of a very significant area, would it be possible to look at that again? The Minister of State has answered this very positively.

I must declare a small but significant interest. We have worked extraordinarily hard in North Great George's Street. This has not only led to private residences for our own glorification but remarkable places such as the James Joyce Cultural Centre in which the Taoiseach and members of the Progressive Democrats read on Bloom's Day. We are trying to build a number of other such establishments. Tourists come up O'Connell Street, a fine street which will be finer as the plan develops. However, the problem is that there is a deserted, squalid area of a few hundred yards through which they must traverse before they reach the decent area we have battled to create — North Great George's Street. That is a substantial disincentive for tourists.

I fully accept that Sean MacDermott Street is a disaster area. There are very decent people living there and I am delighted that they are part of an IAP. I do not begrudge them this in the slightest and I cannot think of an area more in need of such development. However, the section of Parnell Street needs treatment just as much. The Minister of State is right in stating that Parnell Street is parallel to Sean MacDermott Street. I know both streets well as North Great George's Street leads on to Parnell Street and is one block from Sean MacDermott Street. I chose to live there and to do my best to improve the area and I am delighted that some of my less fortunate neighbours are being given an incentive. I am pleased the Minister of State said that his Department will look again if it received the appropriate prompting from the City Manager. I will be sending this material to Mr. Fitzgerald who is an excellent and efficient man and I am sure he would welcome the opportunity to extend the area a little.

Senator Doyle suggested including one side of Parnell Street but this suggests that there is something arbitrary about the plan. Perhaps it could be extended to include the whole street as this would make sense. If only the left hand side of the street is included when both sides are equally bad, then it does not suggest an integrated plan in the sense that I would understand such a concept.

It is like a jigsaw puzzle. We have great plans for O'Connell Street. We have done the work voluntarily in North Great George's Street and we are now talking about Sean MacDermott Street. However, there is one, small, concentrated, intervening area which is a disaster and this is the area I specified in the amendment. I accept the Minister of State's explanation, particularly with regard to subsidiarity. In this amendment I am turning the principle of the Bill on its head. I do not mind doing so but I will withdraw the amendment because I have got what I wanted — the opportunity to draw to the attention of the responsible authorities a significant problem in the north inner city.

Mr. J. Doyle

Dublin Corporation was faced with a dilemma selecting five areas for IAPs when it could have selected 25 areas. Recently I accompanied the Taoiseach when he opened a child care and protection centre in an area which could do with an IAP. However, it is not included. Will the Minister of State clarify that Dublin Corporation can amend its plan for the north inner city for this tranche of integrated plans if it so wishes?

Mr. Molloy

I said that if Dublin Corporation wished to make an addition or alteration to its plan, then it can do so. I did not say it would be accepted but it will be considered.

Mr. Burke

Is the same true for other city or county managers?

Mr. Molloy

Having made their submissions by 31 March, a number of local authorities have made further submissions which alter the original documents. The advisory group I established to make recommendations has entered into discussions with some of these authorities on their plans. We are anxious to achieve the best possible results. Nothing is written in stone, not even the 6,000 figure for population. This was a realistic guide as one requires a certain population level if one is talking about urban renewal. We are not talking about rural or village renewal so there was a requirement for a reasonable population level. An area would not be ruled out if it had a population of 5,999. If it was recommended by a local authority as its priority it would need to be close to the figure of 6,000 but that figure is not written in stone.

An Cathaoirleach

We must not stray too far from the content of the amendment.

Mr. Costello

I am glad to hear the Minister of State say he is prepared to consider proposals for an alteration to the existing plan from Dublin Corporation. Councillors were not consulted about the geographic boundaries of the plan. We were consulted on the input to the plan but the corporation did not take our views into consideration when the decison was made to extend the boundaries.

There was tremendous consultation — on the northside there are the three areas of the HARP, O'Connell Street and the north-east inner city. One part of Parnell Street was included in the 1994-7 tax incentive scheme. The present north-east inner city plan just touches the junction of Summerhill, Gardiner Street and Parnell Street but does not actually go into Parnell Street.

Instead of coming east, the O'Connell Street plan goes west into Moore Street and Henry Street. There is a small area in Parnell Street which could easily be attached to the O'Connell Street or north-east inner city plan. We will be raising this matter with the Minister of State and I am glad Senator Norris referred to it.

The Minister of State did not respond to my comments that there are other areas which we have identified, such as Ballybough. We have tabled a motion with Dublin Corporation and it has agreed to examine this matter in terms of an IAP. This would be the next area which would be nearest to Sean MacDermott Street and the north-east inner city. However, the area has not been included in the present tranche. The North Inner City Business Association proposed Dorset Street but it has not been included in the current plan. How receptive is the Minister of State to further submissions, apart from those currently before him?

Mr. Molloy

I am not entering into any commitments regarding the future. What I said about people wishing to make further submissions altering or amending what they have already submitted relates to the current number of IAPs submitted following the invitation to do so prior to 31 March. Those are under consideration and a decision will be made on them. There is no commitment about any future designation or future IAPs. That is something for the future.

The current IAPs are set out to be achieved over a period and their progress will be observed. It must be borne in mind that this is a new generation of a tax incentive driven renewal programme. Its success is something which cannot be adjudicated upon at this stage. However, it has resulted from a close examination of previous tax designated areas by three groups of expert consultants. A major conference was held on the results of their work to which all local authorities were invited and in which they participated. The new generation of IAPs has arisen from that study. The decisions were based on expert consultants' earlier reports on the success or failure of previous schemes and what objectives should be set if areas were to be designated again for the purposes of achieving urban renewal.

It must be borne in mind that the more areas are designated, the less attractive or effective the initiative will be because there are only so many people willing to make the necessary investment to regenerate areas. A great deal of money will be required under some of the proposals submitted. If the tax incentive is applied broadly it will not have the same attraction or effect, which would mean some areas being designated and nothing happening. It must be ensured the areas are attractive, that there is development and investment and that people see the resulting improvement in their area. We cannot speak of the next generation of designated area until we see how this one works.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Costello

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 7, before section 10, to insert the following new section:

"10.—The Minister shall lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a statement of the reasons for making or refusing to make any recommendation under section 9.".

I was delighted to hear the Minister of State speak of having visited the Seán MacDermott Street area and that he knows it is an area which requires considerable development. While he has not fully indicated it will be on the list, I am hopeful it will be a priority in the integrated area plan which will be accepted.

My amendment refers to the principle of establishing criteria by which the Minister of State can judge the various plans in terms of selection. He neither confirmed nor denied the figure I gave of 78 plans which he has received. If that is the correct figure, how will he select from those plans? What criteria will he use? What will make one plan worthwhile and another not? He is the person who will make recommendations to the Minister for Finance regarding these plans. What weighting system will he use for urban areas? There are five plans before him from Dublin Corporation and I am sure there are others from the other local authorities in Dublin, all deserving of funding. What parameters will there be for funding? It is important that it is not within the gift of the Minister to unilaterally select whatever plan he wishes, yet that seems to be what the legislation states.

That is not good enough; we need a transparent system. I am sure the Minister of State will be very assiduous in his selection of plans and in his recommendations to the Minister for Finance. However, the legislation should be transparent and should specify the criteria on which plans will be recommended to the Minister for Finance. This would tell everyone in local authorities and in local communities, who would be hopeful their plans would be successful, the reasons they were unsuccessful, were that to be the case. There should be good and valid reasons. The amendment is important in that it requests the granting of a statement of the reasons for making or refusing any recommendation.

Mr. J. Doyle

I agree with the sentiments in Senator Costello's amendment. I asked the Minister on Second Stage the mechanism which would be used to select successful IAPs. He satisfied me by saying that he would set up an advisory body to help him in the first instance and that it would then be a case of a decision being made between him and the Minister for Finance. This is an important issue and transparency will be necessary to satisfy people that everyone has been dealt with fairly. I ask the Minister of State to sympathetically consider Senator Costello's amendment.

Mr. D. Kiely

I have reservations about this. Seventy eight plans have been submitted and, if the scheme were spread over all those areas, nothing would happen. This will be worthwhile legislation if it is implemented properly. We have seen the benefits similar initiatives have brought to larger communities so it is high time smaller communities benefited from the economic boom. I am sure the Minister of State will favourably examine areas with declining populations and which need development. I cannot agree with the amendment if the incentive is to be spread over 78 areas because that would be a disaster. If each local authority were to submit just one priority area in an attempt to do something for small areas, benefits would be gained from the initiative.

Mr. Molloy

It is an underlying principle in the new approach to urban renewal that decisions on the designation of areas for urban renewal reliefs will in future be based on carefully prepared integrated plans which set out a basis on which designation on a selective and targeted basis would assist in achieving the objectives of such plans. The legislation accordingly provides that integrated area plans may contain or be accompanied by recommendations from a local authority or authorised company to the effect an area or areas within the boundary of the area to which the plan relates shall be a qualifying area for the purposes of urban renewal tax reliefs.

Section 9 provides that the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, having considered an integrated area plan and any recommendations contained in or accompanying the plan, may recommend to the Minister for Finance that the latter should make an order directing that an area or areas within the area to which the plan relates shall be a qualifying area for the purposes of urban renewal tax reliefs. It is then for the Minister for Finance to make a decision on whether to make any such order having regard to all the issues involved, including the extent and nature of any designation proposed and potential cost to the Exchequer.

It is my intention that a response will issue to any submission by a local authority or authorised company in the context of an integrated area plan and that as much information as it is possible to give with regard to the grounds for any decision taken on the local authority's or authorised company's submission will be included in any such response. However, the making of recommendations by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government is just one step in a process which starts with the preparation of IAPs by local authorities or authorised companies and which must go through a number of stages before there is any decision on whether and to what extent incentives are to be applied in a case.

I am reluctant, therefore, to introduce a formal reporting requirement along the lines set out in the amendment proposed by the Senators which would apply at a certain stage in a process which would not have terminated by then and which must have a degree of flexibility in terms of wider taxation policy built into it. Following the making of recommendations by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government the final decision as to whether tax designation will or will not be applied in the context of an integrated area plan rests with the Minister for Finance who is responsible for budgetary and taxation policy. There will undoubtedly be a need for considerable consultation between the two Ministers concerned before any final decisions are taken.

Placing responsibility on the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to formally set out reasons for making or not making a recommendation separately from any final decision as to the application of the incentive as it is proposed under the amendment would not, in my view, be appropriate in these circumstances. I cannot, therefore, accept the amendment.

It is the intent of the Bill to have as much transparency as possible. This tax incentive scheme for urban renewal is completely different from the previous renewal schemes because of the level of consultation and greater transparency. It is not possible for the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to take on the responsibility of making a formal decision. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government is not the final arbiter with regard to designating certain areas for tax relief. The Bill does not propose that entire streets be designated. Individual buildings and certain named streets will be recommended by local authorities in order to achieve an objective. Many people will be involved in the decision and any one person's reasons for making a decision could not present the sum of all the reasons for the final decision. The House has always accepted that the Minister for Finance is charged with responsibility for taxation and budgetary matters and he carries the responsibility for any decisions made in those areas.

In considering the recent house price crisis and seeking as much information as possible to help us draw up sound policy, the Government appointed a consultant who made certain recommendations. One of these recommendations which was not accepted was that section 23 tax concession for residential development should be ended from a current date. We retained section 23 with the express intention that it would only be applied in specific cases, bearing in mind many other factors, and only within areas for which there were integrated area plans and where market conditions indicated that its retention was appropriate. Section 23 will only be available on a very selective basis within the integrated area plans.

It is not practical to suggest that the Minister for the Environment and Local Government should state the reasons for his recommendation when the process involves many people, of whom he is only one. The final arbiter is the Minister for Finance who implements Government policy with regard to tax concessions for urban renewal. The Minister for Finance will make decisions after consultation with the Minister for the Environment and Local Government but the decision is ultimately his.

I was surprised to hear references to the need for transparency. The new scheme is more transparent than any previous one but I suppose that when one goes so far one will always be asked to go further. It is a vast improvement on the lack of transparency and consultation and the arbitrariness with which previous schemes were administered by Ministers in different Governments since the 1980s. There was no debate in either House about the designation of areas under previous schemes. Decisions were taken at ministerial level, county managers were consulted but no local representatives were involved before lists of designated areas were published in newspapers.

We have come a long way since those days. Anyone who is concerned about transparency has the opportunity, under the Freedom of Information Act, to see the relevant papers in time. My recommendations will be based on the advice of the expert advisory group which is an independent and representative group many of whose members were appointed by my predecessor. That group will examine the integrated area plans and assess them on the basis of their compliance with the guidelines. One of the important guidelines refers to local consultation. Extensive local consultation or the lack of it will be a factor in selecting plans for recommendation. Members in both Houses have expressed concern at the lack of consultation with elected members of local authorities. We will be monitoring the local consultation processes to ensure that the locally elected representatives are consulted.

Mr. Costello

There are two separate issues: first, transparency in the method of consultation by local authorities in drawing up the plans and, second, transparency in the Minister's method of selecting them. There has been a strong level of consultation. However, in the case of my own local authority Dublin Corporation itself determined the boundaries of the integrated area and the consultation only concerned the projects within these boundaries. There was no initial consultation before the areas were selected. That left something to be desired.

There is no transparency on how the Minister will select the integrated area plans for recommendation to the Minister for Finance for approval. There is nothing in this legislation which requires the Minister to say what criteria he used in selecting a plan for recommendation. He may have an expert team of advisers but the legislation does not require the Minister to record the reasons for his decisions. There is no transparency.

I was half heartened to hear the Minister say that he intends to respond to local authorities' queries regarding his reasons for selection. I would like him to elaborate on that. Is he prepared to respond in writing to an individual local authority as to the grounds on which a decision was made to accept or reject their plan?

Will the Minister tell us when he intends to make his recommendations and does he know how much money the Minister for Finance will allot to the projects? How much money is available from the Minister for Finance for the projects?

Mr. Molloy

I am willing to respond to the submissions, indicating as far as possible the reasons for whatever decision was made with regard to each integrated area plan. The reasons cases did and did not qualify will be given.

With regard to when the decisions will be made, I indicated earlier that the European Union has been raising questions about the double rent allowance. It will not be possible to make an announcement about the successful integrated area plans until the European Commission has given its approval to the tax incentives. The Commission has already indicated its reluctance to approve double rent allowances but we propose to increase capital allowances in lieu wherever double rent allowances are not granted. In certain cases that might compensate for the loss of the double rent allowance. Until the European Union has given its imprimatur it will not be possible or worthwhile to make any announcements. The interest of investors or of those who seek to avail of the tax incentives cannot be finalised until they know what the incentives will be, so there is no point producing plans until the tax incentives issue is clarified.

It is difficult to forecast how long it will take the European Commission to make its decision. I am advised that it could be October. On the other hand it might not make the decision before Christmas. It does not appear to be a major issue, but the Commission moves slowly on matters such as these. It takes a strong view of anything that might be an aid to industry and these cases, where commercial and industrial investment is being attracted, are also seen by the Commission as aids to industry. That also applies to rate reliefs.

I cannot answer the Senator's question at this stage. My officials will discuss the issue with officials in the Commission within a few weeks of the Bill being passed by the Oireachtas. We will submit information on the integrated area plans, although they will have no role in deciding which will be approved; that is the role of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. It is my intention to have it approved as quickly as possible, bearing in mind the obstacles that lie ahead.

Last autumn, I quoted 1 August as the anticipated date when decisions would be announced with regard to the IAPs. Subsequent to that announcement, however, the Minister for Finance, on my recommendation, agreed to extend the time for completion of projects under the existing urban renewal scheme to 31 December to allow projects which were held up for various reasons, mostly to do with planning, to be completed. At the time, the date on which the old renewal scheme would end, 31 July, appeared to be a suitable date for the introduction of the new scheme, but the old scheme will now not finish until 31 December.

I do not intend to wait until 1 January, however, as I wish to have this issue cleared up and to put these proposals into the public arena as quickly as possible. That could be next October.

Amendment put and declared lost.

SECTION 10.

Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Burke

Will the Minister of State examine the issue of rates? While I agree with the proposed remission for people who develop or enlarge their properties in the area plans, the issue of rates must be addressed and amended. The majority of premises are not on high streets but they will be given a high street valuation. Rates should always be linked to ability to pay.

I compliment the decisions of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government with regard to hypermarkets. These supermarkets are attracting a great deal of business from areas and small towns outside the major urban centres. While the Minister's decision in this regard is welcome, he should examine the issue of rerating properties, especially properties which have a high valuation and are obliged to pay enormous amounts. Rates should be linked to ability to pay.

Mr. Molloy

I will convey the Senator's comments to the Minister for Finance.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 11 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 18.

Question proposed: "That section 18 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. J. Doyle

I was concerned by some of the Minister of State's remarks on Second Stage about double rent relief for the commercial and residential sectors in the Docklands Authority area. He said there was ongoing correspondence with the EU about this matter.

The commercial and residential sectors in the Docklands Authority area are two important sectors for the development of social housing in the area. They will underpin the 20 per cent social housing Dublin Corporation hopes to achieve there. It is a most important matter because the corporation has only enough land in the city to build 500 houses. When that land is used there is no future hope of building houses in the city.

The only place in which the corporation can accommodate people in social and affordable housing is the docklands area. The master plan provides for 20 per cent of residential development in the area to be devoted to social and affordable housing. However, that can only be achieved if it is underpinned by the commercial and residential development of the rest of the Docklands Authority area. Will the Minister of State impress on the EU how essential this is for the future development of the docklands area?

Mr. Moylan

In relation to the point made by Senator Doyle, who always keeps a tight eye on the development of land in the Dublin area, if urban development took place in our larger rural towns we would be able to ensure that a certain amount of housing is provided in that area. This would alleviate the housing problems in Dublin and repopulate rural communities.

Mr. Molloy

The difficulty that has arisen with the European Commission with regard to double rent allowance will apply equally to the Dublin docklands as it will to any of the IAP areas. It will not affect residential development. The EC are only concerned with anything considered to be an operating or industrial aid, which is how they view the double rent allowance. Any proposals regarding social housing in the Dublin docklands area will not be affected by anything the European Commission are looking at with regard to tax incentives.

Commercial development in the Dublin dockland area qualifies for 100 per cent capital allowance and is a very attractive incentive for a commercial development in that area. As regards the two issues raised by Senator Doyle, one is not affected at all and the other one receives 100 per cent capital allowance on commercial development.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 19 and 20 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. J. Doyle

I thank the Minister and his officials for putting this Bill through the Seanad. When this Bill is enacted I hope it will have the effect of improving the quality of life in the areas selected for the integrated area plans.

Mr. Costello

I want to be associated with the sentiments expressed by Senator Doyle and thank the Minister and his officials for the good work they have done. This is very important legislation and it will go a good way towards achieving the intention desired. I hope we will be able to come back to this House with a further extension of these IAPs.

Mr. D. Kiely

I, too, thank all the staff for their work, particularly the Minister for his detailed explanation of the entire Bill at Second and Committee Stages. I thank everyone for their contributions. This Bill will be of immense benefit to our people, particularly the poorer sections, and smaller towns in our community. It is high time this legislation was introduced and I look forward to it being implemented.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government (Mr. Molloy)

Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis na Seanadóirí go léir a labhairt san díospóireacht. Tá mo bhuíochas ag gabháil chomh maith as ucht na bpointí sceimiúl a thairring Seanadóirí anuas. Mar is eol don Teach, d'aithraigh mé an Bille beaganín. Tá súil agam go mbainfidh a lán daoine tairbhe as na moltaí sa Bhille seo agus go mbeidh athnuachaint forbartha mór a fheiceáil sna contaetha eagsúla agus sna catracha móra sna blianta atá amach romhainn. Tá mé cinnte go gcabhróidh an díospóireacht a bhí againn anseo leis an aidhm atá ag an Rialtas an tAcht seo a chur i bhfeidhm chomh tapaidh agus is féidir.

Question put and agreed to.