I understand that sections 32, 33 and 34 either relate to the Customs House Docks area or the Temple Bar area. I am sure there are changes that have been agreed or pushed by some particular grouping in order to make them even more attractive. They are very technical so I cannot say any more than that.
SECTION 33.
Question proposed: "That section 33 stand part of the Bill."
They are to give effect to the announcement that I made in the budget which largely had to do with extending deadlines, particularly with the IFSC, Temple Bar and a couple of others. There are no hidden policy proposals in relation to it.
I know that, yes.
Essentially, that is what they are. It is just the way that they are stated and drafted that makes them look slightly more complex than they actually are.
I know that deadlines are a very good idea but when you are faced with a situation, say along the quays in Dublin, where people for one legal or commercial reason or another are missing the deadline, in my view the greater good is served by extending the deadline. I support the idea.
Chairman
Do you have the power to extend it in individual circumstances?
No. It is just the overall regime.
Chairman
Taking the point that Deputy McDowell made, there are — the Minister will know this because we both represent parts of the inner city — individual cases where it was just not possible, because of a combination of title, financial, planning and other reasons, to meet the deadline. As a result you have urban renewal for a stretch of a street and then this gap, which is defeating the whole purpose of the renewal. Personally, I would favour a situation where the Minister for the Environment, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, had power in individual cases to extend the deadline where there are exceptional circumstances. I know the fear is that there is a danger of opening the flood gates, but it is certainly something that should be looked at.
On that point, it would be extremely difficult for any Minister to decide that they were going to extend it to certain individual sites. I certainly would not like to be the Minister because you would have all kinds of new friends. May I ask the Minister if these sections affect an upcoming case where legal action is being taken by an individual regarding land that was compulsorily purchased from Mr. Crosbie?
I will get confirmation, but I am told it does not affect that case because the incentives do not apply to that land, but only to land within the existing designated Customs House Docks area.
Chairman
Does the legislation give you power, Minister, to deal with exceptional cases? I take your point, but what about cases where, for example, planning permission was held up because title was not established?
For reasons articulated by Deputy Ryan, which I fully support, the power of an individual Minister to extend a grant of permission takes us back to the bad old days of the late Jim Tully and other unfortunate Ministers who were forced to make a decision. No matter what it was, it was wrong and they were open to accusations. We have moved away from that and it would be retrograde to return to it.
As to the problems mentioned by Deputy McDowell and yourself, Chairman, I think having the deadline forces problems of title to the surface quickly, which would not be the case if there was a provision to delay it. This creates its own sense of urgency. I would welcome Dublin Corporation stepping in and by consent agreeing to acquire by CPO, a process I am familiar with through my representation in Dublin city. That eliminates all title difficulties. Where one cannot find an intermediary owner and cannot get security of title, as happened in the case of Albert Holdings in Charlemont Street, the best thing to do is to introduce a CPO procedure with the consent of the identifiable owners, do the referencing quickly, establish a clean title and arrive at an agreed price. That is a better mechanism, which is available at local level, rather than dealing with discretionary powers, which I think would be counter productive.
Chairman
I see all the dangers but at the same time, if the objectives of the urban renewal provisions are to be met, we must somehow address the gaps in streets which are left as a result of these problems. Some streets in my constituency fall into that category.
I agree with the sentiments expressed. I appreciate the reason the deadlines are in place, but one cannot legislate for every possibility. In one area with which the Minister is familiar, everything was done properly, the people were working close to the deadline and would have beaten it except a huge foundation problem arose. Now there is a gap of four or five buildings width, which is totally out of place.
There is no way of extending the guidelines, but perhaps it could be done in consultation with the Minister for Finance and the Minister for the Environment. Others may feel hard done by and the Ministers are trying to anticipate and circumvent the legal pitfalls to allow this to happen. A number of problems, other than questions of title, may arise and I know a business person who is in severe difficulties as a result. An effort should be made to accommodate this unusual position which arises. It is not all that prevalent — only in occasional instances around the country have the title guidelines not been fulfilled.
There should be no discretionary provisions for the Minister here. It would undermine the planning process because the difficulties public representatives had in the past would arise again. We would be back where we started and confidence would disappear. Irrespective of the bona fides of the existing sites, others would be created overnight, which would only add to the difficulties. It would be a never-ending circle.
What may happen is that on the completion of these schemes, in many cases new areas may be specifically designated to overcome the problems of which we are aware. This would allow for the completion of the process. However, if we allow again for discretion in this area we might as well discard the planning process because a coach and four would be driven through it at both local and national levels. Credibility would disappear. As much as politicians might like this, I would be against it.
I agree. It would undermine the scheme. The urgency would go out of it as somebody would always know the Minister or somebody else who does and they could get an extension.
The Deputy means a Fianna Fáil Minister.
That is baseless; it is old rubbish.
The Deputy would have said it a few months ago.
I would not.
I said it a long time ago.
I have been a member of a local authority for a long time, not just the past six months, and I know what I am talking about.
I am saying this in Opposition but I would say it stronger if in Government. It would be asking for trouble to do this. Tax incentives for designated areas are a blunt instrument. The idea was that they would be a catalyst for developing the inner city. Every site does not have to be covered by developments availing of incentives. Hopefully, many inner city sites will be developed otherwise once the environment improves. Many of these sites will be built on anyway and we would create a big problem for ourselves if we were to change it.
The committee had an interesting discussion some time ago with the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy McManus, on the subject of post-incentive urban renewal. It is not the responsibility of the Department of Finance but I urge the Minister to do everything possible to create a system whereby problems with title etc. can be solved by local authorities, and that their powers of compulsory purchase can be used for that purpose without any legal challenge to them.
I know of one case on the quays where a wrangle between two property owners, with different vested interests in the same building, left the site with planks holding up a tottering building. I will not be more specific than that. As long as they hold off there is no sign of them ever solving the dispute. No tax incentive was enough to get them to cooperate to build on the site. In such cases the local authority could have a role to play to break such logjams.
Chairman
It is a derelict building and I have been trying to get something done about it. The local authorities are frequently the worst cause of dereliction because of the way they deal with CPOs. CPOs can be put on the long finger and sites can be left for years. Dublin Corporation is one of the worst offenders. Galway Corporation uses the CPO system well for clearing title problems and has greatly contributed to improvements in that city.
This committee also deals with environmental matters and I share the apprehensions expressed by Deputies about them. It is a problem the Minister might consider.
For the committee's information it is my intention to bring in an amendment on Report Stage to section 35 in respect of multi-storey car parks, to extend the possibility of their location in other parts of the country.
In the other parts of the country but not in Dublin?
Outside the urban renewal areas in Dublin and elsewhere in the country.
Chairman
We will deal with that on section 35.
Question put and agreed to.