Amendment No. 26 is related so, with the agreement of the committee, I will take amendments Nos. 25 and 26 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 25.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 39, line 15, after "structure" to insert "or land".
The Minister's amendment puts me in a slight difficulty. The reason I tabled this amendment, to be perfectly frank, is that a gentleman wrote to me from County Cork and told me that he had acquired a site, engaged the services of an architect and taken the preliminary step in attempting to contact the county council officers to come and see the site with a view to granting him planning permission. The cut-off point or guillotine came down while this process was in being. He has sent me all the correspondence to show exactly the point in the process which he had reached. He is now in the position that he does not qualify even though he was caught with one foot in each boat. He had purchased the land and was taking all the relevant steps to qualify for this particular tax relief.
Now the Minister is shifting the goalposts a little, from 28 March to 5 April, but I think my man has probably not proceeded to get his planning permission between 28 March and 5 April. I do not think he has taken any further steps to avail of that period of time to improve his situation. It seems to me that somebody who has acquired land with a view to availing of this relief should be viewed sympathetically, because if he had got planning permission on foot of an option to buy the land, he would be all right; but when he actually buys the land and has not yet got the planning permission, apparently he is not entitled to be saved. I would suggest that the particular circumstances of this case are that an injustice is being done. If he had gone about the whole matter differently, merely taken an option to purchase the land and sought planning permission earlier, he would have ended up qualifying for this relief and I think that is an unfair situation.
I do not know whether or not to say he might give out that land.
I come from a part of the country which experienced great joy last year when the resort relief was announced. People with whom I am much involved had big plans to undertake quite a large development and had spent much time and effort in getting a project together when the Finance Bill was published and changed the ball game. Will the Minister consider reviewing the exemptions in section 25 of the Bill to allow people who do not qualify under the three exemptions — a binding contract, application for planning permission and, in relation to the holiday cottages, an opinion in writing issued by the Revenue Commissioners — because people did not expect that this would occur but had invested a considerable amount of money, effort and time into preparing their schemes? Will he consider examining each particular case and have them judged on their merits rather than having them condemned by not complying with the criteria in subsection (5) of the Bill, page 39?
In addition, when this scheme was announced it consisted of the accelerated capital allowance, double rent allowance and rental allowance for those who let residential premises. It has been compared to the urban renewal scheme, but that scheme also gave rates relief, which is not allowed in resort areas. The reliefs mentioned are also restricted due to the fact that they all must be tourism related and there are specific conditions for qualifying under the tourism related conditions, so the reliefs are not as all encompassing as the urban renewal area reliefs. Taking those matters into consideration, I ask the Minister to examine each particular case on its merits because I know people who have had hardship caused to them due to this particular change.
I will listen to the Minister's reply first and I will speak on the section.
Besides supporting the points made by Deputy Michael McDowell and Deputy Michael Ahern, a specific difficulty has arisen with the special resorts scheme in County Clare, particularly in Lahinch, where the infrastructure of the town was deficient. It became known that the county council would not be granting planning permissions until such time as finance was made available to improve the infrastructure. An announcement was made about a week ago to the effect that a substantial grant had been given by the Department of the Environment to improve water in Kilkee and sewage in Lahinch. Many people who have intended availing of the scheme had plans at various stages but had not applied for planning permission because a substantial expense would be involved in so applying in any event. Since there is a time limit on the scheme, there was a danger that the timescale was not long enough to allow them to go to planning if, and when, the extra finance became available from the Department of the Environment. Therefore, quite a number of people were caught in the situation where they had some work done on preparing plans but had not actually submitted them. Of course, there are others who had submitted plans, but I expect that they probably still qualify as a result. Will the Minister clarify that point? If they had submitted the plans six months ago or whenever since the scheme was announced but had not got planning permission, I understand they are okay. However, many people had intended going ahead but had not submitted plans because of the infrastructural difficulties and they are in a similar situation to the specific case outlined by Deputy Michael McDowell in County Cork.
I just ask myself the question: why was there any justification for making this change? Only six months into receiving clarification of what I would best describe as attractive reliefs which were encompassed in the 1995 Act, here was a scheme which was much heralded by the Government, celebrated at free breakfasts given around the country by banks and was to last on a pilot basis for three short years with a view to renewing the tourism stock, facilities and amenities available in what were then described as secondary tourism seaside resorts. Six months later, because of its success the most singularly successful aspect of this section was knocked dead in its tracks by the substantial interference with the tax reliefs available for the provision of self-catering holiday accommodation of a standard suitable to be registered by Bord Failte. I find that pitiful and I wonder why this has taken place. If it is a case that the Revenue persuaded the Minister of the day that this scheme as originally formulated would lead to substantial revenue loss to the Exchequer, I would suggest that the measure was Exchequer neutral because no account whatsoever was taken of the huge increase in building activity which has taken place in two areas which I represent. If one takes the area of Achill Island, the population of which has decreased over successive years, for the first time ever we have seen 30 or 40 new houses built for self-catering accommodation on the island. Many of those who were forced to make their living abroad for years had the opportunity as a result of this scheme to use their trades in building the houses. More importantly, people in the hardware industry and those involved in making furniture and furnishings enjoyed a boom in income with a consequent increase in VAT returns and numbers employed.
Had there been a careful examination of the scheme rather than the precipitous action now being taken, it would have proved Exchequer neutral. The only reason given for the changes, which I read in a Sunday newspaper, was that the number of homes being built and the amount of capital directed was interfering with the other opportunities contained in the 1995 Act.
There are no opportunities in the west for building multistorey car parks. There are limited opportunities to expand existing hotels or build new hotels. There was an opportunity which was being taken to provide self-catering holiday homes of an excellent standard. After I made a public statement on the matter, I note that the Minister for Tourism and Trade, Deputy Enda Kenny, who would have a particular interest in ensuring that the quality of the product we offer to discerning tourists is comparable to any other European country, indicated that I had misunderstood the changes. I have not misunderstood them. What was an attractive scheme releasing large amounts of passive capital has been stopped in its tracks.
The small amendments for which the Minister has provided are the exceptions, which in themselves are subject to construction difficulties, particularly in relation to whether a person needs specific planning permission for the provision of a holiday apartment as against a domestic dwelling. That matter is before the High Court. I am sure the Revenue Commissioners will not be generous in giving the benefit of the doubt.
The Minister should allow the scheme to continue unchanged for the period of three years. There can be no question of a careful examination of its effects after a period of only six months. Three years would have been the least period of time needed to gauge its impact. Although I have had representations from people who would be substantially affected, I have also seen at first hand the great potential of the scheme to provide housing stock for tourists. The scheme as amended will leave only the section 23 relief for those who have not been fortunate enough to commence in the last six months. However, the section 23 relief is so restrictive as to make it incomparable to the section 23 relief available elsewhere. It is only available if the dwelling is rented to tourists for six months and during that period no letting period may exceed two months.
Despite the spin doctors suggestions that limited relief remains, in effect the scheme has been killed off. The Minister of State should prevail on the Minister for Finance to leave the scheme. It was helping rural Ireland by improving the quality of the tourism product. I have no doubt the Minister for Tourism and Trade would support my view.
Capital allowances for the resort towns are double that for the present urban renewal scheme — they are 100 per cent as against 50 per cent. It is not true to say the scheme is not as advantageous in that respect because it is practically unprecedented.
The amendment proposes to amend one aspect of the legislation dealing with the scheme of tax relief for the renewal and improvement of 15 seaside resort areas. It targets self-catering accommodation and restricts capital allowances for holiday cottages, apartments and other self-catering holiday accommodation in resort areas in two ways. This is essentially to plug a couple of loopholes that have emerged. It is not designed to remove the scheme.
It provides that the double rent allowance and capital allowances cannot both apply in the case of holiday cottages, apartments and other self-catering accommodation in future. Only one or the other can apply, as was the original intention. Capital allowances in this area were devised as a stand alone incentive. The owner of a holiday cottage or apartment would rent directly to the tourist and the tourist could not get a double rent allowance. However, developments of holiday cottages are emerging involving pooled investments by individuals in holiday cottage complexes. These are structured in such a way that the cottages which are leased to a central operator of the complex would qualify for the double rent allowance in respect of the lease payments. The double rent allowance was aimed at lessees of commercial buildings in seaside resort areas with a view to providing non-accommodation tourist amenities. It was never intended that it should be used in the way that is now emerging.
The section ringfences capital allowances for listed holiday cottages, apartments and other self-catering accommodation. In future capital allowances in such cases can only be offset against an individual's rental income, including rental income from all sources. Likewise, where a trade is carried on, capital allowances can only be set against the income of the trade. This is already the position with regard to registered holiday cottages where capital allowances have been ringfenced since 1992. Therefore, the measure levels the playing pitch for all in the self-catering holiday accommodation sector. More importantly, it will prevent the self-catering holiday accommodation sector from becoming a tax shelter and a target for overinvestment to the detriment of tourist amenities in seaside resort areas.
Deputy Michael McDowell's amendment relates to section 25(5), which exempts certain pipeline developments from the scope of the section. As drafted, restrictions in the section will not apply if, for example, in relation to holiday cottages or apartment developments, a contract for acquisition or construction has been concluded, an application for planning permission, including outline planning permission, has been received by a local authority, or an opinion in writing was issued by the Revenue Commissioners as to the non-application of a particular provision of the Finance Act, 1991.
The Deputy's amendment goes a step further and seeks to allow all cases where land for development has been acquired in seaside resort areas in the time period specified. The effect of this would be to significantly dilute the effectiveness of the section. The purpose of the section is to protect a particular form of investment in seaside resort areas, namely, a proliferation of holiday cottages and apartments. At present there is an imbalance in developments in favour of cottages and apartments and to the detriment of non-accommodation tourist infrastructure and amenities, such as leisure and sports facilities, adventure centres, craft centres and restaurants.
It is essential that the restrictions in the section become effective as soon as possible. Deputy Michael McDowell's amendment would significantly delay this process. It would have the further effect of almost inviting all those who had acquired land in a seaside resort area, for whatever purpose, to use it for the construction of holiday cottages or apartments.
The amendment I have proposed relates to the qualifying dates for pipeline developments contained in the section. Since publication of the Bill it has come to my notice that the earlier date of 1 July 1995 would discriminate against developments which obtained planning permission before 1 July 1995, some of which are now well underway. Qualification for the original seaside resorts scheme was not linked in any way to planning permission. The only criterion is that expenditure be incurred within the qualifying period. It is necessary, therefore, to drop the date of 1 July 1995 and in doing so we have taken the opportunity to push the 28 March deadline forward to 5 April, which is also the end of the tax year. This will ease somewhat the qualifying rules for pipeline projects. For these reasons I regret I cannot accept Deputy McDowell's amendment.
I spoke about this at length on Second Stage and having listened to the Minister's reply I do not accept the arguments put forward why it is being done. This approach is mean-minded and contrary to the intention announced last year. There is a presumption in everything the Minister says that many traditional seaside resorts need amenities to be successful but that is not the case. Tramore, for example, is fortunate enough to have some successful infrastructural developments but the real reason people go there is for the promenade and the beach, although it has a huge lack of accommodation and of investment and development of accommodation. To neuter the approach within 12 months of the announcement of the scheme will have a devastating effect.
The Minister is compounding this further by making some adjustments between the budget and now. He has changed the dates up to the current year so that one development on a beach will be under one set of tax laws while the one beside it will be different. Different categories are being created within the same seaside resort. Deputy Hughes gave an eloquent precis of the position — the Minister cannot make judgments in the categorical terms being used when the scheme has hardly got under way — it required a minimum of three years. There is no point the Minister saying what he did today when he did not say this 12 months ago, as he must have considered all those arguments then and they are not necessarily valid.
I support Deputy McCreevy's amendment which opposes this section. The Minister's adjustments are mean-minded and do nothing for the development of seaside resorts under the original intention of the scheme — he is tearing it apart. I ask him, the senior Minister and the officials, to consider withdrawing on Report Stage the changes made this year because they are in the wrong direction and they are being made for the wrong reasons.
I agree with Deputy Cullen. The notion that we all need a complicated tourism infrastructure to provide the type of holidays for which people come to Ireland is misconceived. Most people come here to have a good time and relax; they do not need sea aquariums to make their holidays, nor even other structures like car parks. The Minister now concedes that what he is doing is affecting pipeline projects.
The Government said there was a three year period and in good faith people have invested time and money, which they have raised and borrowed from banks. The Government said this was a great project of which it was proud and to which it was committed. These people similarly committed themselves to the purchase of land to take advantage of what the Government said would be available to them for three years. Then the Government decided it wanted to put it all back again. It would set down a few lazy minded criteria to stop real injustices, as it saw them, but the attitude to those who do not fit the criteria is "hump the begrudgers"— they can take the pain, the Government does not care about them.
Why did the Government move the date by one week from 28 March to 5 April? Did someone with influence say they had got planning permission on 3 April and argue that it would do no harm to shift the date? Are there people who are able to shift things by a week? By any standard, there is no justification for moving the date from 28 March to 5 April unless someone was hurting and said it would make no difference to make a concession to him.
If we are in the business of making concessions for pipeline projects, what about the injustice being done to people who have invested? One man who approached me had spent £73,000 to acquire a piece of land. He has been kicked in the teeth because he does not have the influence to get a week's extension. Why not extend it to today? Why was it not indicated in March, when the Bill was published, that the Minister would be open to moving the goal posts again so that people could get on with their planning permissions and bring their projects to a conclusion?
This is most unfair. If the Minister believed in 28 March he would have stuck with it. If he proceeds with this section there will be many hard luck stories of people who have been badly burned because of the Government's U-turn. One person can contact the Government and ask that the scheme be moved by one week because it suits him, whereas people who do not have influence and are foolish enough to write to me rather than to Members on the other side of the House get no concession. Either it is right to stop pipeline projects or it is wrong; either 28 March was a fair date or it was not. I want to know why that date was changed because someone will get benefit from that while the poor person I speak for gets nothing. I am not saying it is corrupt but it is unfair and it shows how arbitrary this is. Someone will get an advantage, someone will not and the goalposts are shifting again in front of us.
Deputy McCreevy's amendment is correct. The Government set out to encourage people to raise and spend money for a particular purpose and move in a certain direction. They provided an opportunity and the banks have held breakfasts around the country to attract people to these projects. Then the Government pulled the rug from under these people after one year and leaves many hurting badly, because they were foolish enough to believe the Government when it said there would be a three year qualifying period. If the goalposts are to be shifted even to the small extent proposed by the Minister's amendment, we would be far better served by scrapping this completely and giving everyone with a pipeline project a fair crack of the whip.
I do not see how an application for planning permission could possibly be a fair criterion — one might have applied for it but not received it by the given date, due to delays in county councils, or a council writing back to say it was not happy about the position of a septic tank.
We only require the application to be made.
There could me many reasons someone might not have applied — he may have wanted to discuss it with the planning officer to get it right, for instance. In this case, the man in question had set up an appointment in March with the planning officer for his project, but that is now no good to him because he had not put in an application.
I agree with my colleagues on this side of the House. It is wrong to change the facility halfway through this term because people had too little time to make progress. The Government, with all the resources of the State behind it, announced the Delors package for the Border counties after the ceasefire in 1994 and that is still not up and running, although it is supposed to be working on the package all the time. It is not unreasonable to expect people not to have made worthwhile progress on the scheme. Following the announcement in the budget, it is natural that people who were contemplating using this facility would stop to see what would happen. When the Finance Bill was announced we were told that if they had continued until 28 March they would be all right. It has now been further extended to 5 April. What would it cost the Exchequer to continue with the old scheme? What is the estimated saving from making this change? What is the cost of extending the scheme from 28 March to 5 April?
It will have disastrous consequences for these schemes in the future. We want people to avail of these schemes because there is a need for economic development, to keep people in particular areas and so on. However, if the scheme is changed after a few months there is a cost involved for those participating in it. The cost of planning permission can be outlandish, to which has been added the cost of fire certificates in recent years. It was a bad decision.
In relation to certain towns being eligible while others are not, will the Minister look at the whole question of development, particularly supporting development in the smaller towns in rural Ireland? There have been many schemes over the years and their effect has been to build up the county towns, or, in this case, 15 resorts. I have no problem with that, but it is time for the Minister to look at a more comprehensive approach to supporting development in every town in case we do untold damage, as we did when we closed Garda barracks and post offices in rural areas. This should be addressed.
In reply to Deputy McDowell's question on our amendment to extend it to 5 April, that date is a more convenient end of year financial date. I am not aware it had anything to do with any specific case.
Is the Minister telling me nobody made representations to have it changed to 5 April?
I am not aware of any representations being made about that. I think 5 April, which is very close, is a more convenient date as it is the end of the financial year.
So is 28 March.
Acting Chairman
I am unhappy with this cross-dialogue.
All that is happening here is that a number of obvious loopholes, particularly in relation to double rent allowance and capital allowances being availed of by the same people, are being closed off. This kind of loophole was previously closed in a similar situation in 1992 and there is nothing unusual about it. The pipeline cases only have to meet one of these requirements and not all three — that a contract for acquisition or construction has been concluded; or an application, including an outline, has been received by a local authority; or an opinion from the Revenue Commissioners. Deputy McDowell's extension of that to anybody who had a piece of land——
Anybody who had bought a piece of land.
Yes, but it could not be ringfenced to the Deputy's particular case, for which I have sympathy.
Could I suggest something along the lines of it applying to someone who satisfies the Revenue Commissioners that he bona fide purchased a piece of land within a period of time with a view to availing of this scheme within some criteria? I agree we cannot have every landowner saying they were thinking of doing that. However, if somebody can say they recently invested a large amount of money——
Could I come back to that on Report Stage? We do not want to hit people who have made a genuine effort and who have spent money on the preparation of documents. For example, somebody mentioned someone who entered into consultation with the planning authorities but did not put in the submission. If we have bona fide evidence of that I think there would be sympathy for such cases. However, if we accept the Deputy's amendment ——
I accept my amendment is too wide.
It is too wide.
I did not, as far as I remember, make any reference to capital allowances being different. I said that no rates exemption was allowed in this scheme.
I was only making the point that, while that is true, the capital allowances are much better at 100 per cent.
The Minister knows the Youghal area as well as I do and a very significant project there, as he probably saw in the newspaper, was in the process of going ahead and none of these three exemptions applied to them. Would the Minister consider looking at such projects where there has been an extensive amount of work and consultation? It is very unfair on people who have gone so far without submitting an application for planning permission, although they discussed the matter with the planning authorities. They had not purchased the land but had put a substantial deposit on it. The whole thing was suddenly scuttled. In the interests of fairness and equity the Minister should consider looking at their case and similar cases.
If there was a small number of the cases described by Deputy Ahern and Deputy McDowell I think they would be sympathetically considered. They should put forward their cases quickly.
How quick is quickly, or whom should they contact?
Certainly prior to Report Stage, which is next Wednesday — tomorrow, preferably.
Deputy Ahern and Deputy McDowell referred to people who have purchased land. However, as the Minister will appreciate, there is a sensitivity and difficulty in these coastal towns about obtaining planning permission because they are areas of high amenity and scenic value. There are also instances where people who have owned plots of land for a number of years have been in long drawn out discussions with the planning authorities — evidence of this can be given to the Minister — to persuade them of a particular approach before lodging a detailed planning application. Before the planning application is lodged with the planning authority there must be a substantial meeting of minds on the type of development which would be suitable to such high amenity areas.
Such situations should also be taken on board when the Minister is considering this. There are people who owned land for many years and who want to avail of the incentives built into last year's Act and this year's Bill, but because of a lapse of time due to the amendments which the Minister made, they had not got to the stage of making a full planning application although they were in discussions with the planning authority. That can easily be proven.
Acting Chairman
A number of Deputies are offering. We have already spent 40 minutes on this amendment. It is an important section and I want to hear the Minister's reply. Does Deputy Cullen want to make a short point before the Minister replies?
Are you suggesting I usually make long points?
Acting Chairman
I would prefer if the Deputy made a short point.
This is an important section which was given a great deal of time on Second Stage. There is a great deal of angst about this section.
Acting Chairman
The same points are being repeated over and over again.
Will you let me make the point because it is important? It is evident to me now from listening to the Minister's reply that they do not want to penalise people. We are now finding avenues being added. I guarantee that by Report Stage we will have another 40 avenues. These matters are all subjective and this concerns me.
Last year the airwaves were dominated by a problem at Tramore. It had the effect of holding everybody back to see how matters would be resolved and of refocusing within the whole area there. It was only in the last week or two that people began to realise that the real amenities were the beach, the sandhills, the promenade and so on. It illustrates that it is unnecessary for us all to have high-tech, high cost facilities to make an area successful.
This change has caused many people to stand back from what was originally intended. They thought they had time to get over last year's problems and have the next couple of years available to them to start making the changes in investment and purchases that would be required. However, the more I listen to the Minister the more I am convinced that this section is unnecessary in this year.
I told the Minister on Second Stage that if he had to do this two or three years down the road when we would be able to see how matters have settled down, there would not have been as much concern about it. I am convinced it is wrong. The Minister was praised on this side last year with regard to what was then ongoing. He is rightly getting the opposite this year. It was a good idea, but it has been neutered at an early stage.
I spoke at length on Second Stage on this section because I claim paternal ownership of the idea. As the Minister would be aware——
A legitimate one.
Yes. Until the déb�cle of November-December 1994 I was Minister for Tourism and Trade, where the idea originated. We did not have enough things ironed out by the budget of 1994 to have it in place. The difference is that the list got longer and longer, which was the cause of the objection by the Department of Finance from day one to the idea. I had given a guarantee with regard to including a limited number of areas. I would have adhered to this. However, again the list set out in the budget got longer. I suggested that what the two schemes had in common was that Ballybunion was included in both of them.
We must go back to the original idea of the scheme, which was to recognise, as we did as Ministers at the time, that places such as Tramore and Ballybunion, where Irish people went to holiday, had become very run down. We considered what to do about such places. Various ideas were suggested. I met various people in 1993 and, with others in my Department, came up with the idea of having a BES type scheme. The Minister has been kind enough to acknowledge that this is where the idea originated.
The mistake made in 1995 was that what I had been told would happen in 1993 took place. If the Minister introduced a scheme like this there would be pressure from around the country to include various places. I guaranteed that there would be a limited number of places included and would have adhered to it. As the numbers increased, the Department of Finance became more worried.
These schemes are of no use if they apply all over the country. Urban renewal is of no use if, for example, every town in County Kildare is going to have it. Politicians fail to recognise this because the people in the next town give out if their town is not included. The eventual inclusion of some of the towns under this scheme was ridiculous. I recall asking the Minister on Report Stage of the Bill last year why Naas was not included as a seaside resort as the River Liffey flows through Naas and eventually goes into the sea.
It was because it was tidal.
This was the mistake. The idea of the scheme was good as originated in my time as Minister and as pushed by me. The idea was for it to operate in a few selected areas to see how it would work. However, one cannot see how something will work until it is given a period of time. This was the first time in a tax break scheme that, before it was up and running, the Revenue Commissioners said they would plug off the loopholes. The reason for this was that too many places were selected, which should never have happened. However, if I was Minster for Finance I would not have been able to resist the political pressure in the period between the announcement in the 1995 budget and the Finance Act.
The purpose of the scheme was to regenerate these towns. These changes will tip the balance in deciding whether certain investors will proceed or not. Apart from those who have lost money in proceeding with projects, they will tip the balance in deciding people not to proceed in these areas.
Most of these places are dead. I used to go to the town of Tramore many years ago with my children when it was a lively place. It became a dead place over the years. This was one idea to get it up off the ground. There are other parts to the country to which it could also apply.
I can readily see what the thinking was in plugging off the loopholes. The purpose was to make it less attractive. However, they will kill the scheme. With the changes in tax allowances it only makes it a section 23 type scheme.
What is meant by a rental season here? It is not more than five months.
Three months.
What are people getting concerned about? If investors want to throw away their money by building holiday cottages in these towns, so what? Let them, and allow them take the tax break. It will bring life to the areas which is not there at present and vibrancy and money into the economy which is not being spent at present. Perhaps the punters from Dublin 4 will travel more often and bring life into these areas. If the break was to achieve this it should be left. I am open to be convinced if anybody can prove anything else to me.
Are people going to tell met that thousands of people are going to build holiday cottages all over some of the towns on the list and that they are not going to weigh one town against the other? If this were so it would have been the greatest scheme I devised and it would have been extended to every port and inlet in the country. Everybody knows this will not be the case. There are some places which people will wish to visit and others they will not.
Let the scheme run for another two years and signal now, by an amendment to the Bill, that these alterations will not apply until then. This would be fair. It would then become a kind of a pilot scheme. We made the mistake of increasing the number of resort areas. There is nothing further we can do about this. However, we should let it proceed on this basis.
I have seen tax schemes — and Ministers — come and go. However, the idea of this seaside resort scheme was good, probably because I was the Minister responsible at the time. We are using a big sledgehammer to smash a small nut. It would be great to have holiday cottages all over the coast, but it is not going to happen. I ask the Minister and Minister of State to signal now and make changes before Report Stage making it clear that in two year's time these changes will occur.
What does the seaside resort scheme do? Its original purpose was to achieve improvement in some areas. If people want to proceed, let them.
We would like to take on board what has been said and return on Report Stage. A major development at Tramore is proceeding even within the restrictions we have set down. With regard to the remarks by Deputy Hughes, perhaps he could let us look at his suggestion.
As I said to Deputy McDowell in relation to a specific case, if there is substantive clear cut evidence that is somewhat different from our own criteria where people in good faith spent money, effort and time to produce a good scheme, that will be looked at sympathetically. These changes are not an invention of the Department of Finance. Some of these loopholes were signalled clearly in the press, including a glaring headline in The Kerryman to the effect that a loophole may mean that too many holiday homes would be built in Ballybunion. It was not something thought of by the Department officials.
The Minister may agree with me.
I appreciate the Minister's response. Deputy McCreevy has encapsulated all that we have been trying to say here. It is important to give this a chance because there may be questions about other schemes and good ideas that come out in the years to come. We must bear that in mind as well.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 26 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 25, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Acting Chairman
I am putting the question: "That section 25, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Question put.
Acting Chairman
I think the question is carried.
Would the Members wishing to have their dissent from this decision recorded in the official proceedings of the committee please raise their hands?
Deputies Cullen, Hughes, Killeen, McCreevy and M. McDowell dissented
Question declared carried.
Sitting suspended at 5.05 p.m. and resumed at 5.15 p.m.
NEW SECTION.
Amendment No. 27 not moved.