Eoin Ryan
Ceist:8 Mr. E. Ryan asked the Minister for the Environment the plans, if any, he has for a new urban renewal scheme. [9948/97]
Other Questions. - Urban Renewal Scheme.
A detailed review of the urban renewal schemes, as they have operated since 1986, has been undertaken and, as part of the review, a consultants' study on the impact of the schemes in economic, social and architectural terms was published in December 1996. Submissions were invited from interested parties and organisations on the study's conclusions and recommendations and the consultative process culminated in a conference in Dublin Castle on 25 March which I chaired.
Now that all stages of the consultation process have been completed, I am finalising the framework for urban renewal policy for the future. This will draw from the lessons learned during the past decade or so, as outlined in the consultants' report, and will have regard to the valuable suggestions made during the consultation process. I expect to have policy proposals ready for submission to the Government before too long.
Can the Minister of State provide more detail? Are there specific areas where changes might be brought forward? When the current urban renewal scheme was announced in Dublin Castle approximately three years ago by the then Minister, Deputy Michael Smith — Deputy Emmet Stagg held the Minister of State's portfolio — the policy was that on this occasion there would be no extensions. What is the reason for the change? Given that we now find ourselves in limbo, is the Minister of State still open to the possibility of bringing forward good and necessary amendments?
Given the level of economic and construction activity, I find it hard to accept the term "limbo".
The limbo of indecision.
This is not the first occasion on which a scheme has been extended. The current scheme was due to expire on 31 July. A number of submissions were received in the Department highlighting the difficulties being experienced by developers, local authorities and investors in meeting the deadline. Some dealt with aspects of the scheme which were under consideration by the consultants conducting the review. It was a good and wise decision to extend the scheme, which was welcomed even by Opposition Deputies, to ensure these problems would not get in the way of its success.
While urban renewal designation has been extremely successful, as recognised by the consultants, in generating economic activity, there have been numerous shortcomings in approach. We have to continue to develop and improve policy to overcome them. They relate to planning procedures and land tenure among others.
The two aspects considered in the review which were not taken into account in previous schemes were the social context in which urban renewal policy has to be developed and the quality of urban design. These are important factors. The review has highlighted important and fundamental points which must be incorporated in the next scheme.
The consultation process was speedy. As soon as the review was published, the comprehensive consultation process commenced. Now that the final piece of the jigsaw has fallen into place — the conference was held a few weeks ago — we will be in a position, I hope before too long, to finalise our approach to the next scheme.
I would not underestimate the importance of the review process. One can be glib and think that by drawing a line on a map one can create wonderful things. This does not happen in all cases. I remind the Deputy that the economic circumstances at the time the current scheme was designed were totally different although credit is due to its designers. It has been an important and valuable scheme. It was a time of recession and there was little economic and construction activity. Conditions are now healthy. I have no doubt the Deputy will agree this is due in no small part to the efforts of the Government which has provided good and stable government. The scheme will have to match current circumstances.
There is a site in my constituency with which the Deputy's party leader is familiar which is being promoted as an ideal location for the Finglas technology park. There is, however, a need for designation. Can this be done under the current scheme? The view is that the project is being delayed because the current scheme has been extended. There is a need to create employment in Finglas. The developer may leave if an answer is not given soon. The Government has designated some areas of Dublin 4, yet approval has not been given to the inclusion of much more needy areas in other parts of the city. Can the Minister offer any hope to these areas where developers are waiting to proceed?
The Deputy has referred to a specific site and I do not like dealing with specific cases without being prepared. However, urban renewal designation per se would not be of great assistance in the circumstances to which the Deputy referred. While I recognise the need to encourage manufacturing industries and other economic activities to set up in deprived areas, urban renewal designation as defined in the Urban Renewal Act is not the panacea for all ills. This designation is specifically targeted at urban renewal projects and I think I am correct in saying that the site to which the Deputy referred would not benefit greatly from urban renewal designation per se. However, this is not to say a strong case cannot be made for its inclusion.
The Minister referred to the changes in economic circumstances between the time the scheme was put in place and now. I am sure she will agree that her party cannot claim credit for either. However much the Government might like to think that all the miracles occurred during the past two years, economic cycles change every six or seven years. We should be planning now for the downturn in the current economic cycle, something the Government is not doing.
I detect from what the Minister said that there might be a different attitude to, and a different set of parameters for, a new urban renewal scheme. Some areas have benefited greatly from the urban renewal scheme and there has been a good uptake in those areas which were included. However, some places which did not benefit from the current scheme may not benefit from a new scheme if the rules and regulations are changed too much. It is clear from reports that there were shortcomings in the last scheme. Matters such as the social context, the quality of the urban design, etc, are very important and the regulations governing these should be improved. However, if we want to ensure the new scheme attracts the kind of support the previous scheme attracted and that there will be development in areas which did not receive urban renewal designation under the last scheme, the rules and regulations should not be changed too much. I ask the Minister to give an assurance that this will be the case.
I assure the Deputy that I am very much in favour of the urban renewal designation mechanism which is a very good one and which, as the evidence shows, works well. I congratulate the original designers of this mechanism. I agree with the Deputy that we must adopt a more strategic approach to any new scheme. In this context, I will be looking to local authorities to adopt a more strategic approach to requirements at local level. The development of this idea will enhance what has gone before rather than negate it. We need to be clever and smart in terms of how we use this mechanism.
On the Deputy's first point, Democratic Left is part of the Government and it can claim as much credit as any other party for the good state of the economy.
My point is that, apart from the Labour Party, none of the parties in Government can claim credit for it.
The economy benefits from good and stable government. However, stability in a coalition government has sadly eluded Fianna Fáil.
And the Labour Party.
It is easy for a Government to be stable when it does not deal with the problems.
If it keeps throwing money at problems there will be little stability.