Town Renewal Bill, 2000: Second Stage.

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

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Deputies will be aware of the positive response which the new town renewal scheme evoked when I announced it last year. This Bill will provide a statutory framework for the scheme and enable it to come into operation. For the benefit of Deputies, I will outline the background to the scheme, the thinking behind it and the details of how it will operate within the framework the Government has established.

There has been a decline in the core areas of our towns with people finding it more attractive to move to the surrounding countryside. The reality is that many of these towns now function largely as daytime service centres and with many vacant or under-utilised upper floors and even some derelict or vacant sites.

We have all seen the impact which successive urban renewal schemes have made in transforming inner areas of our larger towns and cities which had been blighted by dereliction and decay over many decades. The expert advisory panel for the current urban renewal scheme noted that while smaller towns, that is, those with a population of less than 6,000, lacked the critical mass for the type of integrated social and economic approach adopted for that scheme, they nevertheless showed evidence of acute dereliction which warranted attention.

Undoubtedly, Deputies on all sides of the House will be only too well aware of the type of decline in our smaller towns that I outlined. It was against this background that we decided to take a closer look at our smaller towns to craft a scheme that would meet their needs, having regard to their smaller population and size. While there are similarities between the new scheme and the current urban renewal scheme, we have endeavoured, in framing this legislation, to develop a concept of town renewal which is distinct from that of urban renewal which has operated in larger urban centres. The result is the town renewal scheme. It seeks to restore, consolidate and improve the built fabric of these towns, promote sensitive in-fill, particularly residential development, and to generally revitalise the towns at which the scheme is targeted. The scheme endeavours to put the heart back into smaller towns, making them once again attractive places in which to live, work and visit.

As with previous similar schemes, the town renewal scheme is tax incentive-based and seeks to stimulate private investment in the revitalisation of areas which would not otherwise attract such investment. There is a strong emphasis on refurbishment and tackling key in-fill sites. The new conservation measures introduced by the Government will help to complement and underpin the efforts of county councils in meeting the objectives of their town renewal plans. The scheme also endeavours to achieve synergy with other State funded programmes.

The selection of towns for designation will be undertaken in accordance with the principles and policies outlined in the Bill which relate to the detailed guidelines on which the town renewal plan approach is based. These include provisions for the selection of eligible towns and the preparation of town renewal plans in respect of these towns, setting out a strategic approach and vision for the town, as well as recommendations for specific designations. I also make provision for the seeking of expert advice to support informed decision making in this regard. This includes the expert panel process which was first introduced for the current urban renewal scheme and which has again been employed for the new scheme with a similar remit.

One of the significant policy challenges to emerge in recent years is the need to ensure that cross-cutting issues are integrated into particular policy and programme development. This is especially the case where environmental considerations are concerned. The town renewal scheme must be viewed in the broader context of spatial planning policy, housing and infrastructural development and sustainability. The National Development Plan, 2000-2006, mandated my Department to prepare a national spatial strategy which will be finalised by the end of 2001.

The strategy will be of crucial importance in translating the Government's policy on more balanced regional development into a detailed framework for spatial development over the long term. The strategy will set out an approach aimed at the attainment of better geographically balanced development. This will serve as a response to a situation where, despite a rapidly expanding economy, parts of both urban and rural regions are not realising their full potential. Another aim of the strategy is to strengthen links between urban centres of all sizes and to foster closer relationships between towns and the rural hinterland.

Development must be balanced, but it must also be sustainable. I am confident that the new scheme will inject new life into the towns targeted, discourage the trend of moving to the surrounding countryside and stem the loss of shopping and other facilities to larger towns. We need to build sustainable, commercially thriving centres, while enhancing their environment and amenities, and the new scheme can achieve major progress towards reaching this goal.

Sustainability is about people and catering for their needs. The Deputies are aware of the current pressures evident in the housing area. The combination of the generous tax incentives available under the scheme and the spare capacity in terms of infrastructural services will assist in the efficient provision of housing. The increase in housing supply which will come about as a result of this scheme will be of significant assistance in meeting the Government's objectives in this area. While the scheme is heavily focused on refurbishment, which is reflected in the more generous incentives available for that purpose, there is also scope for new build provided that 50% of such development is residential.

Promoting maximum use of existing infrastructural resources is important at a time when the Government is embarking on a major programme of investment to combat Ireland's infrastructural deficit. We need more infrastructure but we must derive maximum benefit from our investment through using it effectively and, where possible, availing of infrastructural resources already there. The new scheme also dovetails neatly with other initiatives, such as the rural towns and villages initiative, which over the next three years will provide substantial investment in essential public water and sewerage facilities to smaller urban settlements with a view to combating rural depopulation and to encouraging development.

As in previous schemes, the implementation of the town renewal scheme will depend on the legal provisions provided in this Bill and in the taxation measures already provided for in the Taxes Consolidation Act, 1997, as inserted by the Finance Act, 2000. This Bill will enable the Minster, following an assessment process, to make recommendations to the Minister for Finance concerning the designations which should be made and that Minister's power to make such designations are already provided for in this year's Finance Act. Those reliefs cannot be applied until after the Oireachtas has passed a Bill providing for the renewal of towns or parts of towns identified on the basis of criteria drawn up by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government.

Sections 1, 9 and 10 are standard provisions dealing with interpretation, expenses of the Minister and the Bill's Short Title and commencement of the Act. Section 1 is the interpretation section containing definitions of certain terms used in the Bill and also certain other standard provisions as to interpretation. In particular, it indicates requirements determining eligibility under the scheme. As laid down in the guidelines for the scheme which I published last year, a town must have a population of between 500 and 6,000, as contained in the most recently published census, and meet other conditions, such as towns or areas already enjoying the benefits of other similar tax incentive based schemes, that is, towns in areas designated under the 1999 urban renewal scheme, the seaside resorts scheme, the rural renewal scheme, and towns in the Dublin administrative area that were not eligible to participate in the new scheme.

Section 2 provides that the Bill when enacted will be the Act of the Oireachtas referred to in section 372AA(2) of the Taxes Consolidation Act, 1997, as inserted by this year's Finance Act.

Section 3 deals with the selection of towns for which town renewal plans are to be prepared, the format, preparation and contents of those plans and their submission to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. A county council may prepare a town renewal plan for an eligible town as defined in section 1 of the Bill or an area or areas of an eligible town within its functional area. To accommodate cases where towns straddle the boundaries of neighbouring counties, provision is also made to include a part or parts of the functional area of another county council, subject to the consent of the latter.

A county council, when selecting an eligible town or an area or areas of an eligible town for the purposes of preparing a town renewal plan, must have regard to such criteria as may be specified in writing by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. In specifying criteria the Minister must have regard to the need for the promotion of physical renewal and revitalisation of towns, the promotion of towns as cultural, commercial, social and residential centres, the promotion of sustainable development patterns and the enhancement of the amenities, heritage and environment of towns. These policies and principles as outlined in section 3(3) underpin the guidelines issued for the scheme.

While subsection (3) deals with the selection of towns, subsection (4) relates to the preparation of a town's renewal plan and requires county councils when preparing town renewal plans to have regard to criteria specified by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. In addition to the principles outlined for subsection (3), criteria may also be set for the format and content of a town renewal plan, design considerations, selection of buildings and areas for the application of specified tax reliefs and for consultation procedures. Section 3(5) provides that guidelines setting out the criteria I referred to in relation to subsections (3) and (4), the selection of towns and the preparation of towns renewal plans may be made and published.

Under subsection (6) a town renewal plan must consist of a written statement and a plan setting out objectives for the renewal on a sustainable basis of the area to which the plan relates and for improvements in that area's physical environment. Subsection (7) sets out a range of issues which a town renewal plan may address. These include the renewal, preservation, conservation, restoration, development or redevelopment of the townscape, layout and building pattern of the area, including facades of buildings and shop frontages; the restoration, refurbishment, consolidation and improvement of the building fabric of the area; the density of the development and the treatment of spaces between buildings, the preservation and protection of natural, architectural and archaeological heritage; the development or redevelopment for residential or other appropriate use of derelict sites or vacant sites or buildings or parts of buildings, the promotion of sustainable development patterns, including the protection and improvement of the environment and amenities, the removal of barriers to development and the enhanced use of infrastructural capacity.

Section 3 provides that a county council may consult with interested parties and shall have regard to any submissions made to the council during those consultations. Section 4 deals with the consultative process by the Minister. Provision is made for the Minister to consult and seek the advice of such persons as appear to him or her to have relevant expertise in town renewal and, in relation to town renewal and town renewal plans, have regard to any such advice submitted. The section provides in addition that any person giving such advice in relation to town renewal shall advise the Minister of any interest they hold and shall not provide any advice in respect of such interest. As Deputies are aware, I have established an expert advisory panel made up of persons with expertise in the area of town renewal and this panel is currently examining the various town renewal plans submitted by county councils.

Section 5 sets out the functions of county councils and the criteria which must be taken into account in the making of recommendations that areas be qualifying areas for the purposes of town renewal tax reliefs. The reliefs relate to expenditure on the conversion of existing buildings for use as rented residential accommodation, expenditure on the refurbishment of a house for use as rented residential accommodation and allowances to owner occupiers in respect of certain expenditure on the construction or refurbishment of residential accommodation. Section 23 type relief for new rented accommodation would only apply where this was considered justified.

This section also contains a provision allowing residential incentives to be applied throughout an area to which a town renewal plan relates. This is similar to a provision contained in urban renewal legislation and has been framed to take account of Government policy on house prices by confining this option to conversion or refurbishment of existing property in the case of section 23 type relief for rented residential accommodation and to residential property for owner occupation. While provision for this area wide application of residential incentives has been included in the Bill, it did not form part of the current scheme. However, as this legislation will provide the framework for future town renewal schemes, I consider it appropriate to include this option to cover its possible use in the future.

There is provision in this year's Finance Act for the application of a range of commercial and industrial incentives based on 100% capital allowances. These are similar to what is available under the current urban renewal scheme. However, these incentives must be notified to and approved by the EU Commission before they can be implemented.

The criteria to which a county council must have regard in making any recommendation contained in or accompanying a town renewal plan are also set out and are as follows – consistency between the types of development likely to be carried out in the areas to which the recommendations relate and relevant objectives of the plan; the significance of the recommendations for attaining the objectives of the plan; market conditions in the area or areas concerned in relation to the supply of and anticipated demand for the relevant types of development and the nature and extent of any impediments to the carrying out of the relevant types of development.

Section 6 provides that having considered a town renewal plan submitted under section 3 and any recommendations contained in or accompanying such plan as provided for under section 5 and any advice provided to the Minister under section 4, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government may recommend to the Minister for Finance that an area or areas may qualify for tax incentives.

Section 7 provides that developments qualifying for the tax reliefs must be consistent with the objectives of the relevant town renewal plan, with county councils providing certificates to this effect. Section 8 provides for arrangements to monitor the implementation of town renewal plans and to report the results of such monitoring to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. Such monitoring must be in accordance with any guidelines the Minister for the Environment and Local Government may issue from time to time for the purposes of the section. Subsection (2) provides that county councils must furnish reports to the Minister on the outcome of the monitoring.

Section 9 is a standard provision enabling the expenses of the Minister in administering the Act to be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas. Section 10 sets out the Short Title and commencement dates of the Bill. Section 2 provides that sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 will be deemed to have come into operation on 16 February 1999. This would give validation to the preparatory work already carried out to date, including the establishment and operation of the expert advisory panel, the preparation of guidelines for the scheme and the selection of towns and the preparation and submission of town renewal plans by county councils. Other provisions shall come into operation on such day or days as may be appointed by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government.

This scheme represents an opportunity for the smaller towns, the back bone of rural Ireland, to avail of the type of incentives that have been successful in reviving and regenerating our cities and larger urban areas. It is another element in an integrated set of policies which the Government is promoting to ensure that the benefits of our strong economic growth are spread as widely as possible. It provides an opportunity to support and develop smaller integrated communities. It has potential to relieve pressure on our larger urban centres and bring life back to smaller towns. It is practical, realistic and designed to bring a good return to the community as a whole.

The process of examining the town renewal plan submitted is now well advanced and the expert panel is expected to complete its work shortly. In all, a total of 102 plans were submitted and I hope to be in a position to announce the designations next month. The scheme, by its nature, will be based on a targetted approach in terms of areas to be designated for tax incentives. It is not the intention to designate wide areas within individual towns as that would defeat the purpose of the scheme. However, we must await the finalisation of the expert panel's deliberations who will then make recommendations to me. Only then can the decisions be announced.

I commend the Bill to the House and look forward to a constructive debate.

Mr. Dukes

In the Minister's press statement on the Bill dated 29 May he made outrageously over-blown claims for this legislation and he has done so again today. On 29 May he said that the town renewal scheme must be seen as another element in an integrated set of policies which the Government is promoting. He claimed:

We now have a coherent strategy which will address the issues of social and economic under-development in rural Ireland.

He went on to state: "This scheme must also be viewed in the broader context of spatial planning policy" and that it will also have a key part to play in the Government's current strategies to tackle the shortages of housing supply.

We had further echoes of that today in a most brazen presentation of this Bill which is designed to cover the Government's back for things it has already done and allows the Minister to make a series of good news announcements late next month if all goes well. It is a sloppy and slip-shod way of going about it as I intend to demonstrate. Legislating in this way is an abuse of the legislative process. The Minister is bringing in legislative cover for a process which has already taken place and has led to a list of 102 towns being submitted to the Minister. We are not quite sure what is to be done with it as the Minister did not explain that. The selection, examination of the criteria, local consultations, proposals and so on have been done and, in order to cover all this, there is a provision which states that three sections of the Bill will be deemed to have been in operation since 19 February last year. If that is not an abuse of the legislative process I do not know what is. The Minister should be ashamed to come into the House with this legislation seeking to act retrospectively to cover what has already been done. If the Government was serious about the Bill and about having a real debate on town renewal, we would have had this Bill in February or March last year and could have legislated knowing what was there and perhaps improving the process in which county councils and town representatives have already engaged.

The Minister of State spoke in glowing terms in his press release and today about how important this measure will be in the context of a spatial strategy. I remind him that the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, went to a good deal of trouble, because he had to, to explain that we will not have a spatial strategy until the end of next year at the earliest. We are going through an elaborate and painstaking process to build it up. Consultations are being held widely in a special unit in the Department charged with that, yet the Minister of State can say the measures in the Bill are a key part of a spatial strategy that has not yet been put together. What kind of strategy is that? He does not know what the strategy is but he can tell us this Bill is a part of it.

Apparently these measures are part of an integrated rural development strategy. I wonder if the Minister of State has reflected on how these town development plans awaiting a decision by the Minister or the Minister for Finance fit in with the respective county development plans. Do they fit in at all? Are they part of area plans that are in turn part of a county development plan? Is this not simply a much more opportunistic approach to town development? How does this scheme fit in with anything we have painstakingly dealt with in our discussion on the Committee Stage of the Planning and Development Bill? I do not believe the Minister has given a moment's thought to that yet he can pretend this is part of an integrated rural development strategy when it is nothing of the kind. It is an opportunistic and short-term reaction to a problem. The Government saw a measure that worked in some areas and has now decided to try it a few more times. In order to save itself bother and potential political flack it will not make all the proposals but will ask the county councils to do so.

If I thought this was a real exercise in subsidiarity and county councils were being given a role in deciding on the pattern of development, I would be happy. However, that is not what is happening. Each county council was told it could propose a certain number of towns. When they have been proposed it is open to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government and the Minister for Finance to decide which towns get the green light to go ahead. The county councils propose but who selects? I am still not clear on that. The Bill states the Minister for the Environment and Local Government will make recommendations to the Minister for Finance and he, in the context of the Taxes Consolidation Bill and so on, decides on the designations. It gives the Minister for Finance patronage that has only been paralleled by one other scheme in the history of this State – the previous town development scheme to which the Minister referred. We have turned the Minister for Finance into a little god who will decide which and how many of the 102 towns proposed by county councils will get this largesse.

I have no ill feeling towards any of those towns but it is not a proper process to legislate to give an arbitrary power of that kind to the Minister for Finance. I made that point when we debated the last Bill that dealt with this and the Government, of course, refused to accept that there was anything arbitrary in this at all. Arbitrary powers are being given to a member of the Government and they are not made any less arbitrary by the fact that county councils have been consulted and that the Minister for the Environment and Local Government can make recommendations. Legally the final power to make the designations resides in the hands of the Minister for Finance. That is not a coherent strategy for rural development or anything else. It is sloppy, slipshod, opportunistic legislation and it is not the way to go about proper development.

If this Bill is part of a coherent strategy, and the Minister for Finance, in his wisdom, decides that town X is going to benefit from designation, and at the end of next year the bones of a spatial development strategy are in place, and it turns out that town X is not designated as one of the focus points for development as defined in the spatial strategy, will town X be deprived of the benefits of designation under this scheme? Not on your nelly. One can be sure that will not happen. The Government is blithely anticipating, and even prejudicing, what it might do in terms of a spatial development strategy. A spatial development strategy has been unnecessarily delayed by this exercise in the pluperfection of consultation and analysis designed only to delay the day when difficult decisions have to be made about development strategy.

The Minister comes along with another idle pretence. He said that the measures in the Bill will have a key part to play in the Government's current strategy to tackle the shortage in housing supply. He repeated that today when he said that the increase in housing supply that will come about as a result of this scheme will be of significant assistance in meeting the Government's objectives in this area. Who is he kidding? Who is the Minister trying to fool when he says that? How many new residential units will be brought on stream as a result of this Bill? How will they compare to the 40,000 new housing units per annum that we were previously said to require, an estimate which will be increased when the next Bacon report is published? What number will qualify as a key contribution to achieving such a target? How can the Minister pretend that is going to make a key contribution to solving our housing problem? He would be well advised to read the explanatory memorandum of the Bill before he makes a statement like that.

In the section dealing with the financial and staffing implications the Bill states, ". . . the cost to the Exchequer should not be excessive having regard to the size of the towns involved and the relatively small scale investment projects which are likely to arise under the scheme." If I ever saw a balloon being burst or an own goal being scored, that is one. This key contribution to our housing problem is unlikely to have excessive cost because of the small scale investment projects which are likely to arise under the scheme. Would the Minister ever cop himself on and stop going on with nonsensical claims when his own document tells us how empty and overblown those claims are?

This Bill, the Minister claims, will help in the promotion of sustainable development patterns. When I saw that I could not resist a wry grin. Deputy Gilmore and I had to fight hard, and were in the end unsuccessful, to get a reference to sustainable development into the Planning and Development Bill. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government refused consistently to put any reference to sustainable development in there because he felt it was not definable. Now, however, we have Solomon, in the form of the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, talking about sustainable development. He even goes on to say what sustainable development is. Here is a real gem. The Minister said that sustainability is about people and catering for their needs. That may sound like grand, down-home, homespun philosophy but that is not what anyone involved in the debate about sustainable development understands by the term. I have never heard such rubbish, yet the Minister tells us this Bill will be an important factor in sustainable development. That is not sustainability in the sense of today's debate. To pretend that a small measure like this will be important in that context is idle in the extreme.

Section 6 talks of the protection of architectural heritage. I am glad it does. Again, Deputy Gilmore and I, with more success this time, had to fight very hard to get any reference to the protection of architectural heritage into the Planning and Development Bill. It is one point in the Bill which pleased me.

The Minister talked about the role of this Bill and these measures in the development of towns. Is there any provision in the scheme, because I do not see it in the Bill and I did not hear it mentioned in the Minister's statement, to co-ordinate what is being proposed with the provision of adequate water supplies and sewerage services and other amenities to the towns involved? We are talking about towns with populations of between 500 and 6,000. For the last two years the Minister has been unable to give me a target date by which an end would be put to the discharge of raw effluent from town systems into our watercourses. I get responses telling me what the target phases are for towns of different sizes in European Union directives but the Minister cannot give a date by which we will no longer be discharging raw sewage from small towns into watercourses. This Bill is going to be a key part of our development strategy but there is no reference in it in any way to the co-ordination of infrastructural investment other than the specific types of investment provided for in the tax breaks set out in it.

The scheme is entirely arbitrary in who makes the decisions. I said on the previous Bill about a scheme of this kind, and I repeat now, that there is no guarantee that a town that conforms to the criteria set out in the Bill will achieve designation. The Minister of State underlined that point when he stated:

A list of these towns was thoughtfully provided in the appendix to the Minister of State's press statement on 29 May. As I understand it – if I am wrong the Minister of State may correct me – there is no guarantee that any of the towns on the list will receive a designation. The Minister for Finance, on advice received from the expert advisory panel and that of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, will peruse the list and decide which of the 102 towns will be designated. Will one, two or three towns in a county receive a designation or will any town receive it?

What the Minister asked the towns and county councils to do has involved no small effort on their part. As far as I am aware, the county councils took this matter seriously. In my county more than five towns – the number the county council was asked to put forward – wished to be considered for designation. The county council set about making a decision and many councillors swallowed hard and agreed to the proposals put before them. This shows that when local authorities are trusted to do a reasonable job they will do it. However, there is no guarantee that any or all of the five towns chosen will receive a designation.

The number of towns which will receive a designation is decided by the Minister for Finance in light of advice he receives. We do not know the nature of the advice he will receive. Will the advice of the expert advisory panel be made available to us or to the people in the towns concerned, either those designated or those not designated? Will it be made available to the county councils or the planning authorities which have the obligation of providing the other kinds of infrastructure which are required to support development in these towns? The legislation is silent on that point which means that the Minister has no intention of informing us about the nature or tenor of the advice he receives. A series of arbitrary decisions will be made about the towns which will benefit from this designation.

Why were the county councils asked to propose a specific number of towns? That invitation flies in the face of the kind of system set out in the Bill, which outlines a series of criteria which must be taken into account in constructing and judging these plans. There might be more towns in a given county which could conform to those criteria. However, Kildare County Council, for example, was informed that it should propose five towns for designation and other county councils were given similar instructions. No reference was made to the current status of these towns or to the hierarchy of needs or of stages of development which might exist between them. Kildare County Council was told to nominate five towns and God in Merrion Street would make the final decision.

On what basis was the number of towns each county was obliged to propose for designation decided? Who was responsible for that decision? Is there any explanation for counties not being allowed to nominate more or fewer towns? The answer is that no such explanation exists because the scheme is completely, utterly, totally and irremediably arbitrary.

Section 6 provides that county councils may consult with interested parties and may have regard to submissions. There is an atmosphere of falsity about our solemnly legislating in respect of this matter when we know that action has already been taken. The county councils which were asked to nominate towns have, to my knowledge, taken their job seriously. Most of them established a series of travelling clinics for consultation with interest groups in the towns they wished to consider. A series of meetings were held, people were given information about the contents of the Bill, they reflected on this and returned with proposals and suggestions. The entire process has been completed. However, we are now solemnly legislating in respect of that process. The Bill states that sections 3, 4 and 5 are deemed to have come into effect on 16 February last year. We are informing county councils that we are providing a legislative basis for a process they have already completed. This, again, is an abuse of the legislative process.

Section 4 provides for the Minister to consult people with relevant expertise. Was this done? It appears so. Who was consulted? Who are the members of the expert advisory panel and what advice have they provided? Is it intended that these people should provide solemn advice in respect of each individual town? Will they be familiar with the towns in question? I do not know these people but I wish to know if they are the kind of individuals who were responsible for producing a proposal on the Pigeon House docks area in respect of which one of yesterday's newspapers published a report.

The newspaper article to which I refer reported that a 30 storey glazed circular tower would be built as part of a £230 million office scheme plan for Ringsend. I accept that this plan does not come within the scope of the scheme outlined in the Bill. It does, however, involve town planning. According to the report, the Ringsend plan will involve the construction of 16 office blocks which will include a 30 storey circular tower. Planning has already been applied for in respect of this development which makes provision for 1.38 million square feet of office space and a hotel, 20,000 square feet of retail space, 55,000 square feet of conference and ancillary facilities and over 2,000 car parking spaces. It is stated that the development will not shadow a residential area.

The development to which I refer goes hand in hand with the commercial development at Spencer Dock which requires the provision of 2.2 mill ion square feet of space. The article states that it will replicate the East Point business park, where the final three blocks are to be completed next year to bring the overall size of the complex up to 1.1 million square feet. It also states that the city planners are likely to look favourably on the south bank proposal since it will help the city to compete against the suburban business parks which have sprung up in south, west and north Dublin.

If that is the concept of urban development being pursued, we are doomed to experience the most appalling gridlock this country has ever witnessed. In three major areas of Dublin's docklands, we are intent on building more office blocks, conference centres, places for people to work and car parks and encouraging thousands more people to drive thousands more cars to work each morning and home again in the evening, thereby adding to traffic congestion. What we should be doing in those areas is encouraging residential development so that people will leave those areas each morning to travel to work elsewhere in the city and return to them each evening. This will create some kind of counterflow and ensure that more efficient use is made of road space and public transport facilities.

That is the kind of advice that experts on the advisory panel are going to give, on a smaller scale, in respect of these town development plans. If the concept of development to which I referred continues to be pursued, a mess will be made of towns which, as the Minister of State romantically noted, could be made into havens in which people will want to live rather than into places from which they will want to escape to live in the surrounding countryside. If that is the logic informing the kind of development the Minister is attempting to stimulate, he is completely on the wrong track. This view, which is part of the disease from which the country suffers, makes sustainable development a totally theoretical pipe dream rather than offering us any new notion of sustainability.

The Ministers for Finance and the Environment and Local Government and the county councils can recommend areas for designation. There is a provision in this Bill that either parts of an area or an entire area can be designated. I am aware that there is another reason for that which need not detain us now. Will the Minister always accept the recommendations made to him and will the expert advisory panel comprise people who can identify the main requirements in towns? For example, I am aware of one case where proposals have been made for a tax designation area. Car parking space is required in the town, yet one of the key sites which would unlock access to a substantial amount of car parking space has not been designated. The person who owns the property is saying "If I can't get designation for that site, you can't get access to car parking to improve the situation in the town.".

I do not know where the expert advisory panel will be located but it would appear that it will be somewhat removed from the above considerations and that we may find a number of designation projects – especially if only parts of areas are to be designated – which, with the best will in the world and the considerable wisdom at his disposal, the Minister for Finance and his expert advisory group will not be able to identify. These matters are not always obvious from maps. I wonder what kind of checks will be put in place to identify what the net effect of designation decisions will be.

Even when our deified Minister for Finance and other Ministers make conclusions about designation, that will not be the final word on the matter. It will be necessary to go to the European Commission in Brussels to get final clearance. I am not aware of what the Minister's expectations of success there are and I would like him to inform us of those. There has been at least one major case in this city which was in considerable doubt for a long time because the Commission apparently was not in favour of it. I would like to know what soundings have been taken and what the Minister's best guess is as to how this will be viewed in Brussels.

As far as I can see, there will be a large number of disappointed towns which, the Minister for Finance, in his wisdom, will decide should not be included in the designation. It seems equally likely that some towns which will be designated will also be disappointed because the mandarins in Brussels will rule against them. There are many questions to be asked about this issue and I would like the Minister to answer some of them when he concludes the Second Stage debate. Otherwise, we will be faced with a very time consuming job on Committee Stage.

Mr. Gilmore

The Labour Party supports the renewal of small towns throughout this country. If this Bill had been presented to the House before the Minister announced the tax incentive scheme for the renewal of small towns last year, we would certainly have given it a very warm welcome, notwithstanding the quibbles we may have had about some of its details. Nobody likes to be taken for granted and it is a mark of the Government's arrogance that it has taken this legislative assembly for granted.

The final line of this Bill is one of the most extraordinary legislative provisions to appear before the House in a long time. Section 10(3) – of a ten section Bill – states: "Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 shall be deemed to have come into operation on 16 February, 1999. “ Today is 8 June 2000. Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 outline the procedures for the adoption of town renewal plans. Section 3 provides for the adoption of town renewal plans by county councils and outlines the procedures to be followed when plans are being adopted. It also provides that the Minister may make guidelines which county councils will have to follow and outlines the required content of such guidelines. Section 4 provides that the Minister, when drawing up guidelines and considering matters relating to town renewal, can consult with outside people and outlines the manner in which he should do so. It also states that the people whom the Minister consults should not have an interest in the matters in regard to which they are providing advice. Section 5 provides that county councils may make recommendations about which towns or parts of towns should receive tax designation and section 6 goes on to authorise the Minister to make recommendations to the Minister for Finance about the tax designations.

The procedure outlined in these sections is quite detailed and forms the heart of the Bill. Then, at the very end of section 10, the Minister asks this House to pretend that the procedure has been in place for the past 17 months. This is a legislative joke. It is not possible to introduce a Bill which outlines a procedure stipulating that county councils must consider design, cultural, social, residential, economic and other requirements in towns and that the Minister must follow certain criteria and subsequently ask people to close their eyes and pretend that all of these provisions have been in place since 16 February 1999. In the meantime, the Minister announced the scheme and has received applications from county councils for 102 towns, in regard to which we are to pretend the legislation was in place and the procedure followed.

This Bill is not about the renewal of towns throughout this country, rather it is about the renewal of the life of this Government. This Bill asks the House to give the Government and its Ministers a licence to spend the next few months hawking around the towns selected by the Minister for Finance, under a procedure we are to pretend has been in existence for 18 months, arranging press conferences and saying "We're breathing life back into your town."

This Bill is about the next election, not the renewal of towns. It is insulting to this House to come before it, as the Minister has done today, and ask its Members to effect that kind of retrospection. It is one thing for a Government to come into the House with legislation when some loophole inadvertently appears, where, for example, a court case exposes an area of public activity to challenge and where it is necessary to introduce validating legislation, but to come into the House with legislation which is not complicated, could have been drafted in a weekend and could easily have been presented before the tax incentive scheme was announced last year, and to pretend that it has been there since the beginning of 1999 is not acceptable. While agreeing with the principles set down in the Bill and to its provisions and procedures for the town renewal schemes, the House should not agree to apply this legislation retrospectively to 16 February 1999. The Minister should explain why the legislation was not introduced before he announced the scheme in the first place.

The Labour Party is in favour of the renewal of small towns. Small towns have been neglected and the hearts of some of them have gone into dereliction. The commercial areas of many towns have gone into decline, commercial activity in many of the smaller towns has been sucked into the larger urban centres, the physical appearance of many towns has deteriorated and sometimes the population has stagnated or declined. We have seen a pattern of banks closing branches and schools, small hospitals, Garda stations and post offices closing down.

The small towns of Ireland have enormous potential. They have the potential to address our crisis in housing and to provide good places for people to live and work. If they are to provide people with a good quality of life it is essential that they have all the facilities and amenities which people expect. Many small towns already have that infrastructure and if it is protected and developed they have enormous potential. However, it is not enough to make a town pretty in order to breathe life into it. Nor is it enough to introduce a town renewal plan along the lines of this Bill, to prettify the main street of the town and provide tax reliefs for the conversion of an old warehouse into a block of apartments, for example. A concerted effort must be made to ensure that the basic facilities of towns are maintained. There is no point in converting an old warehouse into apartments if, at the same time, the Department of Education and Science removes the marginal teacher from the school, the health board closes the hospital, the Garda station moves elsewhere and the bank closes its branch. Serious efforts must be made to ensure that the essential amenities of towns are kept intact. In towns that have been selected for renewal, State agencies should not close down post offices and Garda stations, schools should be adequately resourced and capable of providing an acceptable range of subjects and the planning process should be used to prevent private institutions, such as banks, from closing a branch in a small town while seeking planning permission to extend one in larger town.

Renewal of small towns must be examined in the context of rural development and spatial planning. Of course, the spatial plan is still something of a Government pipe dream We must consider the town in the context of the district or part of the county in which it is located. There is merit in looking at towns in groups. A number of towns and their rural hinterland may be capable of providing a facility which could not be sustained in an individual town. Some consideration should be given to the grouping of towns where the provision of essential facilities is required.

If smaller towns are to develop and provide an acceptable quality of life, good public transport must be provided. Outside the major urban areas there is a serious deficit in the provision of public transport. It is important that public transport be provided to link smaller towns with larger urban centres. This question must be examined in the context of town renewal.

The Minister has referred to sustainability. We must look at town renewal and urban renewal in general in the longer term. Urban renewal schemes have brought a positive benefit to the areas where they have operated. They have physically upgraded urban areas and have provided much welcome development and general improvement of towns and cities. However, one or two things now need to be reviewed. Some town centre urban renewal schemes have become clichéd and very jaded. The typical cobbled pedestrian area bounded by black metal bollards, overhanging lamp standards, little parking bays and wooden boxes of flowers were all very interesting and attractive when they first appeared but they are becoming a bit of a bore. Every town with an urban, town or village renewal scheme has exactly the same black metal bollards, paving and hanging baskets.

It appears that no attempt is being made to develop the individual characters of the towns themselves. The same fake old world shop fronts appear everywhere. It is time to look at this aspect of urban renewal. We are creating a type of urban renewal theme park in every little town in the country which, within a couple of years, will look extremely jaded and which in some of the earlier ones looks jaded already. It is time some consideration was given to individuality and developing the character of the town rather than trying to create Little England villages in every Irish town. It is similar with some of the economic developments which have taken place. There must be a craft shop, a little tea shop and the same apartment development in the old warehouse. How sustainable will these developments be after the period of tax relief expires? That needs to be examined.

I wish to address the omission in the Bill of the entire county of Dublin. The three county council areas, Fingal, South Dublin and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, are excluded from the Bill. I remind the Minister that there are towns in these areas which are not part of larger conurbations. That is certainly the case in Fingal. One thinks immediately of towns such as Skerries, Balbriggan, Lusk and Rush. In South Dublin one thinks of towns such as Newcastle and Rathcoole. In Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, there are, perhaps, not so many, but there are places such as Stepaside. One could even argue that the towns which have now become part of the suburban development should also be examined in their own right because these towns, such as Dundrum, Stillorgan or Tallaght, were towns in their own right before larger suburban developments took place around them. In excluding the three county council areas in Dublin, the Bill is anti-Dublin.

If there are to be schemes for urban renewal in villages and towns and on a larger scale, we need to have a scheme of suburban renewal, either by the inclusion of the three Dublin county council areas in the Bill or by the introduction of separate legislation which will address their special needs. One should not have to wait until areas become derelict before the issue of urban or town renewal becomes live. If attention is given to suburban areas which are being deliberately excluded from the remit of this legislation, perhaps we will not repeat the problems which occurred in smaller towns which now have to be addressed by way of a special town renewal scheme.

Mr. Penrose

I am glad of the opportunity to contribute to the debate and I welcome the legislation. Like some of my colleagues, I am a member of a local authority. We were asked to evaluate submissions under the urban renewal scheme and, in doing so, we were asked to underscore our value as public representatives for the people from the various areas and we were faced with very difficult choices. An invidious task was delegated to members of local authorities which was to decide which areas would and would not be included. Despite that, the process proved that local representatives, who are often much maligned, could rise to the occasion and rise above the petty politics of which they are often accused and make valuable contributions to the evaluation process at local level. They proved their worth in that, while they might have argued strongly for the inclusion of certain areas and despite the fact that many councillors found their areas excluded, the overall common good ultimately guided their decisions.

I am delighted an attempt is being made to tackle dereliction in towns throughout the country. It is important to bring life back to them, because they have lost out to the major towns. There has been a move from the countryside and I have spoken about this in the context of rural degeneration and the need to have a vigorous policy of rural regeneration and renewal. This refers specifically to rural towns outside the larger urban centres. The Bill is welcome in that respect and I would support it in that regard. It is an attempt to reverse what appeared to be an irreversible process where people were moving to the larger urban centres and the towns on the periphery were being denuded of population. As a consequence, services came under threat.

However, the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Finance, seems to be in an obstinate mood and he sometimes makes decisions which bear no relation to reality. I do not know how, in the renewal scheme brought in for the Shannon catchment area, he could have excluded the largest area attached to the Shannon, which is the Inny basin area in north County Westmeath. Senator Cassidy spends a great deal of time telling us on Westmeath County Council that the area has suffered a 30% fall in population. This scheme was designed to address and reverse this process, but the Minister would not listen. I presume Senator Cassidy did his job and fought for the inclusion of this area which stretches from Street to Lismacaffry to Lisryan to Coole to Castlepollard to Multyfarnham to Rathowen to my area of Ballynacarrigy. I assume he impressed upon the Minister for Finance the necessity of including this area in the Shannon basin scheme, but it did not happen. Not one blade of grass in County Westmeath was included.

A village such as Rathowen highlights the result of this. The village is near the border with County Longford, all of which, I was delighted to see, was included in the scheme. We needed to ensure the population is maintained in north Westmeath and this scheme would have made a major contribution. However, when arbitrary lines are drawn on maps, a reverse flow can be created which can have major consequences for areas such as this part of Westmeath. I will continue to highlight this point to ensure a wrong is rectified as quickly as possible and that the defined area of the Inny basin is included as part of the Shannon catchment area scheme which introduced tax incentives in the general Shannon area. As Labour Party spokesperson on Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, I spoke with the Minister for Finance long before a decision was made and I raised the issue at every committee meeting.

As I said earlier, the previous urban renewal scheme posed a difficulty for councillors and certain criteria were laid down under it. The population parameters allowed for towns up to 6,000 people. Under those criteria, five towns in County Westmeath qualified to be considered – Kinnegad, Rochfortbridge, Castlepollard, Kilbeggan and Moate. The criteria further stated that, if a county had fewer than six qualifying towns, only three could be selected. Unfortunately, Kinnegad and Rochfortbridge, two very important towns on the N4 and N6, lost out. I was disappointed because Kinnegad is the gateway to the west and north-west as well as being the entry point into Westmeath, so we are very proud of it. We thought it was ideal for renewal. It was based on a population which, I think, was based on 1996 central statistics.

That was the first flaw because if places such as Kinnegad and Delvin in the surrounding hinterland could have been considered, it would have ensured Westmeath County Council would have been in a position to put forward the fourth or fifth town but it was not because the population parameters were confined to 1996. They were three years out of date. One has to have an objective standard or measurement but they were three years out of date, and that created the first headache. It was the first lacuna in the criteria.

To compound that, there was great disappointment in Kinnegad and Rochfordbridge and a very strong argument could be made for Delvin in north Westmeath, one of those areas that it is very important to promote to ensure the reversal of the drop in population and the demographic changes. As my colleague, Deputy Gilmore said, we must focus on the implications for the services, churches, football teams, post offices, Garda stations and schools because, with the drop in population, all those services come under threat.

That was a mistake but the real mistake was that we took our responsibility seriously. We went through the vetting or evaluation process and then picked the towns. They were designated without extra resources and a very senior planner was delegated to draw up the plans which were submitted to the Minister's Department and on which people expected results in April, but they have not received results to date. The Minister set up an expert committee which is reviewing the matter. Legitimate expectations are built up at several levels, including council level. We have dealt with that and two or three of our towns were disappointed. Then the planner has to examine areas and everybody submits an area. Some people are disappointed in a town when the planners say that somewhere else is a more suitable area for refurbishment or whatever.

The committee set up by the Minister might say that some matters are not as we had intended, and there is further disappointment. Then the matter goes to the Minister and the Minister for Finance and then to Brussels. There will be tranches of disappointment along the way for some people. That is a worrying feature and that is why the legislation should have come first. We put the cart before the horse and we have to make the hard decisions, as we have shown that we could.

In fairness, the thrust of this scheme seems to be aimed at refurbishment, which is good, rather than involving construction and knocking down everything in a place. We need to preserve the heritage and the best of the buildings. Refurbishment is a good way to proceed and is to be supported.

It is important to emphasise that, while this scheme is coming into place for towns, it is essential that commercial ventures such as banks are not allowed, willy-nilly, to withdraw the services they were supplying to those rural towns, based on commercial decisions.

Mr. Naughten

Hear, hear.

Mr. Penrose

There is not an ounce of social thought or value and certainly no charity in the banks. All they consider is the bottom line. If there is not a profit margin in it, they withdraw. Again, I remind the Minister of the obstinacy and obduracy of the Minister for Finance who would not meet the credit unions, which are based on the co-operative ideal of Horace Plunkett. The Minister should ensure that he meets them because they will be the people to provide the financial services eventually for the elderly people about whom we worry, people we advise to take their money out from under the mattress if they have a few pounds to pay for their burial and put it into those institutions. That is what we should be encouraging and that is why the Minister for Finance should get down from his high horse and meet the credit unions. He should ensure they provide services for those great commercial bodies that many people in the free market zone would praise but for which I would not have much time. They flee at the first sign that their bottom line economics does not add up. They are answerable to all the big institutional investors at home and abroad.

The other scheme is the village renewal scheme, on which everybody can take a bow, including the Minister and his Department. It is a very good scheme which caters for many villages. Look at the villages in my own county, from the bridge of Finea to the bridge of Athlone, to the bridge at Baile na Carraige and the bridge at Kinnegad. For a small amount of money, a positive cost benefit analysis could be carried out which would be worth evaluating. Again, the Minister gave some autonomy and money to the local authority. The local authority consulted in the five electoral areas in the county and discussed the matter with the local tidy towns committees or the local development associations. That is value for money. One did not have to carry out audits. All one had to do was drive into any village countrywide to see the benefits of that scheme. I hope more funding can be provided for that scheme which should be extended and enhanced.

Mr. Fleming

I wish to share my time with Deputy Michael Collins.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Fleming

I welcome this Town Renewal Bill, 2000, and I consider it a privilege to speak on it. I praise the Minister for coming forward with this legislation which I can say, coming from a mixed rural constituency of Laoighis-Offaly, will be a great boost for those counties. When I speak about improvements for Laois and Offaly, it is only a microcosm of what will apply in the rest of the country. I know when I refer to examples locally that they can be mirrored in every other county or constituency countrywide.

The purpose of this Bill, in a nutshell, is to provide a framework for a new town renewal scheme aimed at the physical renewal of smaller towns, that is, those with a population of between 500 and 6,000 people. The scheme is a tax incentive based scheme and is aimed at revitalising these smaller towns, promoting sustainable development patterns, fostering balanced rural development, combating dereliction and promoting towns that benefit under this scheme as commercial and social centres.

I have been waiting for legislation on this matter since I was elected to Dáil Éireann almost three years ago because it has been a burning issue in many small rural towns countrywide for many years. Before I speak specifically on the Bill, I will trace the origins of the scheme. Many years ago, special tax incentives were introduced for areas such as Temple Bar and the International Financial Services Centre in Dublin city. They were outstanding successes and revitalised those areas. The scheme was so good that immediately urban renewal and development schemes were introduced which allowed for major tax incentives throughout the vast majority of the main provincial towns – we call them county towns in most areas – for example, Portlaoise and Tullamore in my constituency.

Now it is the chance of the smaller town with a population of between 500 and 6,000 to benefit from these schemes. We are very pleased that they are now receiving recognition. Before the last general election, many people raised the issue with me throughout my constituency. They acknowledge the outstanding work of the tax incentive scheme in Portlaoise. All one has to do is look at the centres of these main towns which are successful, and the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Those schemes have been great value for money. The Exchequer did not have to provide the money.

The only cost to the Exchequer is tax forgone and with the excellent tax receipts, that is something with which currently we can justifiably cope. Private investment is putting in the funds for the redevelopment and refurbishment of these areas and they have been an outstanding success. They were such a success, however, that they started to hoover up money, keeping financial resources from the smaller rural towns. For example, if a person living in one of the smaller towns in any of these counties or even somebody living in a rural area had additional income, wanted to invest it wisely and prudently and to get a return on their investment, they were almost obliged to go to Portlaoise or their county town and invest in residential developments, in a flat or a housing complex in that town. That was very good for Portlaoise and it is to be recommended but it had the side effect of drawing money out of the rural areas and reinvesting it in major urban areas. Ultimately, that was a loss to the local areas and people there saw funds flow into the major towns.

I am pleased that under this new scheme 102 town renewal plans have been prepared by the various county councils and have been submitted to the Department for examination. This will give these 102 towns a chance to have their day and to benefit as other major urban areas have benefited in the past. In my area of County Laois, Mountrath, my own town, Rathdowney, Portarlington and Mountmellick are included and in County Offaly, Clara, Ferbane, Edenderry and Banagher are included in this scheme. This will be a great opportunity for people in these towns. Many of the derelict building sites, shops and run down premises have been there for the past ten, 15 to 20 years with weeds growing through roofs, with bird nests, etc. This will be an opportunity for people to invest their money and, through the taxation system, get tax incentives on their investment.

This is a clear example of the Government's commitment to balance rural development. It is part of the core of the national development plan. In relation to the national development plan, we are now embarking on a national spatial strategy and a key element is that we will be looking at the major urban areas, how they relate to the smaller towns and the relationships with the rural hinterland. The spatial strategy is a two way street. We should not look at the towns and the relationships with rural areas only; we should also look at it from the perspective of the rural areas in the first place because many of the major towns depend on a thriving rural economy as well. It should not only be one way traffic. One third of the population lives in Dublin, one third lives in the major urban areas and one third or one million lives in rural areas and they must be taken into account in this national spatial strategy which I expect will be the case when this plan is finalised by the Department of the Environment and Local Government and in which the Minister will be directly involved.

This scheme was announced last July. I was elected to Laois County Council for the first time last summer. Within a couple of weeks of being elected to Laois County Council, I was delighted to hear the Minister of State's announcement on this town's renewal scheme. The content of the scheme is perfect and I am very pleased with all the details of the scheme. Aside from the details, I had some problems with it in relation to my role as a councillor. I would like to contrast it with what Deputy Penrose said about County Westmeath. I corresponded with the Minister last summer and he clarified the queries I raised at that time. In relation to the scheme, it is an executive function of the county manager to select the towns in each county and to draw up the town renewal plans. As a newly elected councillor who had stood for election on the basis that we would have some influence on how things operate at county level – we all speak about increasing the powers of democratically elected people – I was bitterly disappointed to find that we did not have a role in finalising and making decisions when it came to selecting the towns. I know the new local government Bill, which will be published and will pass through the Dáil, will attempt to give more power to the democratically elected representatives and that is the way it should be because we are the people who stand for election and if we get it wrong, the people can turf us out. That is what democracy is all about.

I have to differ with Deputy Penrose in County Westmeath. We share the same midlands Radio 3 station and there was much confusion in the midlands about who had the final say in this matter. I am adamant – I ask the Minister to correct me if I am wrong – that it is a managerial function and there is no mention of elected representatives in the guidelines. The Minister clarified this and asked that councillors be consulted and I am happy that was done. It is not the Minister's fault that councillors did not have a say in the first instance but rather the way local government is run.

What appears to have happened in County Westmeath is that the county manager adopted a different approach. It is appears Deputy Penrose did not know that he did not have the final say. The county manager in County Westmeath apparently handed this over to the elected representatives, let them make the hard decisions, as Deputy Penrose eloquently said they did, and accepted those decisions. It was not a decision for the members but the manager was happy to be guided by them. Other managers had the right and the authority to make the decisions as they saw fit.

I am happy that there was sufficient consultation in County Laois. The point I make is that locally elected representatives need more power because we live in a democracy. In County Laois, seven or eight towns were available and the planning officer made a submission to us. He did not do so strictly on the basis of population but, collectively, we saw the merit and went along with the recommendation which was submitted to the Department in due course. When it came to drawing up the town development plans, we insisted on public consultation. We took on two junior planning staff to map the streets and photograph all the derelict buildings and invited people to come to the local library, whether in Rathdowney or Mountrath, for an information session. Leaflets were put through doors by the local authority and we had an outstanding turnout of property owners in each area who wanted to find out the details of the scheme so that they could then make submissions to the local authority. That was done and councillors had a role in that regard but it was by way of consultation only.

Again, there was confusion last summer and I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying it as the summer went on. There is a lesson to be learned in this regard. There was confusion in my county about the area which could be included under the town renewal scheme. Word was that the maximum area to be included was three hectares and that it was to be reduced proportionately in towns with fewer than 6,000 people. I read the guidelines and was satisfied that the three hectares rule – it does not have to be an exact proportional reduction – applied only to new buildings. No specific ceiling was placed on refurbishment. Some planning officers and county managers genuinely got that wrong last summer. They read the three hectares rule and thought that the total area for a town with a population of 6,000 was three hectares and included new buildings and refurbishment. I understand that is not the case.

The moral of the story is that in future when a major new scheme is being introduced, I would like a seminar to be held for councillors so that we could be briefed directly. We rely on the senior staff in our county councils for briefing and information. It was only because some of us were Members of this House and had direct access to the Minister and the Department that we were able to find out that some planning officers did not fully understand the details of the scheme. They fully accepted that point when it was highlighted and clarified by the Department. In future, I would like seminars held for councillors on these issues. I stress that I am not in any way critical of the scheme; I am totally in favour of it. Some of my comments are probably more appropriate to the reform of local government because they relate to the role of county councillors.

Towns have been selected and 102 towns are being examined by the Department. The town renewal plans are being drawn up in detail and the expert advisory panel has been examining these since last January. The Minister of State said that he will announce the designations next month. When he is making those announcements, I ask him to supply Members with maps and codes showing the tax incentives available to each building because it will involve a very complicated matrix in each town. The town renewal plan had to specify whether a building would be used for commercial, office, retail or residential purposes, whether it was a new or refurbished building or whether it would be leased for residential purposes. There will be a very intricate matrix and there is no point giving us the map showing us what is included if we do not know the category of incentives which will apply to each area. I accept there will be much work involved but it will have to be done if we are to have valuable information so that when the announcement is made, we can sell the scheme in a positive manner as is our job and one which I will be proud to do. However, I can only do a good job if I have the information in front of me. If one quotes the wrong incentive for a property, one will hear about it for a long time. I look forward with great interest to the detailed information in the Minister of State's announcement next month.

The scheme will last for three years and mechanisms to monitor it are provided for in the Bill. I would like it monitored in two ways. The Department will review the acreage in each area which is developed annually as a result of these incentives and I ask that the Revenue Commissioners provide an estimate of the revenue foregone as a result of the tax incentives in these areas. I am sure it will be an outstanding success as it has all the ingredients and hallmarks of an excellent scheme.

The areas in the towns are small but they will be the catalysts for development in such towns. When ten or 15 properties are developed around the old square or main street, which will breathe life into the town, it will encourage others to invest. The incentives available under the scheme were discussed in detail during the passage of the Finance Bill, 2000. I am a member of the Select Committee on Finance and the Public Service and I thank the Minister for Finance for accepting an amendment of mine relating to this scheme and incorporating it into the Finance Act, 2000.

Certain types of business activities will be excluded for tax incentive purposes under the scheme but the Finance Bill, 2000, when published, excluded premises which primarily promoted agricultural products. That could have meant that a local hardware shop which did a great deal of trade with the local agricultural community could have been seriously jeopardised. The Minister immediately took that on board and sought to amend the scheme. That resulted in a parallel amendment to the urban renewal scheme and various other schemes because the Finance Bill, 2000, provided for a scheme similar to previous schemes.

The reference to promoting agricultural products may not have been relevant when the original legislation was drafted for Temple Bar or the IFSC, but that anomaly could have created a problem for small towns in rural Ireland. The Minister gratefully took that on board. He also excluded under the scheme premises that are used mainly for financial services and sought to clarify the position in regard to accountancy practices which are located on the main streets of many towns. I was happy that he undertook to do so because it would have led to confusion if it had not been addressed.

I agree with Deputy Gilmore in regard to pro forma town renewal schemes comprising cobblelock stone and little black metal bollards. I ask planners throughout the country not to repeat such schemes in every town. Cobblelocks will be removed in years to come. Thirty years ago the fashion was crazy paving. We spent ten years putting it down, ten years looking at it and another ten taking it up. The same will happen in regard to cobblelocking. It will eventually be taken up because it is the fashion of the day. A long-term strategic view is not taken. Consultants who advise in this area take what worked in a town in England, plonk it into one in Ireland and transfer the model from county to county. We are foolishly aping what happens elsewhere. We should always examine the individual characteristics of towns because they should have a unique identity, of which we should be proud.

Overall, the scheme is substantially geared towards physical redevelopment and refurbishment. It is not similar to urban renewal schemes, which involve major integrated social plans. It relates to small towns, communities and populations which do not have the problems that must be addressed by urban renewal schemes. The Bill is excellent and the sooner it passes through the House and is implemented the better.

Some tax incentives must be approved by the EU and I ask that the Department of Finance applies all haste in ensuring that is done. It is proposed to apply for the residential incentives initially but the clarification and approval from EU for commercial incentives should be obtained as soon as possible. The Bill will give effect to all the work that has been carried out since last summer in identifying towns and drawing up plans and the examination of same by the expert advisory panel on behalf of the Minister. All that work has been done so that when the legislation is passed the schemes will be up and running quickly.

Some areas have inevitably been left out on this occasion. This scheme will be a success and in a year or two the Minister and the Department should consider extending it to areas with populations above 500 and continuing it for a further three years in those areas where it is a success. It will not cost the Exchequer directly, although corporation tax will be foregone. However, the Government will obtain excellent value for money in these local areas and the schemes will bring people back and breathe life into small rural towns which have been in decline in recent years.

Village renewal schemes should also be extended. Tremendous work has been carried out in small rural areas and they have provided excellent value for money. The message is at the end of the day the closer one gets to the people on the ground, the greater is the value for money for the Exchequer from such schemes, and that will be the case with this scheme. I am confident that in years to come we will be in the House saying that it was an outstanding scheme and Members on all sides of the House will call for it to be repeated.

I look forward to the early passage of this legislation. I hope it is on the Statute Book before the summer recess. The scheme is too important to leave over until after the summer. I appeal to the Minister of State and the Government and Opposition Whips to ensure that it is passed in the interests of the 102 small towns. If these schemes are fully operational by 1 August we will have achieved a tremendous amount of work in this session.

Mr. Naughten

I welcome the legislation, which is a positive development. I endorse the last sentiments expressed by the previous speaker. I hope the Bill will travel quickly through the House and will be passed before the end of the session. It is fundamentally important that it is implemented as soon as possible. As a public representative, I was in the ideal position when the Minister designated only one town in my constituency and, therefore, was not faced with a difficult choice. I will refer later to the reason other areas were not designated. However, the county town of Roscommon was designated. It had been neglected under the urban renewal scheme because its population was under 5,000, although it had been included in the previous scheme which was a huge success. It rejuvenated the entire town and I hope when the Minister of State considers the proposals put forward by various towns, Roscommon town will receive approval.

The guidelines for the scheme emphasise that priority should be given to towns where the aims and objectives of the scheme achieve the targets in the legislation. Under Roscommon County Council's submission to the Department, Roscommon town fulfils all the criteria, including the attractiveness of the town as a place to live, the potential to generate residential use in the town centre, the availability of opportunities within the town centre to enhance the commercial and social life of the town and there is no doubt that the infrastructural capacity exists to meet future development. There is also potential to further improve the heritage of the town.

The heritage of County Roscommon is surpassed by few other counties. Roscommon was the traditional capital of Connacht but that has moved further west. I hope every consideration is given to that proposal. The previous urban renewal scheme for Roscommon town was a huge success and was of major benefit to the town.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 8 Jun 2000

Town Renewal Bill, 2000: Second Stage.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 8 Jun 2000