Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and thank him for his overview of the Bill and explanation of the various sections. I appreciate that we will have more time to deal with them individually tomorrow.

I welcome the Living City Initiative. It will be a successful project for urban regeneration. It is a constructive and targeted intervention that has the potential to make a real and substantial difference to an area that requires regeneration of which there are many, particularly in Waterford and Limerick where the pilot projects will commence. The impetus behind the initiative is to provide a tax incentive to people who are brave enough to restore an old church or property in an area designated part of the Living City Initiative. Incentives will only be available if the person intends to live in the restored property as an owner-occupier and as such is not suitable for speculative development. I welcome the initiative.

Ireland has a significant stock of Georgian houses and many are in areas that have seen a high level of dereliction, decay and deprivation. The cities of Limerick and Waterford have suffered greatly in recent years and merit inclusion in the scheme. I want the pilot scheme extended to some of the core areas in Dublin which have a substantial stock of vulnerable Georgian housing in areas of intense deprivation, in particular the north Georgian core area around Mountjoy Square and Parnell Square. The residential area has suffered significantly from urban decay and would benefit from targeted regeneration.

I understand that a range of local and national groups are supportive of the extension of the pilot scheme to this area, including the Mountjoy Square Society, the Irish Georgian Society, the Dublin Civic Trust, and our own colleague, Senator David Norris.

I understand from the Minister's comments in the select committee and in the Dáil that he fears an extension of the pilot scheme at this stage to this area of Dublin could jeopardise the State aid payments for the entire scheme. I am not sure I follow that logic. If the scheme is targeted properly by reference to defined criteria, it should be possible to submit the scheme for approval, with some area of the capital included, provided the objective criteria for inclusion of the areas by reference to levels of deprivation are clear. I urge the Minster to engage with the relevant groups in the area to determine whether progress can be made rather than allow another period of dereliction and decay to endure. A scheme such as this could be a real impetus for regeneration in areas requiring renewal and, as we are aware, these areas certainly fall into that category.

On the question of the appointment of receivers, I am concerned about the trigger-happy tendency on the part of some banks that is prevalent in some instances to appoint receivers to businesses in circumstances in which there are viable alternatives. I do not wish to comment on high-profile cases currently before the courts, but it strikes me that a new approach in this area is needed. For example, is there a role for the Credit Review Office to hear a submission from a business owner who believes that the decision to appoint a receiver is premature? Mounting a legal challenge to a well-resourced bank can be a daunting task for most distressed businesses, and I suggest some alternative mechanism is urgently needed to put a check on banks that behave unreasonably in that regard.

In this climate, nobody deserves to be taken to court without any notice. That is happening to many people, and it is wrong. I know of one case where the business owner thought he was getting on very well with his bank but, without any notice, the bank took that person to court. That should not happen. That is the reason the Credit Review Office could be useful in putting a break on those matters. It is about protecting the jobs. When that precipitative action happens, it jeopardises jobs. I know of another case in which more than 100 people were employed but three of them took fright and left immediately when this happened. Unnecessary damage is being done to businesses. It upsets staff, which is understandable. In the case of hotels and so on, it has an effect on bookings and even weddings, which are very good business. Those losses must be curtailed by avoiding such precipitative action because when it happens, it further limits credit. We should take this issue very seriously.

We spoke earlier about the frightful damage being done to our town centres throughout the country in the way planning departments have allowed projects to go out of towns to the disadvantage of town centres. The Living City initiative is bringing this to my mind. That is an area we must examine also if we are to have vibrant towns, to which we pay so much lip service. Perhaps there could be a focused approach in that regard also.