Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

We are having our annual discussion on the living city initiative, our old friend from Finance Bills past. When it was first proposed, it was to be a pilot scheme for Georgian Dublin. Then for a couple of years Brussels was sizing it up, changes were proposed and we had a much wider scheme, including residential and commercial elements. Now it is for any building although previously it was for buildings built before 1915, and it is for any size of building. There are strict criteria to designate areas in cities.

I think it is fair to say the Department of Finance has been very generous in its interpretation of these criteria, for example, in a chunk of Limerick city near O'Connell Street. The person who was paid by the Department to draw up the designated areas recommended the following for Limerick:

While Limerick City Council has sustained its case for designation of a Special Regeneration Area, the inclusion of more affluent streets, including much of O’Connell Street itself, and Pery Square, is questionable, as is the inclusion of areas of significant redevelopment in the area north of Sarsfield Street and west of Patrick Street, and also the redevelopment of Cruise’s Street. It is recommended that the City Council should identify sub-areas within the overall proposed boundary which adhere more closely to the Department’s criteria; the smaller northern sub-area (Nicholas Street / Mary Street) should be accepted.

However, the entire area was included on the advice of the Department's officials. The most affluent areas were included for redevelopment, even though they clearly fell outside the criteria for the scheme at the time.

As the Minister knows, I have always been cautious about this scheme. The only difference I can see between it and Fianna Fáil's old section 23 scheme which we discussed at length and which was criticised by most people is that this scheme has been capped on the insistence of the European Union because of state aid rules. With that exception, the provision of 100% relief over a ten-year period is the same as that in the old section 23 plan. As Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett said, we are now allowing landlords to avail of the scheme also. There has been little interest under it in some cities. Despite the redesignation of the areas recommended by the independent person - he said certain areas should not be designated - there has been absolutely no interest in the scheme in the Minister's city of Limerick. I understand where he is going in this regard in so far as we are in the middle of a housing and homelessness crisis. I am sure that is the argument that will be made. There may be a tax angle in incentivising new builds, landlords and all the rest. Landlords have a legitimate business in providing accommodation in the State for renters. Landlords, homeowners and local authorities have their respective roles in providing social housing.

I have serious reservations about the scheme because it has morphed into something that was never intended. It was supposed to be a targeted small-scale initiative, but it is growing and morphing into something it was never intended to be. I do not think any of the analysis of the scheme up until now has justified its existence. I would like to hear the Minister's opinion on why it is still not working in cities such as Limerick. Why have no applications been received? As I said previously, the argument that seems to be made when a pilot scheme is introduced is that it is worth taking a risk and trying it and that if it does not work out, it does not work out. Rather than letting the scheme wither, the Minister has decided to pump more steroids into it by providing that it can apply to any building of any size and to landlords. Now the idea of living over the shop does not apply anymore. It is no longer a living city initiative but a property initiative and a tax incentive for property development initiatives, similar to section 23.