Mr. Paul Hogan:

There are three points to respond to. The answers are not necessarily only found in European countries or elsewhere, as we know many of them ourselves. A good document was prepared by our colleagues in the Department of Rural and Community Development. They undertook a pilot town centre living initiative a couple of years ago and published a synthesis report. The lessons are universal.

Many people have mentioned data, but we should not be looking at data from a top-down national statistic level only. What really matters is data at local level. Regional assemblies are now looking at towns in their jurisdictions. That will be critical for targeting areas where there are concentrations of vacancies and derelicts. It comes down to people on the ground surveying the floors of individual units, understanding what is happening in their towns and doing that work alongside the key stakeholders, those being people who care about the issue and are empowered to do something about it. The most basic element of planning is survey analysis.

A second point is incentives. No matter where it is, people have to want to refurbish properties because doing so costs more. They may need support. It is a common occurrence elsewhere. One of the reasons we are so interested in European examples is because we share the fairness and proportionality test of state aid. If money is being given to people to do something, it has to be for a significant public policy purpose. Why is it that, in the counties most affected by vacancies and dereliction, three quarters of the new houses built in the past ten years were outside urban settlements and largely one-off individual houses? People are voting with their feet for various reasons: living in urban settlements is expensive, cultural reasons and the overall environment. We are doing a great deal to tackle these issues through, for example, the Town Centre First policy and many of the funding schemes that have been mentioned, including the rural development fund, RDF, and the urban fund. That combined €3 billion commitment is the largest regeneration scheme in the history of the State. From the public perspective, it is bigger than the 20 years we had of urban regeneration.

A third point is co-ordination. I get the need for streamlining and co-ordination and the fact that processes need to be easier. Incentivisation is a part of that. However, it cannot be just as simple as making decisions over a counter. Something that will probably be reflected in Town Centre First is the need for someone to draw things together, interpret for people and explain it to them. Ms Vallone does that in Cork. The architectural professional is well placed to lead in this regard, but I would not view it as being exclusively the preserve of architects. There are people involved in community development as well as planners who, if lifted from regulatory burdens, would be equally skilled at leading urban regeneration. I am referring to people who are passionate and committed, have vision and can communicate that vision in order to do something to address the complex problems involved, using the tools that we are now giving them. It is the idea of drawing things together for people and co-ordinating in many different ways.

These three lessons are universal across European projects as much as they are across Irish ones. We have all learned them and want to implement them.