Paul Connaughton Snr (Galway East, Fine Gael)

I agree with many of the arguments made by Deputy Andrews about child care. We can all throw political insults across the floor, but I agree with the Deputy that child care is one of the biggest problems we face. I had not intended to discuss the matter because I have chosen to highlight another issue, but I emphasise that the child care system needs to be improved. That can be done in many ways. Many young couples with substantial mortgages and significant child care costs are unable to meet both expenses at the same time. Such people are found in provincial towns as well as in Dublin.

I sincerely hope that the major national issue of child care will be tackled by the Government at a time when a great deal of money is available to it. There were many years when the Government of the day could not afford to address this matter, but it is certainly possible to do something positive at this time. We should ensure that it is practically and financially possible for young people to access good child care, which is a very important aspect of rearing children.

The Minister, Deputy Cowen, said in his speech last night that he is trying to ensure that the tax system plays a positive role in supporting economic development. He does not plan to detract from the major review of tax relief that is under way at present ahead of budget 2006. As Deputies on all sides of the House have said during this debate, it is not necessarily the case that all tax reliefs are deserving of a bad name. It is not true that every relief has been introduced with an ulterior motive in mind. All Governments since the foundation of the State have decided to introduce certain tax reliefs to overcome certain perceived economic problems. Some of the thousands of such reliefs that were introduced over the years have worked well, but others were not so successful. The reliefs that worked well did not receive the same level of press coverage as those that did not work.

I would like to discuss a particular tax relief with which the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, who represents the same constituency as me — Galway East — is familiar. I do not intend to speak about what the rural renewal scheme, which was introduced in 1998, tried to do because the reasons for its introduction are well known. In fairness to the Government and its predecessor, the scheme had a positive impact in many of the areas in which it was introduced. It is fair to say that it had an uneven impact, but it worked extremely well in some places.

The purpose of offering tax reliefs, exemptions and incentives is to facilitate economic development which would not occur otherwise. In many areas, the economy would only be overheated by offering such reliefs. It would simply be daft to offer State assistance of this kind to many of the building projects around Dublin, for example, but doing so in towns such as Carrick-on-Shannon, Roscommon or Ballinasloe would be a different matter. Ballinasloe has been left out of everything.

I fully appreciate that the European Union will have a direct bearing on what will happen but I hope that when the Government and everyone else with an input reviews the tax incentives, it will be on the basis that the beneficiaries who need not be in receipt of such incentives will be the ones whose reliefs are axed. I do not have the time to list them all because there are hundreds. From the many urban and rural renewal schemes of recent years under which some towns did particularly well and others did not, we should have gathered enough information to know what is likely to work or fail. If certain towns are not given a kick-start of some kind, they will never take off. Everybody points to Carrick-on-Shannon in County Leitrim as an outstanding example of a town in which the rural renewal scheme worked well. It must have had a great effect because it was dormant for years before the commencement of that scheme.

I, the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, and others were with the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment in Ballinasloe recently. In recent years, the business people of the town have held the belief, which I share, that their interests would be very well served by an extension of the rural renewal scheme to the town. While this will be regarded as a parochial matter pertaining to east Galway, it must be noted that there are several other towns in much the same position. They are not covered by the national spatial strategy, are certainly not hub towns and are not connected to any gateways. They are left hanging. To the shame of the Government, Ballinasloe has been hung out to dry and is connected to nowhere.

Having said that, it is obvious that the national spatial strategy will not be changed. Therefore, we must ask what can be done for a town that has lost more than 1,000 workers and to which it seems to be impossible to attract an anchor industry. We are told every week that one might locate there but none has done so yet. Moreover, there is a lack of confidence in the business community throughout the region.

I do not understand why a case cannot be made for a tax incentive for communities such as Ballinasloe when the file is eventually sent to Brussels. It can be proven conclusively in economic terms that if such towns are not given a kick-start, economic development will not occur. I do not understand why we must wait longer to prove that economic development has not begun in Ballinasloe. It is certainly evident to everyone that it has not begun.

When the Finance Ministers talk about the various EU-backed tax incentive schemes for which approval must be obtained from Brussels, several of those Ministers will be from countries with exactly the same problem as we have. I know of no country in the expanded European Union that does not have the sort of disadvantaged areas and towns to which I refer. I do not understand why a case cannot be made to assist them. I fully appreciate that the problem to which I refer is not the be-all and end-all, but tax incentives can serve as a vital tool in the development of a reasonably good economic structure for places such as Ballinasloe.

Tuam, which is in my constituency and which I know very well, did reasonably well from an urban renewal scheme. There were some dramatic investment projects, some of which did not work out too well. However, I know full well that over the next five to ten years, towns such as Tuam, which is a hub town and a RAPID town, could suffer from certain social and economic problems that beset towns of that size. I hope a tax relief will be made available to them. Regardless of where this issue is aired, even if it is in the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, a case can be made for towns like Tuam based on the logic of good economics.

Many people say to me and to the national press that they believe all tax exemptions, reliefs and incentives are wrong. This cannot be correct because all Governments since the foundation of the State have used them as an economic tool. The Minister of State should say this to the Minister for Finance so that when he meets the other EU Finance Ministers, he will be able to advocate my case. Although I am highlighting my constituency, there is nowhere in the country that could not benefit from my proposal. I am afraid that people will be swayed by public opinion to the effect that the aforementioned incentives are wrong.

Some years ago, the European Union officials, in their wisdom, appeared to suggest that tax incentives were uncompetitive. I had understood that the incentives were available to all member states. I hope that, in the interest of sound regional development, the renewal scheme to which I refer and other similar ones will not be forgotten about over the next 12 months. The scheme is necessary if we are to give a kick-start to towns such as Ballinasloe. It is not a hub town and is not connected to a gateway. It has been left out of the loop and in no man's land. IDA Ireland states it is doing its best, yet the town lost three significant industrial projects in the past five or six years and did not regain a single job. Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats can blow their trumpets all they like about our great economic climate, but if one happens to live in Ballinasloe, one will realise there is nothing dramatic about our economy. Economists and advisers will turn up their noses at the rural renewal scheme, but we are able to point to developments in areas that would not have attracted commercial interest had it not been for that scheme. I have not heard of anyone becoming a millionaire because of the system. I congratulate the Government on extending the stamp duty exemption for young farmers by a few years. That is very important.

An effort to solve the problem of farm fragmentation was raised in the budget and appears in sections 113 and 114 of this Bill. I have spent a lifetime speaking on this topic, but in this instance I am not sure the Government intends what I thought it intended. Years ago when I was in charge of land policy, this effort began with a tax incentive for farmers in a townland whose land was scattered around the area. From a technical point of view, fragmented land is difficult to manage because of difficulties with driving stock on the road and fencing and so on. Anybody who knows rural Ireland understands this. In the intervening years, that tax incentive was forgotten but this Bill reintroduces it.

The Minister's speech, however, gives the impression that the stamp duty exemption that would normally be part of any sale applies only when two farmers come together to exchange land. I may be mistaken but if I am correct, the Minister need not be concerned because it will not cost much money in 2005 as there would be a poor uptake. If it involved a major rearrangement in a village, such as those the Land Commission effected between several farmers, it would be very important. I hope that whoever responds to this debate will explain in detail for whom this is intended.

We all remember floods in Clonmel, Drumcondra and Gort a few years ago. Wherever there is a flood it is bad news, irrespective of compensation.

See this speech in context