Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)

The Government decided back in December 2004 to report on a total appraisal of all the reliefs that have been in place for the past 17 or 18 years. It was agreed to report on and publish the documents in full at the conclusion of the deliberative process and with the publication of the Finance Bill. The three sets of documents were published yesterday. They demonstrate for the first time the historical context of these reliefs which have been in existence for the better part of 20 years.

A total of 24 schemes were reviewed. Goodbody Economic Consultants reviewed four schemes: the area-based renewal scheme, the urban town renewal scheme, the rural renewal scheme and the living over the shop scheme. Indecon Economic Consultants reviewed 11 sectoral property-based schemes, namely, reliefs for hotels, holiday cottages, student accommodation, third level buildings, car parks, hospitals, nursing homes, sports clinics, park and ride facilities, child care buildings and rental refurbishment. The Department of Finance and the Revenue Commissioners revised and reviewed nine schemes: reliefs for forestry, significant buildings, patent income, pensions provisions, artists' income, certain investment loans, greyhound stud fees, donations to charities and other approved bodies and the tonnage tax. The results have been published.

I am sure, like everyone else, Deputy Kenny welcomes the fact that the Government had the foresight to undertake the first in-depth analysis of these schemes to review which ones should be retained, which should be phased out in the short term and which require amendment. The Minister has moved to amend some of the schemes, phase out others, curb others and cap others. He has introduced a range of other initiatives. Some of the schemes being examined are gone, such as the Temple Bar scheme, the Custom House docks scheme, the seaside resorts scheme and some other schemes.

I do not regard all the schemes as a waste of money. Many of the schemes were initiated in different times when this country was on its knees. Many of them were an attempt to prime-pump a lifeless economy. Some of them were good value for money and some created many jobs. However, some of the schemes have outlived their usefulness. I expect Members will express their views on the schemes during the debate on the Finance Bill. Some schemes were too generous and were picked up and used by smart people and people who could go close to the line of tax evasion. That can happen with such schemes and the Government has made its decision on them.

In the cold light of day, people will realise that many of these schemes were introduced when it was not possible to generate activity in this and other cities and, even with the generous schemes on offer, it was difficult to find people to develop and invest. Last year a total of 95,000 jobs were created in the economy and it will be argued that schemes are not necessary. However, this review is a historical examination to form a basis for future action. The Minister has already taken action on a number of the schemes. The Minister has stated that an economic analysis of the schemes will be undertaken.

In reply to Deputy Kenny, I remember many of the arguments made by politicians about past schemes. The argument was that they amounted to tax foregone. It was a good argument then and it may be a good argument now, but if nobody was interested in investing in, for example, a site lying unused in an area of social exclusion, it was not a case of tax foregone. That is the assumption made when something has been developed but I never agreed with that point of view, which is the purist, economic view of mandarins who did not understand the real world. I disagreed with that view a decade ago and I disagree with it now. If it had prevailed, there would have been no schemes and this country would still be a basket case.

See this speech in context