John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)

I do not believe it is always possible to cost a specific scheme in advance. For many on the Opposition benches, that is what they want us to do. I will refer specifically to the urban renewal scheme. I do so because I was a member of a local authority and witnessed its implementation. One could not cost the scheme's impact on Clondalkin, part of my constituency, in advance.

When the scheme's completion date was first announced and subsequently extended, not a single developer or business person came to me to apply for it. However, local people in the community and members of the local authority did so because they could see the benefit being derived. It was slow and tortuous to deliver, but it brought benefits, not necessarily economic ones, but a whole new social aspect. Many of those points are not reflected in simple economic terms in the various reports. If it had been so great and economically beneficial to the large property-developers, we would not have left sites that were too awkward and difficult and never fell into it.

People argue that it was right to review the schemes, and I agree with the Minister that it is correct to make changes. However, because we have reviewed the schemes and made changes does not mean they did not deliver benefits as originally presented. Many of those benefits cannot be calculated in pure or simple economic terms. Deputy Burton would agree with many of those points. The benefit cannot always be determined in advance of the scheme, and the SSIAs were a case in point. There was no way of accurately determining in advance what the take-up would be. Although the merits may be assessed, the take-up could not have been forecast.

While I acknowledge and appreciate the review undertaken by the Minister and his subsequent changes in this Finance Bill reflecting its recommendations, that does not mean we have not derived significant social benefit or made changes to our economy based on the schemes in place.

See this speech in context