Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)

I welcome the thrust and intention of the Bill. We all want achievement of its objectives because we know that visual appearance is extremely important, not just on high streets, but also industrial centres in urban and rural areas. The Bill seeks to bring together people to efficiently and effectively produce a plan to enhance their area beyond a point which would be reasonable for public financing. The concept of modern marketing is heavily dependent on image, although we should not underestimate the depth of the substance behind it. Irish businesses are significantly improving their image.

The Bill provides for the improvement or beautification of streets and footpaths in business improvement districts. This can be achieved by grouping together, as described in the Bill, in a business improvement district. This type of work could not be done by local authorities alone. While local authorities strive to, for example, remove graffiti, they are rarely successful because that problem is prevalent in many areas. It is not unreasonable that local businesses join together to deal with such issues. I welcome the provision for the carrying out of studies and making of reports in respect of the business improvement district.

The new section 129E proposed for Part 13A of the principal Act gives an opportunity for public input into the consultation process. We are familiar with consultation processes in this State and I must sound a note of caution. We have had such processes on issues such as incineration and road development, but they were paper exercises and the consultation was not heeded. This causes me considerable concern. Provision must be made for consultation.

Section 129F allows the local authority to weed out what I can best describe as bluffers, namely, developers who will cause considerable expense to taxpayers or ratepayers in preparing material or working with the local authority to develop a scheme, but cry off at the last moment. Section 129H provides for the cost of preparing for the scheme and ensures that it will not fall upon the local authority. This is an important and welcome element of the Bill.

However, I am concerned about section 5 and this has also been referred to by another speaker. It states: "It is necessary for the passing of a resolution under subsection (1) that at least one third of the total number of members of the authority concerned vote in favour of the resolution." What happens if 60% of members vote against a resolution, 10% abstain and 30% vote in favour of it? How stands the business improvement district in such circumstances? I do not think the Bill is clear enough on this matter. I welcome the fact that plebiscites are to be organised by the relevant local authority; no one in this State is as proficient in organising plebiscites as local authorities.

I have a difficulty with water pricing policy. When discussing business it is important that we mention not only marketing and image, but competitiveness too. I am concerned that some local authorities have shown disregard for the effect of water pricing policy on competitiveness. Businesses are expected to pay over the odds. I acknowledge that the Minister said that he would try to ensure this does not happen. Unfortunately, it is currently happening.

It is unfortunate that we do not have more time to deal with this matter. The framework of the Bill is fine and a couple of decent amendments would ensure that we could all accept it. Unfortunately, we cannot do so as it stands.

See this speech in context