Michael D'Arcy (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

It does not seem long ago since the Minister of State, Deputy Harris, and I started the European election campaign in the mart in Carnew. I congratulate him on his appointment and wish him the best of luck in his term of office. It is perhaps the most important junior Ministry in the State.

The Bill is hugely important. As Senator Hayden said, we must acknowledge the success of the NTMA. It is, perhaps, one of the better State agencies, being better administered and the most professional in the public service. It is, to some extent, a victim of its own success. It has experienced add-ons, bolt-ons and extensions which have made the structure unwieldy. I also enjoy listening to Senator Barrett. That unwieldy structure and, perhaps, lesser governance than what should be in place can sometimes lead to a deficiency. To some extent, that is what this Bill is about, to have what is effectively a board of directors for the debt management, the ISIF fund, the National Development Finance Agency and the State Claims Agency. I accept that the State Claims Agency does not fit awfully well there, to a degree, but the expertise of the people in that agency is probably better than anywhere else.

The really important aspect of this Bill for the public is the establishment of the ISI fund.

That fund should operate in areas where a market deficiency exists. I am not referring to taking risks in respect of certain projects, rather I am talking about situations where the lending institutions are not prepared to fund projects that will give rise to additional benefits which may not be obvious. We must get people back to work. It is as simple as that. All of the efforts of the Oireachtas, local authorities and every other sector of society revolve around getting people back into employment. We are concerned with removing them from the live register, where they are a cost, and getting them into employment, where they can pay taxes. There is a dual benefit in this regard and if we are successful, the country will return to a financial position that will allow it to trade successfully. I have not even mentioned the impact on the dignity of those who are obliged to go to their local post offices or to the 200 social welfare offices throughout the country in order to claim benefits. Getting people back into employment leads to better social cohesion and better relationships. It would put the country in the position in which we want it to be, namely, that which it occupied in the late 1990s and early 2000s before people went nuts as a result of their exposure to the opium of property. If people return to work, the State will benefit.

I reiterate that the market deficiency is the really important aspect of this matter. The investment should not be made in competition with other funding agencies, namely, the retail banks. The latter are supposed to possess the relevant expertise but some of us have our doubts about that. The structures the banks have put in place have created their own difficulties. If there is a project that is jobs-laden, that is not an obvious risk and that has been scrutinised and analysed by people with ability who can see the wood for the trees, then it should proceed. Senator Barrett has often referred to a lack of people in the Department of Finance who possess the necessary qualifications. If a person is qualified in a certain discipline, he or she can sometimes be incapable of seeing the true benefit which may eventually be realised from a particular project outside his or her area of expertise. We need to find a balance and I am not, under any circumstances, referring to taking risks. However, we must take risks when it comes to getting people back to work. Everything else is irrelevant. There are 75,000 people in employment today who were not working this time last year. I am always amazed why there is not more comment about this wonderful news story, particularly when people can discuss Garth Brooks incessantly for almost two weeks. There has been no comment on the 75,000 people to whom I refer either entering or returning to the workplace because it does not sell newspapers.

I support section 22 but I would welcome more detail in respect of it. The section states that the State will invest in energy, water, telecommunications, forestry and, on the basis of ministerial orders, other sectors. That is somewhat vague. ESB, Bord Gáis and other entities are well capable of going out into their respective markets. There will not be a deficit in the context of energy. The latter is being funded by the EIB and other international entities. That is not the deficit to which I am referring. We must ensure that we know what are the other sectors referred to in section 22. There is certainly a deficit within the hospitality sector. There is a need for someone to step up in respect of this sector, particularly as we have witnessed the quantity of jobs created as a result of the reduction in VAT from 13.5% to 9%. However, there remains a deficit in this sector.

The final matter to which I wish to refer relates to the fact that the ISI fund should be examined in an analytical way. On previous occasions I have highlighted the fact that there are certain urban areas throughout the country which contain certain sites that are crucial to their development. I am not referring to a property tax break here. I am concerned about brownfield sites and sites on which there are buildings which are close to dereliction in respect of which the market will not fund development projects because there would be no return to be obtained. I am being cautious and cagey when I state that some of the fund should be made available in respect of the development of the sites. If we do as I suggest, it will benefit the urban areas to which I refer. There are 50 or 60 of these sites throughout the country, one of which is located in Courtown and of which the Minister of State is aware. The site in question is the location of two boarded-up, derelict hotels which overlook a very small, quaint harbour. It is not feasible to build a new hotel on the site because one could buy an existing one elsewhere for perhaps one half or one third of the cost of construction. We cannot leave the site in question derelict in an area which has a population of 5,500 people. The site is crucial to the urban setting of Courtown. As already stated, there are 50 or 60 such sites throughout the country and the Minister of State may be familiar with some that are located in his constituency of Wicklow.

We must be proactive in respect of this matter. We cannot sit and wait for the market to become involved. If we do, the sites to which I refer will remain derelict for years. Again, I am not talking about taking risks. However, on occasions when the market is not prepared to become involved, the State should perhaps be prepared to step in. There would be no need to commit the fund in its entirety to the projects in question, rather a percentage of it could be used. We could be cautious in the beginning and set aside a certain amount in respect of a number of pilot projects which could be considered for investment either in the context of section 22 or the forthcoming budget.