Vol. 608 No. 3
93 Mr. O’Dowd asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he has met electrical and electronic producers and retailers with a view to discussing the implementation of an extra charge on electrical and electronic products that consumers are paying since the implementation of the WEEE Directive; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30675/05]
Implementation of the EU Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment has required close co-operation between all stakeholders including producers, retailers and both central and local government. The process began with the establishment of a task force representative of all relevant sectors, including producers and retailers, in February 2003 to draw up proposals for implementing the directive. Following the publication of the task force report in 2004, an extensive public consultation process took place.
While the scheme is producer-funded, the directive allows producers to show the cost of recovering and recycling historic waste which was put on the market before 13 August 2005. These costs are referred to as environmental management costs, EMCs, and were the subject of detailed discussions between the representatives of producers and retailers, which my Department helped to facilitate. I also met both groups separately before finalising the regulations. The majority view among the industry and the independent retail sector, for reasons of fuller transparency and greater accountability, favoured a system of visible EMCs in the manner which has been provided for under the regulations.
The advantages of visible EMCs include the provision of maximum transparency, maximum information for consumers and the facilitation of easier implementation of the scheme. Visible EMCs also ensure traceability and greater financial accountability, allow all companies, large and small, to know precisely the cost of the structures involved, and by informing the public in an open way, ensure that profiteering is prevented.
The EMCs are validated by an independent body, the WEEE Register Society Limited, which has an independent committee of management. EMCs are used to fund the operations of the two recycling schemes set up by the industry which are required to operate on a not-for-profit basis and will be subject to periodic review.
EMCs are not imposed by or remitted to the Government. The EMC can only be used to pay for the collection, treatment and recycling of electrical waste. The design of the new system assures the public that any moneys collected by producers for recycling are assigned for recycling activity and are not diverted elsewhere. It also ensures traceability and financial accountability and, by informing the public in an open way, ensures that profiteering is prevented.
Now that the system has been in operation for two months, I have again met the representatives of producers and retailers, as well as the WEEE Register Society and discussed a number of areas in which it could be improved. While the WEEE Register Society will carry out a comprehensive review of all EMC levels after six months to ensure that they are not any higher than is necessary to fund the scheme, it has agreed to my request that it look immediately at the levels which apply to low cost goods. I expect more realistic levels for these goods will be set by the end of this month.
I have also discussed with all parties the need for greater consistency and simplicity in the way in which the EMCs are set out in media advertisements and shelf displays. A consensus is emerging on this issue which I hope shortly to see adopted as best practice by the industry. My Department is drawing up a guidance note to assist this process.
These are the real benefits of this new system for consumers and the environment. Householders can now have their old appliances disposed of safely, responsibly and free of charge. Waste collected under the scheme will be recycled. It cannot go to landfill. Unregulated collection of electrical and electronic waste which contributed to the wanton dumping of old washing machines, fridges and cookers and other unsightly and dangerous waste in fields and back roads, which in turn despoiled our natural environment, will be resolved by the cradle to the grave recycling system which has now been put in place.
The gain to the environment will be very significant. We should also take pride in the fact that Ireland is one of only a small number of EU member states to have implemented the directive fully by the due date.
A final point may be of help to Deputy O'Dowd. I have met the WEEE Register Society Limited again recently to discuss the scheme and will continue to do so. There are a number of small issues with it that will require continual consultation.
The most important issue is what the Minister said when the scheme was launched. At the time that the measures were announced, he rejected suggestions that the costs of recycling would lead to increased prices for consumers. The reality is that the producers in the electrical and electronic equipment industry have a turnover of approximately €1.6 billion nationally and the Minister has let them off the hook. The only person who pays for the implementation of this EU directive is the consumer. The Minister has failed miserably in his job. I do not have a difficulty with the directive itself but fully support it. However, the Minister has let the consumer down and has let the producer off——
The Deputy should confine himself to questions.
My question is why the Minister did not insist that the producers of the equipment would absorb this cost. He said that there would be no increase in price for the consumer. That is the nub of the issue.
I suggest that Deputy O'Dowd pay attention to the advertisements which are carried daily in newspapers——
I pay attention to the statements from the Minister. It is his statements that I am talking about.
Those advertisements show that in the electrical and electronic goods——
The Minister is waffling now.
In the electrical and electronic goods area there has been a significant decrease in costs and that continues to be the case.
The Minister is still waffling.
I am not waffling. If one takes an advertisement——
The Minister is talking rubbish.
The Minister is not answering the question.
Allow the Minister to answer. I want an orderly Question Time.
So do I, but I also want answers.
Deputy O'Dowd can ask the questions and it is up the Minister to answer the questions.
Or not to answer, as he chooses.
The Minister is entitled to the same courtesy Deputy O'Dowd received on submitting his question.
The Minister is simply talking rubbish.
The scheme which has been introduced and is now in operation is a remarkable success. It is extraordinary that the Deputy should make the allegation he made. All he need do is take any advertisement that has appeared in the last seven days and compare it with the prices for electrical and electronic goods six or seven months ago. What I have said consistently is that this is an area where prices are decreasing dramatically.
One of the issues with which we had to deal when we were setting the system up was whether we would make the EMCs visible. We chose to make them visible for the reasons that I have already outlined. I have had ongoing consultations with the groups regarding some confusion that has arisen from differing wording in advertisements. This has contributed to some misunderstandings about the scheme.
Very few people would think that an EMC of €20 to get rid of a washing machine is a heavy cost to carry. As a result of EMCs, people can get rid of old washing machines, historic waste, fridges, cookers and so on for free and without handing them over to some Jack-the-lad to dispose of them in the mountains. It is a good, robust scheme and is operating well. There has been some fair criticism of the EMCs on small items. I have met again with the WEEE register. Even though the register does not have to examine the cost for six months, I suggested there should be a dramatic reduction in fees for small items, particularly coming up to the Christmas period, because of the sheer volumes involved. The EMCs are there to deal with the cost of thousands and thousands of tonnes of electronic waste. It will also set up a fund to allow for two "not-for-profit" schemes. It is a good and robust scheme which is now being considered by other member states in the European Union.
Why did the Minister let the producers off paying anything towards this charge? The Minister said there would be no increase in costs to consumers. Given that the Minister is receiving money in VAT from the charges, will he instruct local authorities to designate a special day or period for collection of all electrical and electronic waste throughout the country so that the public can once and for all clear all the waste in their attics? Will the Minister abolish completely the charge of €1, €1.50, €2 or €3 for small items in order to bring greater credibility to what is happening?
There is an error in the directive in that it does not make any rule for the size of the item. I suggested to the WEEE register that it is difficult to explain, particularly when people are buying small electronic goods, why the cost should be €2, for example, for a small item. The industry explained to me that the cost of dismantling a small item can be as great as the cost of dismantling a big item. I take the Deputy's point and I suggested to the WEEE register that this issue should be examined. The cost on a fluorescent tube is just 50 cent but it is much more difficult to get rid of than some smaller items.
The Deputy asked if there should be a national collection day. This is a good idea and I will look at how to transmit it to local authorities. The tonnage coming through the scheme is amazing. We saw it last week in the Deputy's constituency where a group of entrepreneurs have come together and for the first time there is a fully integrated recycling system for cathode ray tubes which were previously going into landfill. The environmental benefits are tremendous. Seven people are working on the scheme which we did not think of a month or two months ago.
94 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he will reform the current waste collection system following the conclusions of the Competition Authority that it is not working well for consumers nationally; if so, when he intends to reform the system; if such a reform will include a national waiver scheme; the steps he intends to take to increase competition within the market; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30546/05]
The Competition Authority did not note any significant variations in the amounts charged by private waste collectors throughout the country. However, it suggested that a competitive tendering process might offer better options to consumers by increasing competition in the market. I have already indicated that I am giving consideration to how the waste market might best be regulated in the future. I will have regard to the views of the authority in that context.
As I said on previous occasions, waste collection is the most quintessential of all local services, it has never been a matter in which central Government intervened. Consequently, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has at no time exercised a function in determining waste management charges or any associated waiver arrangements.
Local authorities are empowered under the Waste Management Acts to set a charge for the waste collection services they provide. Where local authorities directly collect, the determination of charges is a matter for the council but, where it is not collected by local authorities, the service providers determine charges. All service providers were asked to move to a "use-based" charging system from January 2005. This is in line with the polluter pays principle and encourages consumers to better control the amount of their charges by availing of increased numbers of recycling facilities.
Likewise, the determination of any waiver scheme is a matter for the local authority concerned where it is the service provider. Traditionally, local authorities who provided a collection service operated such a scheme. Waiver schemes do not generally operate where services are provided by private collectors. However, where there are private collections, a small number of local authorities have put additional arrangements in place to assist low income families or people living on fixed incomes, for example, by providing subsidised collection bags, or in the case of Limerick city, tendering for a service for low income households.
In considering how the waste market is best regulated, I am giving thought to the extent to which any regulatory regime should have a role in regard to charges. I have said previously in this House that there should be a regulator in the industry. I hope to present my proposals by the end of the year or early in the New Year. I note that the Competition Authority is not as enamoured as I am with the idea of a regulator.
Does the Minister agree with the assessment of the Competition Authority that the system of waste collection is not working well for consumers? I would like to know more about his plans for regulating the waste collection service and if he will provide for its regulation. Will this be done by way of legislation and, if so, when will it be introduced in the House?
In regard to the recommendation of the Competition Authority that there should be competitive tendering for waste collection services, how does he envisage it will operate, given that the companies operating waste collection services have in the main consolidated into one or two? In reality, there does not appear to be a great deal of potential for competition in many parts of the country.
Finally, I would be interested to hear his views on the fact that there is no role for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in the waste collection service or the regime of charges. Does it follow that the Minister intends to repeal the regulations and guidelines issued by his predecessor to local authorities on the way in which they should charge and, second, does he intend to repeal the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Act, which sets down in law the way in which charging for waste should be arrived at?
The Deputy is correct that the Competition Authority recommended that the Department consider reforming the waste collection system as it appeared the current market was not working well for consumers. It also promotes a move towards competitive tendering in this market as preferable to the appointment of a regulator. I do not agree with that view for the reasons put forward by the Deputy, namely, that there is a propensity to consolidate in this industry. It is one of the reasons I find the idea of a regulator more appropriate than competitive tendering. Competitive tendering would have fundamental difficulties, not least the difficulty to which the Deputy referred, and because there are a number of operators in the market and it is very difficult to become involved because of capital and other costs. However, I am examining the report of the Competition Authority and I will take it on board when constructing the proposals for a regulator.
The exact form of the regulator is still at the drafting stage. I will try to bring it forward as quickly as possible but I am seeking the best model. I agree with the general view expressed on several occasions, not by the authority, but by others, including Members of this House, that we may have an abundance of regulators and we probably do not need any more. Whether it would be appropriate to give this to an existing regulator is something I will examine.
I do not intend to repeal environmental legislation. The point I was making was a statement of fact. Since the 1890s, no Minister for the Environment has taken it upon himself or herself to run the bin collection service or a related service anywhere in the country. It is the most quintessential of local services. If one believes in subsidiarity, one will believe that local authorities should have the right to make decisions to stay or go out of schemes.
If the Minister believes in subsidiarity, he will repeal the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Act which allow him to dictate the way charges are to be made.
Under the polluter pays principle, is it permitted to charge for recycling services? Is a service provider allowed to charge for the collection of the green bin with which most householders are familiar?
I am not sure what is the Deputy's last point. The issue of whether charges should be imposed for certain recycling collections arose recently. As a general principle, one would try to avoid that in so far as one possibly could.
What is Government policy on it?
I recall the Deputy suggesting on 13 or 14 August that the WEEE directive should be scrapped. Government policy has been——
I said the Minister should scrap his regulations, which is different.
That is not what the Deputy said. He stated the Minister should go back to square one and redraft the entire directive, which is not possible.
I said the Minister should redraft his regulations. I know the Minister cannot redraft the directive.
That is not what the Deputy said at the time. Thankfully, Deputy O'Dowd took a much more progressive view than Deputy Gilmore and he was more supportive.
I am glad the Minister is so busy that he is parsing every word I utter and looking for bargains for washing machines in the advertisement columns of the newspapers.
As a result of the change we made, charges imposed by recycling centres are——
What is Government policy on green bins?
Government policy is to encourage people to recycle and to discourage anything that would prohibit——
Should charges be imposed for the use of green bins? Deputy Roche is the Minister responsible.
The Minister is a bad salesman.
If the Deputy wants to ask a more detailed question, I suggests that he do so.
Should there be charges for green bins?
95 Mr. Morgan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the number on social housing waiting lists: if he has set a timeframe for the elimination of social housing waiting lists; and if he will implement the proposals in the NESC report on housing for an increase of 73,000 units of permanent social housing units in net terms between 2005 and 2012. [30566/05]
The most recent three yearly assessment of need for social housing was carried out by local authorities in March 2005. Returns were received in my Department over the summer and the overall date is being finalised and will be published very shortly.
The Government has made substantial progress addressing the concerns raised in the NESC report, with increased housing output levels and record investment in social and affordable housing measures. New measures have been announced to accelerate the delivery of affordable housing and to maximise the availability of land for social and affordable housing programmes. The Government indicated at that stage that the more medium-term issues highlighted by NESC, particularly in the social and affordable housing area, would be addressed later in the year.
The NESC report advocated a significant increase in the social housing stock and, by way of illustration, argued for a social housing stock of up to 200,000 units by 2012. NESC acknowledged, however, that the appropriateness of the overall scale of ambition and the urgency of actions would be clearer after the completion of the 2005 assessment of housing need. The Government's consideration of this matter will, therefore, be informed by the outcome of the statutory housing needs assessment, which is being finalised, and the work of the housing forum, which is reviewing the effectiveness of the existing social and affordable housing schemes in the context of the Sustaining Progress agreement. I anticipate the announcement of a new statement of housing policy at the end of this year.
I am confident we have put in place a number of new arrangements to facilitate the delivery of strong programmes of social and affordable housing. In consultation with my Department, local authorities have developed five-year action plans for their social and affordable housing programmes covering the period to 2008. The preparation of these plans has improved the identification of priority needs and will help to ensure a more coherent and co-ordinated response across all housing services. They also provided an overview of delivery by a range of providers, including local authorities, voluntary and co-operative housing bodies and the private sector, through Part V and public private partnership arrangements.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
It is important also to maintain a focus on delivery. We have been expanding on the level of social and affordable housing output in recent years, and local authorities have been ambitious in terms of the level of output planned in the housing actions plans to 2008. A total of €2 billion is being made available for housing programmes in 2005 to further increase the output of social and affordable housing. It is anticipated the needs of in excess of 13,000 households will be met through various social and affordable housing measures in 2005.
My question has three strands — the number of people on social housing waiting lists, the timeframe for the elimination of such lists and if the Government will accept the implementation of the NESC proposal. The Minister of State said it will be later in the year before we know how many people are on the waiting lists and he is not in a position to provide that information.
I refer to a timeframe for the elimination of housing waiting lists. For example, the Government set a target for the elimination of hospital waiting lists. It is crazy and it is all over the place but, at least, the Government demonstrated awareness of the crisis by setting a target. Is such a target in place in the Minister of State's Department to eliminate social housing waiting lists?
The NESC proposal relates to the provision of 73,000 social housing units by 2012. Does the Minister of State accept it? He should give a "yes" or "no" answer. He has given a blurb about a statement on social housing being provided at the end of the year, despite the Government parties being in power for eight and a half years.
Does the Minister of State accept the NESC proposal? When will he set a target for the elimination of housing waiting lists?
The last assessment of need calculated 48,000 families were on waiting lists, although 30% comprised single people and another 30% comprised one adult and one child. A housing policy is always in place and it is not a case of waiting eight years to publish a housing policy. We are updating and reviewing the housing policy in response to the NESC report and that work is ongoing in the Department.
The Minister of State said he was not in a position yet to say whether he accepts the NESC proposal.
The NESC report is a valuable document and it makes a useful contribution.
Has the Minister of State read it?
I asked about the proposal.
The NESC report will not be the Bible of all time because account must be taken of what is happening on an ongoing basis. We have ploughed significant resources into social housing. The amount allocated to the social housing programme this year is up €110 million on last year. Our response is to generate a greater output through increased investment so that the number of people on waiting lists is reduced.
The Minister of State alluded to the extra €110 million allocated to the rent supplement scheme this year. Does he accept, however, that 40% of those in the private rented sector are in receipt of rent supplement, which equates to 57,714 people? They are on social housing waiting lists but the Minister of State has not set targets to eliminate the lists of 48,000 families. Under the NESC proposal, 73,000 units will be built by 2012. Does the Minister of State accept it?
I did not refer to rent supplement. I stated investment in local authority housing this year increased by €110 million.
My point stands in relation to the 40% of people in the private rented sector who are in receipt of rent supplement.
That is correct. Approximately 60,000 people are in receipt of rent supplement.
Does the Minister of State have a target to deal with that major crisis?
No. Under the rental accommodation scheme, a programme will be rolled out over four years whereby people in receipt of rent supplement for more than 18 months will become the responsibility of local authorities.
They will be subsidised tenants.
The Minister of State is just moving deckchairs. That scheme does not deal with the problem.
It does. People will be provided with homes, which is what they want. People in receipt of rent supplement felt they were only on short-term leases. I refer to the PRTB legislation and the rental accommodation scheme, under which people become the responsibility of the local authority if they have been in receipt of rent supplement for more than 18 months.
However, we must wait until the end of the year for a statement from the Government before we know what is its policy, eight and a half years later.
The scheme will give those on waiting lists security of tenure and permanent homes. That is what people want.
They will not be given homes.
96 Mr. McCormack asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the progress to date of the provision of social housing envisaged under Part V of Planning and Development Act 2000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30676/05]
Up to the end of June 2005, a total of 1,294 housing units had been acquired under Part V arrangements, comprising 485 social and 809 affordable units. In addition, the Department estimates 736 social and 1,477 affordable units are under construction. The social units are being provided to both local authorities and voluntary housing bodies for letting to households on the waiting lists. The Part V provisions are fully operational in all local authorities and I am satisfied they are contributing significantly to the provision of social and affordable housing. The manner in which local authorities avail of Part V arrangements for social and affordable housing is a matter to be determined by individual local authorities based on the need identified in their housing strategies. Local authorities may specify different percentages of social and affordable houses, subject to Part V requirements, in their housing strategies. It is not intended that Part V be the only mechanism for the provision of social and affordable housing. The local authority housing construction programme and the voluntary and co-operative construction programmes continue to be the major contributors to the national social rented housing stock.
Taking account of new local authority housing, vacancies arising in existing houses and output under other social and affordable housing measures, I anticipate that the needs of approximately 13,000 households will be met in 2005. Detailed information on an individual local authority basis of all housing outputs for 2003 and 2004 and for the first six months of 2005 is available in my Department's quarterly and annual housing statistics bulletins, copies of which are available in the Oireachtas Library. I can send the Deputy a copy if he wishes.
Does the Minister of State acknowledge the Department's record on this issue is appalling? While the private sector has responded to demands with record house completions, the number of house completions for which the Minister of State is responsible remains inadequate. What happened to housing needs assessment? Is the Minister of State satisfied developers are circumventing the Part V regulations where there is a shortage of social and affordable housing? Is the obligation of the provision of social and affordable housing under Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000 not applicable where the development takes place in towns or villages for which the local authority has not yet produced a development plan?
The output arising from Part V is growing and, with the level of housing produced and 2,200 houses under construction, the dividend from Part V will be significant. If construction commences on a new estate there may be no provision under Part V as planning permission was granted before the law took effect. The dividend from Part V is slow. I reported on housing needs assessment in the last question and the outcome will be announced next month.
The dividend from Part V can be provided on-site or off-site. It can be provided in the form of land, sites, partially built houses or cash. All these methods are subject to agreement between the developer and the local authority. The Deputy may be referring to one case in his county. The preference is for social and affordable housing to be built on site but there may be cases where that is not possible. The local authority may come to an agreement with the developer but alternative sites must be in the functional area of the local authority. One could not allow the construction of social and affordable housing 30 miles away from the development in the city.
Any offer from a developer must be approved by a local authority. Some developers have made cash payments, totalling approximately €17 million. This sum is ring-fenced and is used in the provision of social and affordable housing.
The Minister has identified an interesting point. I am aware that the social and affordable housing must be provided within the same local authority but in County Galway that may be 50, 60 or 70 miles from the source. The development may take place near the city and the social and affordable housing could be transferred to Clifden or Glenamaddy. That is ridiculous. What is the logic behind such land swapping?
Does the Minister accept the 2002 amendment to the Planning and Development Act allowed developers to transfer land away from valuable sites, such as those near Galway city or any city? If the local authority agrees, a developer may transfer his obligation under Part V from Galway city to Glenamaddy, Spiddal, Clifden or Ballyconneely. This renders the scheme ridiculous as it draws people away from the centre of population and their work places and results in roads being clogged as people come to the city to shop or work. The obligations under Part V are being met in this way.
I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of State to a case that occurred in my constituency. A person purchased a house under the social and affordable housing programme, financed by a local authority loan. If that person wants to change the mortgage a clawback payment of the full price of the house must be paid to the local authority. A person in my constituency purchased such a house for €150,000. Over two years, he has repaid €10,000 but he was quoted €220,000 to redeem the mortgage from the local authority. How can the Minister of State stand over this anomaly? Will he take steps to correct it?
It is a rip-off, Minister.
I wonder who controls the council.
Most people agreed that flexibility was necessary to allow social and affordable housing to be provided off-site on occasions. The last change in the law allowed that option. It is not the developer who calls the shots.
It is an arrangement between the developer and the local authority.
I am aware of the case to which the Deputy refers. It would not be appropriate for a developer to construct social and affordable houses in an area where there was not a need.
Houses are needed everywhere.
The local authority has its housing strategy and outlines what is needed and where it is needed. It would not be satisfactory to provide social and affordable housing in areas not envisaged in the strategy.
Why was this changed in 2002? What was the arrangement with the builders? The Government caved in.
Flexibility was necessary. I understand the case to which the Deputy is referring.
I am not referring to a particular case, I am referring to the principle.
The principle is sensible but it would not be appropriate to locate houses 50 miles from the main development.
That is happening.
Regarding the other issue raised, until last year all social and affordable housing was financed by the State system. Two financial institutions, Bank of Ireland and EBS, now allow loans for affordable housing on new houses only. We are discussing this and seeking their agreement for re-financing. To date the institutions have not agreed, so the only way of redeeming the mortgage is the manner described by the Deputy. When the banks and financial institutions agree to re-financing the case the Deputy raised should not occur.
Will they give their agreement?
They are very slow in doing so.
97 Ms C. Murphy asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the role which management companies should play in maintaining housing estates with specific reference to sewers, water mains, public lighting, roads and footpaths; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30549/05]
Management companies operate at present for the majority of apartment developments, for certain other higher density developments, particularly those with a mix of designs, but very rarely for a very small number of standard housing developments. Generally speaking, the role of management companies is to maintain the common property, including buildings, sewers, water pipes, public lighting, roads and footpaths in such estates.
Once housing developments are taken in charge, it is the local authority's responsibility to maintain public infrastructure such as roads, footpaths, sewers, water mains and public lighting. The existence of a management company should not override the legal obligation on developers to complete estates, and, where required by the planning permission, to maintain estates until they are taken in charge. Local authorities are obliged under section 180 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to begin the procedures to take in charge the public services of housing estates once these are completed to a satisfactory standard, where they are requested to do so by the developer or a majority of the residents of the housing development. This legal obligation is unaffected by the existence or otherwise of a management company. In individual instances, of course, house owners may prefer that the responsibility for all services in their estate remains vested in the management company, which they control.
Section 34 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 introduced a number of provisions designed to ensure all housing estates were finished as soon as possible, maintained to a satisfactory standard for the benefit of the people living in them and taken in charge by local authorities. The section enables planning authorities to require adequate security to be provided by developers and to require estates to be finished within a reasonably short period. In addition, section 34 recognised the common practice of establishing management companies, control of which is transferred to the owners of the housing units, to maintain or manage residential developments.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
Along with the requirement on local authorities to take estates in charge under section 180 of the Act, these provisions should ensure that the historical problem of people living in unfinished or poorly managed housing estates for years will not occur in future.
These new provisions of planning legislation are framework ones and individual planning authorities must make their own judgment, based on local circumstances and policies, about how and to what extent to use them in particular cases. These provisions should not be used, however, to transfer responsibility for public infrastructure in housing estates to the residents. I am confident good solutions can be developed in this way and that these solutions should be most appropriately addressed at local authority level.
The Minister was just getting to the most interesting part of his reply but I imagine it was contained in the reply to the Adjournment Debate matter I raised several weeks ago. I have been surprised by the apparent lack of knowledge in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government about what is happening on the ground. Many local authorities now have a standard clause that requires mandatory membership of a management company, not just in a mixed or apartment only development but in traditional housing estates. In fact, it is registered in the Land Registry Office against the folio of the particular house. Will the Minister indicate whether that practice has any legal authority? In the absence of such legal authority, will he instruct the local authorities to cease this practice because it is giving people who have paid non-refundable deposits no choice but to sign up? I understand tens of thousands of people are affected by this practice. The Dublin local authorities and those on the fringes of Dublin are engaging in it also. There can be a gap of years between the time all the houses are completed and the estate is taken in charge. My understanding of the Planning and Development Act 2000 is that the seven years only kicks in five years after the planning permission has run out. That means people could pay up to €1,000 a year for 12 years, which is a sizeable amount and the equivalent of another month's mortgage in a year. A local authority could not prosecute a parking offence through the court unless it had the legal authority to do so, whether by way of a by-law or the road traffic laws. In the same way, local authorities are acting outside the law in this respect and the Minster must address that problem.
I fully appreciate the Deputy's concerns about this matter and would share her concerns if the arrangements provided in the Act were being misinterpreted, misapplied or applied in a way that would provide an onerous responsibility on home owners. The provisions in the planning legislation are framework ones and individual planning authorities must make their own judgment based on local circumstances and policies about how or to what extent they implement them in a particular case. These provisions should not be used, however, to transfer responsibility for public infrastructure in housing estates to residents and cause the type of difficulties the Deputy has in mind.
I am familiar with the case Deputy Murphy mentioned, which arises from Kildare County Council's policy on management companies. I asked my Department to contact the council and inquire about the position. The council assures me that it does not attach planning conditions relating to management companies to conventional housing schemes, that is, those with primarily private gardens and so forth, and that it attaches conditions to apartment developments.
The problem the Deputy has touched on is evolving. I would discourage the placing of onerous responsibilities on home owners by local authorities. That is not the intention of that section of the Act. The intention is to protect home owners and to expedite the process of taking estates in charge. It is not meant as a means for local authorities to side-step their responsibilities or try to pass them on to residents.
The documentation I passed on to the Minister of State related to a house-only development and a mixed development, not apartments. That is evidence of what is happening.
