Vol. 618 No. 5
1 Mr. O’Dowd asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his Department’s position on the transportation of MOX fuel; if contacts have been made on this matter; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16826/06]
Shipments of radioactive material, including MOX fuel, are subject to international maritime regulations including the right of "innocent passage" and to strict international safety standards applicable to the marine transport of such material.
The continuing concerns of the Irish Government in relation to all transports of radioactive material through the Irish Sea are regularly and repeatedly conveyed to the UK Government at ministerial and official level. Ireland also co-operates on this issue with like minded coastal states at international fora such as the International Atomic Energy Agency. The concerns we have relate to safety, security and environmental risk from an accident or incident.
Arising from our efforts over the years, information is made available to Ireland on a voluntary and confidential basis by the Governments of shipping states, principally, Japan, France and the United Kingdom, on shipments of radioactive material including MOX fuel. This information is also transmitted for operational reasons to relevant Government authorities such as the Irish Coast Guard service. The Irish Government in response makes clear that such shipments are unwelcome, and seeks and obtains assurances from shipping states that such shipments will not enter Irish territorial waters.
Ireland has been receiving such communications concerning shipments of radioactive material for more than ten years. Given the voluntary and confidential basis on which the information is provided, it has not been the practice to issue press statements on receipt of such notifications. Press queries which may arise are dealt with on a case by case basis. These arrangements are consistent with the long-standing principle of confidentiality in regard to inter-Government communications. That principle is also enshrined in the Freedom of Information Act.
Additionally, in so far as shipments are related to the MOX plant, which is the subject of the dispute between the United Kingdom and Ireland under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS, the issue has been the subject of legal correspondence between Ireland and the UK. The MOX plant at Sellafield utilises plutonium, separated during reprocessing of spent fuel for foreign customers at Sellafield, and returns it to those customers in the form of MOX fuel. The Government instituted international legal proceedings against the Government of the United Kingdom under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the commissioning of the MOX plant. These proceedings remain suspended, pending the resolution of issues of Community law between the European Commission and Ireland on the MOX plant case. These issues are being litigated before the European Court of Justice and a final ruling in the case is expected later this month.
The Minister has been lulled into a state of soporific complacency on the transport of radioactive fuel up and down the Irish Sea. It passes his constituency and mine and it also passes the city of Dublin where more than 1 million live. When the first shipment of MOX fuel came through the Irish Sea from Japan many Ministers spoke out and protested here, there and everywhere. The Minister called out the Irish Coast Guard service and the Irish Air Corps, and there was great public debate. Everybody agreed with those actions and supported those views. However, in June 2005, when the second shipment of MOX was being transported through the Irish Sea the Minister was told about it but did absolutely nothing. He was silent on this issue, which is shameful, compared to the activity and concern expressed so publicly and so clearly by the Government.
The issue is why did the Minister remain silent? There is no regulation binding the Minister to a law of omerta when cargo, specifically cargo which could be used by terrorists to make a nuclear bomb or in the event of an accident at sea could cause serious pollution for many years in the Irish Sea, is being transported. The Minister remained silent and useless. It is worthless that the Minister kept quiet and said nothing when this was going on.
If the Deputy wishes to check what I said or check the record, he will find that issues relating to intergovernmental materials, such as the references made here, are not the subject of press statements. He is correct in saying there was a specific incident some time ago which attracted attention but that has not been the case during the past ten years.
It was two years ago.
If the Deputy wishes to check the record over the ten years during which we have had the notifications — I understand he does not want to check it, but wishes to characterise this in his usual dramatic way — he will see that the appropriate procedures have been adopted and will continue to be adopted. During the past ten years there have not been press statements in the majority of cases. Any issue of press commentary has been dealt with in the majority of cases on a case by case basis. I do not know whether the Deputy lives in the real world, but intergovernmental communications are not normally the subject of press statements or the type of brouhaha he has suggested should be the norm.
When the last MOX fuel shipment travelled around the world, maps were published in all the newspapers of the world outlining where it was going. We are dealing with MOX fuel, a specially refined fuel, which was not available ten years ago. I put it to the Minister that the ship in which the Minister allowed it to be carried, the Atlantic Osprey, is totally unsuitable for the purposes for which it is used. It has a single hull, only one engine, no naval armaments on board and is totally unsuitable. It is a 20 year old ship that in March 2002 had a fire in its engine, after British Nuclear Fuels Limited purchased it. It is inappropriate that the Minister does not protest about it, but remains silent, because it is a matter of grave and serious concern. It is not good enough for the Minister to hide behind ten years of silence.
MOX fuel is new fuel. This is only the second time it has been used and the Minister has not done anything about it, which shows his lack of action and concern. His silence on the shipment of such dangerous material in a totally unsuitable ship is unacceptable from a Minister. The ship is 20 years old — it was 15 years old before British Nuclear Fuels Limited bought it — and it is not suitable. When the Minister and the other Ministers protested, the Irish Air Corps flew and the other craft was on the water, the ship complained about was much more secure. It was double-hulled, had a naval escort and used the best available technology. The Minister is allowing ships which are unfit to carry this material up and down our coast and, quite honestly, he could not care less about it.
2 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the number of dwellings delivered to date under Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000; the number of such units which were for social housing and for affordable housing; the number of private house completions since the commencement date of the Planning and Development Act 2000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16671/06]
Part V is being actively operated in all local authority areas and provision of homes for first-time buyers and young families under it is gathering momentum. Up to the end of 2005, 701 social and 1,470 affordable housing units were delivered to local authorities. Output last year was more than double that in 2004. In addition to the number of housing units, 38 land transfers to local authorities have been completed to the end of 2005 involving some 20 hectares; a further 213 partially or fully serviced sites have been transferred to local authorities and voluntary housing bodies; and over €24.5 million has been received in lieu of land. This output reflects the use of the various flexible options now available to satisfy Part V obligations.
Further evidence of increased activity is that at the end of 2005, some 2,500 units were under construction and a further 3,500 were proposed under agreements reached with developers. It is envisaged that over 8,000 social and affordable units will be delivered under Part V in the next three years.
I have no doubt that Part V will play an increasing role in the delivery of social and affordable housing in the future. However, it is not intended that Part V should be the only mechanism for the provision of social and affordable housing. The main local authority housing construction programme, together with the voluntary and co-operative construction programme and the various affordable programmes, continue to be the major contributors to the national social rented and affordable housing stock.
The delivery of units, new homes, is my Department's preferred option when reaching agreement with developers and I have and will continue to stress to all local authorities to pursue vigorously this option in their Part V negotiations.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I understand that up to the end of 2005, just over 2,000 units of accommodation were delivered under Part V of the Planning and Development Act and that he expects another 8,000 over the next three years. This is a far cry from the predictions made by the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, when he introduced the Bill in this House. He told us that Part V would produce an additional 35,000 local authority units, help to increase the output of voluntary housing to 4,000 a year and produce 2,000 units per year under the existing local authority affordable and shared ownership schemes. On top of that, we would have the affordable houses expected under Part V.
The output of 2,000 units since the commencement of the Act in 2000 until end-2005 is a far cry from the numbers predicted by the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, 35,000 plus 4,000 per year, which would be another 20,000 units, giving us a total of 55,000 plus the output of the existing schemes. The Minister of State criticised me previously for saying that Part V should have produced 30,000 units, but Deputy Dempsey thought it would produce between 50,000 and 60,000 units. The figure of 2,000 is a poor result against the predictions made.
Deputy Gilmore cites the figure 35,000, but I am not sure what period was covered by that figure. Was it over a ten-year or five-year period? If we take last year's output, overall housing output for the year was 81,000. Using rough figures that would apply any year, of that number approximately 20,000 would be one-off houses, 7,000 or 8,000 would be social, affordable or voluntary houses and approximately 40,000 were exempted because they were part of developments of fewer than four houses, built on unzoned land or built as part of planning permissions that were obtained and, perhaps, stockpiled before the introduction of Part V.
In time the stockpiles of old planning permissions will die out, probably over the next 18 months to two years, and we will have a better hold on the situation. Once-off housing and developments of fewer than four units will always exist. The output depends on what is built in the overall market, but in time output will improve. I agree it has been slow to develop, but this happens. There are no housing measures which will provide instant action. As the old planning permissions wither and die out, the output from Part V will increase significantly and have an input on social and affordable housing.
The Minister of State says it will all happen in time. How much more time does he need to provide for the housing needs of people who cannot afford to buy their own home or those who need social housing? He has had nine years to do it, including six since the Planning and Development Act was passed, but has only produced 2,000 under Part V. He says this is because old planning permissions were stockpiled. The permissions were stockpiled because when they were due to expire at the end of 2000 and he changed the law in such a way that Part V could not apply to them. He handed back approximately 80,000 sites to which Part V would have applied and that is the reason the policy is not working. It is not working because he scuttled it.
The Minister of State has ended up with just over 2,000 units when he should have somewhere between my modest estimate of 30,000 units and the 50,000 to 60,000 estimate of the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, who is given to some exaggeration.
Is that over a ten-year period or what?
How much time does the Minister of State want? He has had more than nine years to do it, but he has doubled the number of people on council waiting lists in that time. House prices are three or four times what they were when the Government came into office and working families on two incomes cannot afford to buy houses they could have bought on one income then. How much time does the Minister of State need to solve the housing needs of the people? How much time does the Government deserve from people on council waiting lists, who cannot afford to buy their own home or who are driven further out into the commuter belt? How long will it be before Part V delivers what the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, predicted it would deliver?
There is no point in talking about nine years when the Act has not been passed for half of that time. We need time for planning permissions to run out, normally five years.
They ran out at the end of 2002 and the Minister of State handed them back.
Any of the new houses for sale and on view on a Saturday or Sunday or in the property pages of the newspapers are houses that got planning permission before the Act was passed. We changed the law at the end of 2002 to encourage supply.
Supply for whom? It was not for those who cannot afford to buy.
It was to supply housing for all the extra people working and earning a living in this economy who have the money to buy.
They cannot afford to buy a home of their own.
They are buying homes. Who does the Deputy think bought the 81,000 units built last year? It was mainly first-time buyers.
3 Mr. Morgan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the actions he is taking to curb house price increases and to address the fact that increasing numbers of first-time buyers, in particular, continue to fall below the housing affordability threshold. [16670/06]
House price increases have been driven primarily by the increase in demand for housing that has resulted from the unprecedented growth in recent years in the population and the economy. In response, the Government has taken action on a wide front to maximise access to home ownership, especially through measures to promote adequate supply of housing to meet demand.
Investment in infrastructure, streamlining of planning and more effective use of land have been co-ordinated to produce record housing output. Almost 81,000 houses were built in 2005; ten years ago, the figure was under 31,000. As a result, we are providing new homes at a much faster rate than other countries in Europe, with about 20 new homes produced annually per 1,000 population compared with five per 1,000 on average in the European Union.
Almost one third of all Irish homes were built in the past ten years. These, along with the delivery of more than half a million new homes since 1997, have enabled an unprecedented number of first-time buyers to access home ownership during this period. I am especially pleased that supply in Dublin has increased significantly, with 18,000 new homes completed last year, double the output of ten years ago.
We have also supported first-time buyers through improvements in tax reliefs and stamp duty. A number of concerted measures have been taken through the Government's social and affordable housing programmes to increase the availability of affordable housing. Investment of some €4 billion will be made under these programmes over the next three years. Approximately 15,000 households will benefit under affordable housing schemes over that period. In addition, in 2005 the Government established the affordable homes partnership to accelerate the delivery of affordable housing in the greater Dublin area where the problems are the most acute.
These measures form an important element of our policy to address affordability concerns. In December 2005 the Government launched a new housing policy framework, Building Sustainable Communities, to build on achievements and to focus delivery and increased investment over the coming years. This will ensure that we can improve the quality of housing and neighbourhoods, continue to create conditions where housing output will meet demand and provide targeted support for those with particular affordability problems.
The large increase in housing output that has been achieved has helped to restrain house price increases in the face of continuing strong demand pressures and increased mortgage lending.
I got that same reply from the Minister of State approximately 12 months ago and it is the same reply he gave four years ago. He has not answered my question which asked what he is doing to curb house price rises. I do not want to know, nor did I ask, how many houses were built last year. I did not ask him how many affordable houses were built, but he gave me those statistics.
What is the Minister of State doing to curb house price increases? When Fianna Fáil came into power in 1997, the price of an average house in this State was approximately €100,000. House prices are now more than €280,000 State wide or approximately €380,000 in this city. Is the Minister aware that communities throughout this city are being decimated by the huge movement of young people who cannot afford to buy houses in this city to places as far away as Cavan and Monaghan? He is doing nothing about it. Does the Minister accept there is an affordability problem? Does he accept that his constituents face that problem every day? They cannot buy houses because of the rapid rate of increase — 3.5% in the first three months of this year alone. He has not told me what he will do about it. I believe he is not doing anything. Will the Minister answer those questions?
The Deputy's main question was what we were doing to control prices. We are trying to encourage supply because with the current situation that is the only real solution. We are talking about a situation where 70,000 extra people came to this country last year. A total of 90,000 extra people were at work last year. We would not see that in a country 20 times the size of Ireland, not to mind anywhere else.
The Minister has not said what he intends to do about it.
We are trying to encourage supply.
That will never be the answer. We will have to wait a lifetime or another nine years, if that is the Minister's answer.
I am trying to answer. We are improving the planning regime, investing in serviced land and providing the conditions that have enabled more than half a million houses to be built in the past ten years.
House prices are rocketing.
We have provided tax relief on stamp duty for first-time buyers, brought forward Part V——
The Minister should ask the people on the doorsteps in his constituency what is happening.
I know, but the Deputy asked the question and I am trying to answer it. There is an affordability problem for some people and for those, we have brought in the four different affordable housing schemes that produced 2,900 houses last year. I do not want to say in simple terms that price does not count.
That is the tip of the iceberg.
Will the Deputy listen? We provided 2,900 affordable homes last year and that figure will increase.
There is an affordability problem for some people and that is difficult because the——
Did the Minister say "for some people"? Professional couples on two incomes cannot afford to buy now.
For those we built 2,900 affordable houses last year. The Deputy might have seen some of them advertised two weeks ago. Two bedroom houses were €142,000 and three bedroom houses were €172,000.
And 40 year mortgages.
Not for those, but there is a problem for some people and we are helping them because we do not want them to go back on the social housing list. That is the reason for the affordable housing scheme.
On price, it is more about affordability than price. In terms of affordability there is the price of the house, the salary of the person, the take-home pay and the interest rate. If we consider the affordable indexes, which are not a perfect animal, the position is not nearly as bad as the price——
The Minister got the solutions long ago from the constitution committee but he would not even push that. The Minister should make the people at Cabinet sit up and take note.
4 Mr. McCormack asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the action he intends to take to ensure that local authorities construct more social and affordable housing; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16825/06]
The new housing policy framework, Building Sustainable Communities, launched by Government last December outlines a substantially increased programme of investment in social and affordable housing measures for the period 2006-08.
Exchequer capital resources provided by my Department for these measures for this period stand at almost €4 billion, more than 20% higher than the past three years, and this sum rises to more than €6.5 billion when non-voted and current spending provisions are included. This money will be invested in response to identified need within the region of 23,000 new units of social housing to be commenced and 15,000 units of affordable housing to be delivered over the same three year period. In addition, further households will be assisted through the new rental accommodation scheme. In total, we expect some 50,000 households to benefit from various social and affordable housing measures in the coming three years.
The strength of existing social housing programmes is demonstrated in the fact that work was in progress on more than 10,000 social housing units at the end of 2005, which augurs well for the current year.
The local authority housing programme is part of the wider social and affordable housing programmes for which the main strategy for delivery is the local authority five year action plans for social and affordable housing. The action plans, now at their midway stage, are being reviewed. The outcome of the reviews will ensure that local authorities continue to have a framework for the integrated and cohesive planning and delivery over the coming years of specific social and affordable housing measures based on their relevant housing strategy.
I thank the Minister for reading out that script. I do not know whether it makes sense to anybody other than himself. Has the Government any plans to revert to what was its original intention in the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2002 where 20% of all developments would be handed over to the local authorities for social and affordable housing? That Act was amended in the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2004 as a result of pressure from builders. I do not know whether they were inside or outside the tent in Galway but wherever the pressure came from, the 2004 Act was amended to allow developers an out in that regard. The position now is that the developers can either give land, money or sites or an equivalent amount of land in any area of the local authority. Is the Minister aware that in areas like Galway city in particular, where developers are developing land and where land is very expensive, developers in county areas near the city such as Oranmore, Castlegarren and elsewhere can now provide land in Glenamaddy, Tuam, Mountbellew or anywhere else 30, 40 or 50 miles away in lieu of the 20%? Does the Government intend to revert to the original concept in the 2002 Act whereby builders and developers are required to allocate 20% of the proposed development for affordable or social housing? The current practice is a farce. Developers are either giving money to the local authority, which is not ploughed back into the equivalent amount of housing that 20% represents or they are giving land or a mix of land and money in locations other than the prime location where they are building the houses. Is the Minister aware that people living in social housing in Tuam, Mountbellew, Glenamaddy or Headford are clogging up the roads driving 20 or 30 miles a day to work in Galway city? The Government should revert to the 2002 Act whereby the developer had to provide 20% of the proposed development to social and affordable housing.
As the Deputy said, the legal obligations of Part V can be met by a developer by land, cash and sites on-site or off-site.
That is right.
The developer may propose any such solution he or she wishes but it is the local authority that makes the decision. It says "yes" or "no" to the proposal. That is the key point. The developer can ask for or suggest anything he or she likes but the local authority makes the decision in accordance with the law of the land and its housing strategy as drawn up and approved by the councillors. That is the key point.
If the sites are located away from the development, they must be situated within the local authority area. A developer could not transfer the provision of such a site from Galway city to Galway county——
No.
——but the local authority can decide to change the provision of the site from three miles to 23 miles outside the city. That legal change was introduced in 2002 for good reason, namely, to provide the flexibility sought by the local authorities, the Department and, in some cases, developers. It made good sense. The key issue is that the local authority makes the decision in accordance with the law of the land and its housing strategy. That is the central point.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I knew everything he said prior to him saying it. He has passed the buck back to the local authority which has made decisions in cases. I can quote cases where the developer offered land for social housing which was 30 miles away from his development within the same local authority area. The Minister knows this situation is farcical because he backed out of making developers allocate 20% of their housing in any development for social housing because pressure was brought to bear on the Government.
If that happens, it should be brought up in the city council chamber and the city council management should investigate matters.
The Minister of State is standing up because he is very anxious to prevent me from speaking. The Minister and the Minister of State are now standing up to prevent me from speaking because they are embarrassed by the fact that I am talking sense. The big Minister stood up to save the small Minister.
I realise that the senile Member from Galway is probably deficient in hearing.
I wish the Minister would listen because he might learn from somebody who has served on a local authority. I was a member of both Galway City Council and Galway County Council so I know exactly what is going on. Fair dues to the Minister, he has shouted me down.
It would be a good idea if Deputy McCormack showed some manners but expecting him to display some manners after his long and undistinguished career would be pushing matters too far.
5 Mr. Gregory asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if, in view of the potential for electoral fraud arising from the large-scale inaccuracies in the electoral register, all voters will be required to produce identification before being permitted to cast their vote. [16791/06]
In establishing the detailed arrangements for citizens to cast their vote, it is necessary to strike a proper balance between the requirement to maintain the security and integrity of the electoral process and providing a necessary degree of flexibility. The Deputy is rightly concerned and has been concerned for some time about having maximum assurance about the genuine credentials of persons presenting themselves to vote. However, requiring the vetting of identification documents in all cases would cause delay in voting arrangements. More importantly, 100% vetting would remove a necessary flexibility from the system. For example, if an elderly voter who is well known to everyone at a polling station and is not challenged by anyone fails to bring along a particular document, would it be reasonable to reject his or her request to vote? I think not. We are not Ryanair.
Exempt the elderly.
That is not what Deputy Gregory asked in his question. At the polling station, the returning officer or the presiding officer may or, if required by a personation agent, shall request any person applying for a ballot paper to produce a specified identification document. I will not list the range of documents because they are well known to Members of the House.
If a person fails to produce a required document or if the returning officer or the presiding officer is not satisfied that the person is the person to whom the document relates, he or she is not to be permitted to vote. My Department has considerably strengthened its recommendations to returning and presiding officers about the frequency of document checking. Prior to 2002, the recommended frequency was one in 20 and in 2002, this was increased to one in four. I will continue to insist that the recommended frequency be one in four in the upcoming general election.
Electoral law sets out a range of offences and penalties in respect of personation, including a new offence provided for under the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2004 for the unlawful possession or use of a polling information card. I will continue to keep this important matter, including the scope for further improvements, under review. Deputy Gregory must accept that some degree of flexibility in the polling station is positive.
I do not know what the aim of this flexibility is. Did the Minister have in mind the flexibility to personate someone? Anyone, regardless of age, must produce identification when he or she wishes to collect a pension, access a post office account or obtain a residential parking disc from a local authority. Regardless of the transaction they are engaged in, people require identification, and rightly so. However, one does not need to produce identification when one is electing a Government. Even under the Minister's new arrangement, 75% of voters can present themselves with no identification. They do not even require a polling card. All they need to produce is a name and address, and if challenged, they can walk away. This is the democratic process, Fianna Fáil style.
The Minister was correct in saying that I have raised this question for very good reasons since I entered this House because I have witnessed what went on in polling stations in my constituency, activity which was not confined to Fianna Fáil.
Hear, hear. Look at Dublin North-Central.
The issue of who was involved in this activity was well covered by the Sunday Independent a few years ago.
Does Deputy Gregory have a question for the Minister?
Does the Minister not accept that my request is really an appeal to make the democratic process secure? If the Minister issues an instruction that anyone presenting himself or herself to vote must bring along a piece of identification, be it a passport, pension book or utility bill, it will not cause delay. If this message is disseminated, people will not turn up without identification. They do not go to the post office without identification when they want their social welfare book and they always bring identification to any place where it is required. The Minister should at least give people that much credit. The Minister has responsibility in this regard but under the present system, is allowing a situation to continue where there is——
It is now Question Time, it is not a time for speeches and we are running out of time.
I am asking the Minister whether he is aware that he is allowing——
I ask the Deputy to give way to the Minister.
Does the Minister not accept that under the present system, he is overseeing a situation where there is no deterrent against mass personation, yet three or four votes can elect a Member of this House?
Deputy Gregory is making a speech. I ask the Deputy to give way to the Minister. It is now Question Time.
A total of 75% of people will not require identification and will not be challenged in the polling station. Anyone who is challenged can simply walk away.
Members have complained that we are not getting through questions. We get through three questions per day.
Perhaps Deputy Gregory is more interested in the question than the answer. To require an inspection of specific documentation in all cases of people coming to polling stations would be impractical and would delay matters.
Nonsense.
That is precisely what Deputy Gregory said because his question referred to all voters.
Yes.
I listened to Deputy Gregory's ranting so I would be grateful if he would listen to my answer. It is called courtesy. If one were to ask that every person be challenged and that a person be disallowed a vote, particularly an elderly person who does not possess a specific document at the time, Deputy Gregory would be the first person to rightly challenge it. The operation of the challenging system would deliver what Deputy Gregory wishes to achieve. A one in four challenge is significantly higher than would be the norm in any transaction. Deputy Gregory is correct in saying that people in the main are used to carrying identification. This is why I feel it is appropriate that we increase challenges from one in 20 to one in four. To suggest that we should challenge every voter, even when he or she may be an elderly voter who may have lived for 60 or 70 years in the same house and is well known to every person in the polling station, and decide on a bureaucratic whim that he or she should be denied the opportunity to vote is impractical and undemocratic.
The Minister is a disgrace.
That language is not appropriate in a House of Parliament.
That remains my view.
I would prefer Deputy Gregory to keep such views to himself and not express them in this House.
I am not here to keep my views to myself.
The Minister should examine the situation in Dublin North-Central.
My views about Deputy Gregory will remain unspoken because the decorum of the House will not allow me to put them on the record. "Chancer" would be one of the words I would use, but I will not use it.
