I remind the House the supplementary questions and answers are limited to one minute.
Other Questions.
Motor Taxation.
Jan O'Sullivan
Question:8 Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his plans to increase motor taxation for 2007; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36502/06]
I am currently examining the feasibility of more closely aligning motor taxation with rated CO2 emissions particularly for the private car category which accounts for nearly 80% of the national vehicle fleet. No decisions have yet been made on the specific changes that may emerge from this exercise; current motor tax rates have remained unchanged since 2004. However, I will be ensuring that overall motor tax buoyancy levels are sustained as an appropriate ongoing source of funding for local authorities. Current motor tax receipts up to the end of October this year show an increase of 10% compared with last year — Deputy O'Dowd has rejoined us — against a background of a 6% increase in the national vehicle fleet, suggesting there has been significant improvements in collection.
The Minister has indicated he will be using motor taxation as a tool to deal with greenhouse gas emissions. I welcome that, as I believe will other Members. It appears from the record that motor taxation has increased steadily, by approximately €100 million per year. It is almost exactly that amount since 2002. Is it the Minister's intention to increase that amount considerably in view of the need to deal with the problem of greenhouse gas emissions or will he leave it steady as she goes, so to speak, at another €100 million?
I do not want to anticipate any changes of a fiscal nature that might be made, and motor taxation in general is of a fiscal nature, but the Deputy is correct. The national vehicle fleet including cars, vans etc. on our roads has increased steadily and as I said when Deputy O'Dowd was not listening——
I always listen to the Minister.
——the collection rate for motor tax has improved significantly. It is up 10% while the vehicle fleet grew only 6% last year.
This could be done in a way that is revenue neutral or in a way that is not revenue neutral. The general point I am making is that it would be a good idea to move to charging a tax, which more directly reflects the emissions from the pipe of a vehicle. That is the general direction but I ask the Deputy not to ask me to anticipate any changes of a fiscal nature because, unfortunately, I will not be in a position to answer him.
I welcome the Minister's comments. Green taxes are constructive and those based on CO2 emissions would meet the needs. I am concerned that the Minister did not include HGVs in his comments because they do many more journeys than the average motor car. I do not have the emissions figures to hand but I believe that a significant number of HGVs are over six years old and therefore would be very high polluters. The Minister ought to tax cars and HGVs that are older and therefore have very high emissions. He should not shrink from that responsibility.
The Deputy knows I am not a shrinking violet; I am inclined to grasp difficult positions. I have listened to what he said.
I support the Minister on it.
I am grateful for that, although he does not always support me. I do not have figures on the largest number of individual vehicle miles. I will inquire if we have HGV figures but if he wants to put down a written question I will get them for the Deputy.
Social and Affordable Housing.
Róisín Shortall
Question:9 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the number of voluntary housing schemes currently awaiting approval in his Department; the number of housing units represented by these schemes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36495/06]
Joan Burton
Question:42 Ms Burton asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the number of co-operative housing schemes currently awaiting approval in his Department; the number of housing units represented by these schemes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36496/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 and 42 together.
My Department provides capital funding through local authorities to approved housing bodies which provide accommodation in accordance with the terms of my Department's schemes for voluntary and co-operative housing.
Funding is no longer a constraint on progress as far as implementation of the voluntary and co-operative housing programmes are concerned. In February of this year, I substantially increased the capital grant maxima for new projects. In 2006, my Department provided a record €243 million in funding for the sector.
There are currently four projects with 48 units of accommodation under technical examination and awaiting approval in my Department. Otherwise, my Department has approved some 48 projects to proceed to tender stage for the delivery of 966 units of accommodation. There are, in addition, a further 49 projects with 947 units of accommodation where the Department has sought clarification and further documentation from the local authorities. In all cases, the Department works with the local authority and the voluntary body to progress these projects to completion as quickly as possible.
I welcome the Minister of State's reply, in particular the increased amount for the voluntary sector. The Minister will probably be aware that my county is somewhat of a champion of voluntary sector housing. I championed it myself when I was in the Minister of State's position in the Department and it has been operating since.
I bring to the Minister's attention the crisis that exists in the social housing area where voluntary housing is directly involved. I will give the Minister one example. Celbridge, which the Minister knows well because he opened a housing scheme there recently, is a middle class town. There are 1,600 families on the waiting list for social and affordable housing in the town. This figure is extraordinary. Although a very large sum of money has been allocated to address the problem, it is simply not enough, even when combined with the other moneys available. There is a need for a further allocation and I hope the Minister of State will press his colleagues in Cabinet to ensure it is made.
Does the Minister of State agree there is a need to make some changes in the voluntary housing sector? Landlords now seem to own far more houses than all others and Respond resists very strongly the possibility of tenants purchasing their houses. Will the Minister allow for a purchase scheme in the voluntary housing sector that is similar to that pertaining to local authority homes? I know he will meet strong resistance, as I did when I tried it.
At political level, we receive requests all the time to introduce tenant purchase schemes in the voluntary housing sector. The Deputy is correct that some large organisations are strongly opposed to it. Last December, we stated in our policy document that we would instigate a pilot scheme pertaining to tenant purchase in a small number of new schemes. This must be done in consultation. Some discussions have taken place and I would like to believe we could have pilot schemes pertaining to existing developments also.
Many residents, particularly those in integrated estates such as those in Celbridge, might be working in the same factory. Some 30 houses in the estate might be local authority houses and 30 others might be associated with voluntary housing. When everyone was unemployed in 1985, for example, this did not matter, but it does at present in that the one group can buy their houses and the other cannot. This must be addressed slowly and through consultation.
Deputy Stagg stated his county is a champion of voluntary housing. The schemes in question would be one of the smaller ones. I sometimes wonder whether they should have been part of co-operatives rather than voluntary housing associations, but that is another issue.
I understand what the Deputy is saying but he should note that all of the €243 million allocated for voluntary housing will probably not be used. Local authorities received an allocation of approximately €980 million this year and the Department's housing Vote amounts to €2 billion. We have made extra money available this year and we have committed additional money over the coming years. Our main problem is trying to make the local authorities and voluntary bodies deliver. There is no shortage of money at present.
While there is always a demand for housing, it should be noted the number on the waiting list this year dropped by 10% as compared to the figure for three years ago. This may be due partly to improvements in the compilation of the list, but there is a slight decrease nevertheless.
I wish the money were spent quicker. I would love to be able to say to the Minister for Finance that the allocation is all gone. It is the other way around, however, in that we are driving the local authorities and voluntary bodies so they will do more and use all the money available to them.
I concur with the Minister of State and empathise with him. I sometimes despair of the local authorities.
I despair of the Minister of State.
In fairness, if money is being provided to local authorities and they are not doing their job, it is not the Minister of State's fault. I had the same experience when I was Minister of State and, as a result, I did something which was probably unorthodox, that is, I addressed meetings of councillors. I went to the elected members over the heads of the officials and it was effective. I told the members the amount of money they had available to them and the number of houses they could provide each year and we achieved our targets much more readily than we would have done had we dealt directly with officials. My council is one of the worst in the country for spending the money available to it. I ask the Minister of State to go directly to the elected representatives to get them on the job in addition to their officials.
I try to communicate that message to colleagues in the House. They may not be members of councils any more but at least they have links with them.
Have an open estate.
The Deputy may have a point. Members of the Oireachtas still have links with councillors and we try to communicate with them when travelling around the country.
Some phenomena never cease to amaze me. I met a delegation from a particular local authority not so long ago which was looking for more money for the authority's programme. I outlined the facts to the delegation and was rather surprised some weeks ago to find out that what the local authority officials regarded as a really big scheme was shot down at council level over some technical difficulties associated with Part 8 or Part 10 of the legislation. In reality, they did not want the scheme and they were put under pressure by those with a snobbish point of view.
As public representatives, we sometimes shout and roar and councillors are no better or worse than us in this regard. They want social housing and talk about the figures. They want the Government to provide money but when it comes to making a decision at council level, their bravery sometimes diminishes. Our job is to provide the resources and we are doing so. In the past, different Ministers might have slowed down submissions in the hope they would not run out of money. It is the other way around at present in that we are chasing the councils to make applications for projects.
If the local authorities are not doing their jobs and producing the houses, responsibility should be removed from them. They must meet their responsibility in respect of the applicants.
Reference was made to a reduction in the number on waiting lists for housing. In County Louth, there has been an increase — the number almost doubled in the past year. This may be because more single people are living in the county or because more people are moving to the county. One must acknowledge the reality that there are significant increases in the numbers on waiting lists in some counties.
I agree with Deputy Stagg that people living in houses such as those managed by Respond should be able to purchase them. Why should one family be able to buy its local authority flat while another family in the same complex, whose flat is not a local authority unit, cannot do so? This must be addressed. There is no reason that Respond or any other group should oppose this move. Everyone has the right to buy his or her own home.
Conversely, when local authorities purchase houses outside their stock, could they not be offered to Respond tenants or others in similar houses which they could never purchase? It would give the tenants an opportunity to start buying. This is everyone's right and people want to do it for their families.
We hope to initiate a pilot tenant purchase scheme to see how it will operate. I can well understand why the voluntary housing body would still want to control an estate and be responsible for the green areas therein. I see merit in this because its input and commitment might decrease if it were only looking after half the estate. I am sure it would be possible to have some sort of scheme or co-operative — I do not want to use the phrase "management company" — whereby the house owner would still pay a certain amount for estate management or landscaping.
There has been a reduction of 9.8% in the number on waiting lists for housing. Many people are on more than one local authority housing list, particularly in Dublin where there are four local authorities. Perhaps we encourage this and I probably do so myself at clinics. Louth and Meath county council areas are just out the road and, depending on where one's constituent lives, one might encourage him or her to include himself or herself on a couple of lists. When we carry out the overall national assessment, we account for this duplication by co-ordinating all the information so that the final figure amounts to less than the sum of the parts.
The aforesaid phenomenon might feature more in Dublin than in the middle of certain other counties. In the greater Dublin area, people are inclined to back all horses and include themselves on the lists of Fingal County Council, Dublin City Council and South Dublin County Council. When we compile all the figures, we often discover the true size of the waiting list is much smaller than expected. Co-ordination in the compilation of the data has improved. During the last assessment, we used PPS numbers and this helped to tidy up the figures. That was not the only reason for the reduction in the numbers, but it helped. People who were renting privately and were moving from one rent allowance to another used to sit on local authority lists under a couple of different addresses.
The Minister of State referred to a scheme that has been turned down by councillors. The only example I have seen of that related to the design. Will the Minister of State ensure that local authorities stop designing duplexes for single parents, who have to drag children, prams and trolleys up dangerous outside stairs in winter and summer?
Yes.
Such designs are totally inappropriate. I know of a project in Kildare that was sent back to the design stage for that reason.
I hear what the Deputy is saying.
Does the Minister of State know what I mean by outside stairs?
I was not speaking about Kildare on that occasion. I was referring to a case further afield.
Waste Management.
Seymour Crawford
Question:10 Mr. Crawford asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he will comment on the excess capacity of landfill available in the State which may make it cheaper now to dump rather than recycle waste; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36601/06]
Séamus Pattison
Question:13 Mr. Pattison asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he will initiate a review of the eight regional development plans to examine the waste management facilities and proposals in each plan, following his assertion that the need for incineration has been over-estimated; and if he will instruct persons carrying out such reviews to consider alternatives to municipal incineration. [36521/06]
Phil Hogan
Question:119 Mr. Hogan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his views on the recent report of the Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants, entitled Excess Landfill Capacity, and its impact on the implementation on Irish waste policy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36600/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10, 13 and 119 together.
Irish waste management policy is based on the internationally recognised integrated approach to waste management, the main emphasis of which is on waste prevention, reuse and recycling. Landfill is the least preferable option from an environmental perspective. It is planned to decrease its contribution over time as recycling levels increase and alternative infrastructure becomes available. Significant landfill capacity is required in the short term until alternative treatment is available for non-recyclable material. Some landfill capacity will be needed for residual waste in the longer term. Various policy instruments are available to ensure that the role of landfill is consistent with national waste policy, including the landfill levy being applied. Other instruments can be developed if required.
The diversion of waste from landfill sites will be driven by the implementation of the national biowaste strategy, which I published recently. The strategy sets out a comprehensive approach to achieving the target of increasing the level of diversion from 630,000 tonnes of biowaste in 2004 to 1.8 million tonnes by 2016. The strategy was finalised following a thorough and detailed process of consultation with all the stakeholders. I am confident that this ambitious target will be met as successfully as we have met the target for recycling. According to the latest data, the overall rate of recycling in 2004 was almost 34%, compared to 9% in 1998. The national target, to be achieved by 2013, is 35%. We have already passed the 2013 target. The position is even more dramatic in respect of packaging waste. The rate of recycling of such waste was 56% in 2004. We have already met the key target of 50% by 2005, which was set by the European Union. These achievements have been supported since 2002 by the provision to local authorities of approximately €100 million in grant assistance in respect of recycling facilities.
The planning authorities and the Environmental Protection Agency are responsible for determining the number and scale of individual facilities, having regard to the relevant regional waste management plan and national policy. I have issued a policy direction to facilitate a more rational use of waste management facilities. The direction clarifies for planning authorities and the EPA the national policy position on inter-regional movements of waste. As Members are aware, one used to be allowed to export waste from Kildare to Germany, but not from Kildare to an adjoining county, which was ridiculous.
Some waste was moved from Dublin to Kildare.
Yes. I have initiated a process of public consultation on the future economic regulation of the waste management sector. That process has attracted over 50 submissions, including a submission from the industry body that was mentioned in one of the questions. The wide-ranging remit of the process of public consultation has been approved by the Government. The process will have regard to policy on the direction of waste to particular facilities, for example. I intend to finalise further policy proposals after I have considered the views of the various stakeholders.
The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government concluded its national overview of waste management plans in July 2004. The overview identified that good progress was being made in the implementation of the regional plans. The plans have subsequently been reviewed by the local authorities on the basis of significant public consultation. I am satisfied that the regional waste management plans properly reflect the needs of individual regions and the range of available technologies. If Deputies want to ask supplementary questions about the tonnage capacity in various areas, on foot of the problems which arose in that regard in the Dublin area, I will be happy to take them.
I welcome the increase in the rates of recycling. Question No. 10 was tabled after some recycling companies stated in the media that they could not compete with landfill facilities. It has been suggested that people are choosing to dump rather than recycle because the cost to such companies of recycling waste products is greater than the cost of dumping those products. The companies in question have asked for an adjustment to be made. I appreciate that the Minister has made a comprehensive statement in this regard. I do not have a copy of what he said, but I will read it later. The key issue for the recycling companies is the need for the Minister to use every instrument available to him to ensure that it is cheaper to recycle than to dump. If the Minister has to subsidise that, he should do so. Recycling is working better in some areas than in others, as the Minister pointed out. The regional waste management plans will not work unless we ensure that it is economic to recycle. We need to find markets for recycled goods in Ireland and overseas. I understand that a fund of approximately €1 million has been put in place to support recycling. I am not sure what is the exact number.
We have made €100 million available since 2002.
We need to put in place more measures of that nature. If we do not ensure that recycling is economic, for example by subsidising it to make it economic, we will defeat the purpose of it.
The Deputy is correct. I am familiar with the industry. I would like to strike a note of caution. Deputies are familiar with Adam Smith's comment that when two businessmen get together, they sometimes conspire against the public interest. A degree of special pleading is taking place, particularly on the part of the Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants. The basic argument being made is that if a certain amount of landfill tonnage capacity is available, it can be uneconomical to move into the waste-to-energy industry. In 2001, less than four years of landfill capacity remained in Dublin, which was dangerous. Less than five years of capacity is available in Dublin at present, which means that we are not exactly out of the woods. The level of capacity that is generally available nationally will last for approximately eight years. That is probably a prudent approach, given that any other approach will need a long lead-in time.
The Deputy's point about making it easier for people to recycle was well made. One of the most dramatic things to happen here in that regard was the increase in the roll-out of household segregation facilities. Such an approach to recycling is becoming the norm, rather than the exception, and is producing critical tonnages. The decision I made last year on waste electrical and electronic equipment led to the development of three recycling facilities and the creation of over 300 jobs. Bring banks and civic amenity centres are part and parcel of this process. The 80th civic amenity centre in this country is about to be opened. I agree with Deputy O'Dowd that such facilities have to be made available. The V & W facility in Dundalk, for example, is marvellous, amazing and astonishing. People meet there because it is seen as a place of social gathering.
It is the same in Drogheda.
Such facilities make it much easier for people to recycle. A general review of the whole area of waste regulation is under way, as I have said. The self-serving arguments which are being made by some interests within the industry have to be balanced with the public good.
There is a cost issue too.
I welcome the recycling figures, which are impressive and good. There is scope to do better in the future. If we have an over-capacity of landfill facilities and a planned over-capacity of incineration facilities, does the Minister agree that it will be difficult to convince anybody to go down the expensive route of recycling, rather than to put waste materials in landfills or to give such materials to the operators of incinerators, whose fires are hungry and require regular feeding? There will be an incentive to bring waste products to incinerators. According to the question tabled by my colleague, Deputy Pattison, the Minister asserted recently that "the need for incineration has been over-estimated". Will the Minister comment on that? Is he suggesting that he will instruct the people who are carrying out the reviews to propose alternatives to municipal incineration? Was that his intention when he made the comments to which I referred? Does he believe that too many incinerators have been provided for in the regional development plans? Does he agree that recycling could be more expensive than landfill and incineration facilities if the full cost is charged for such facilities? As well as making it easier, we must also make it cheaper for people to recycle.
I agree with the central thesis of the Deputy's question, which is that we must get the balance right. We had 76 local authority landfills in Ireland as recently as 1998, but that is down to 34 today. We are not oversupplied with landfill. There is a five-year supply in Dublin, but if one looks at the lead time, that is very tight. The situation in the rest of the country is somewhat better. The public statements from a particular sector have come primarily from an individual company that has a vested interest in depressing landfill in order to make it relatively more attractive to move into incineration. My job is to make sure that the balance is there and that we have a full range of facilities. An over-reliance on one or the other would not be healthy.
We certainly do not need an incinerator in each of the ten regions. We need to get the balance right and this will be the key to making the whole policy successful.
When can we expect to see the incinerators that the Minister sees as desirable?
I do not wish to comment on anything that is in the planning process, but an extraordinary situation occurred where a company that had applied for planning permission and applied for an extension then suggested that it may not go ahead with the construction. I understand that the company has clarified the position recently. We must accept that we have to handle our own waste, including our own hazardous waste and especially that coming from the pharmaceutical industry.
That would be in Cork.
There is planning permission down there for it. It makes sense that we have it because much of our key industry could be held hostage if we do not have the capacity. It is about getting the balance right. Where we have shown leadership, there has been a remarkable response, such as with the electronic waste. I could not have envisaged a situation 12 months ago in which Ireland would have moved from zero to virtual world leadership. We now have three of the best recycling facilities anywhere in Europe. Commissioner Dimas was here to look at one of the facilities and he could not believe it. Frankly, I could not believe it either. There are 300 people employed in that industry now. Waste should not be regarded as a problem, but as a potential resource.
Environmental Policy.
Jim O'Keeffe
Question:11 Mr. J. O’Keeffe asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the reason his Department has failed to obey a 2002 European Court of Justice ruling to implement sufficiently steps reclaiming Irish uplands vegetation damaged by sheep; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36613/06]
Dinny McGinley
Question:25 Mr. McGinley asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the expected level of fines that Ireland faces for failing to obey a 2002 European Court of Justice ruling to implement sufficiently steps reclaiming Irish uplands vegetation damaged by sheep; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36615/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11 and 25 together.
Over-grazing of livestock has given rise to environmental problems, particularly loss of vegetation and soil erosion in commonages. Damage to the habitat of the red grouse in the Owenduff Nephin Beg complex special protection area in County Mayo has been the subject of a continuing infringement case, under the birds directive, taken against Ireland by the EU Commission in the European Court of Justice. The reasoned opinion of 18 October 2006, issued by the Commission, calls on Ireland to implement measures and demonstrate improvements in this area and in other commonages.
My Department, in co-operation with the Department of Agriculture and Food and the European Commission, has been working to resolve the issue of appropriate commonage management, which is made complex by the multiple shareholdings involved. The two Departments have put in place a number of measures which are directed at meeting EU requirements fully. These measures include full rather that partial de-stocking under the commonage framework plans; a requirement for participation in REPS or the NPWS farm plans by farmers in the area; guidelines to planners on appropriate carrying capacities for commonages; and a special closed period for all sheep farming on the Owenduff Nephin Beg commonage for five months of the year, that is, from November to December and from mid-February to mid-May. Farmers will be paid compensation for additional costs arising from the removal of sheep for this closed period.
In addition, my Department is increasing the monitoring of the condition of commonages and privately owned lands in designated areas. Where appropriate, it will take the necessary enforcement measures to secure compliance under the requirements of the directive. A national survey of the red grouse is also underway.
Can the Minister of State explain how compensation is arranged?
My Department has now agreed with farming representatives to make a payment of €40 per head for each ewe taken off the hills for the five-month period. We are also making a once-off payment of €2,000 to each existing REPS farmer in respect of de-stocking. A contract was entered into with REPS farmers which obliged them to de-stock at a particular level. They are now being asked to remove all of their ewes from the hills, so it is only right that they would receive extra compensation.
Are they happy with that?
Yes. There is an agreement with the farming community on that issue.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.