Vol. 629 No. 3
48 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the reason he has closed off the opportunity to appeal special area of conservation designations already notified to the European Commission without allowing a period for landowners to submit appeals; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42247/06]
There has been no amendment of the provisions relating to special areas of conservation, SACs, appeals as set out in the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1997. These provisions allow persons with a legal interest in designated areas to object to such designations, on scientific grounds, within a three-month period from the time of designation. Moreover, in circumstances where a candidate site has already been notified to the European Commission for acceptance as an SAC, the habitats directive and the regulations provide that no alteration of site boundaries shall be made without the consent of the Commission. The three months allowed for appeals in respect of SAC designations compares favourably with the 28 day appeals period available for objections under planning and environmental law generally.
Ireland is required by a decision of the European Court of Justice to finalise and transmit to the European Commission the boundaries of our SACs. In these circumstances, it is necessary to adhere to the formal provisions of the 1997 regulations regarding appeals and not to permit administrative derogations from these, as had been practised in some cases in the past. This approach is also justified given the improved notification procedures to land holders which are now being operated by my Department.
I am satisfied that it is not only legally necessary but also fair and reasonable to apply the statutory three-month period provided for SAC appeals.
I thank the Minister of State for his response. Is it not the case that until last month the three-month period for appeal was not enforced by the Department and farmers continued to have the opportunity to make appeals to the Department, and that such facility has been withdrawn as and from a decision by the Minister of State last month? Is it not the case that the Minister of State has introduced new notification procedures because the previous notification procedures were wholly inadequate? For example, I received a telephone call last week from a farmer who applied for planning permission on his land but was refused because his lands were designated as an SAC. He was not aware that was the case, even though the SACs were designated three years ago, until he received the refusal from the local authority. He cannot appeal that designation because that window of opportunity is not open to him. Is there not an onus on the Department, first, to notify farmers directly rather than by publishing advertisements in the newspapers and, second, to explain to farmers what the designation means?
The answer to Deputy Naughten's first question is "yes". It was introduced during 2001. For nine years the farming community should have been aware that some of their lands were designated. There has been an opportunity over a nine-year period. In addition, the National Parks and Wildlife Service has notified through radio, television and newspaper advertising, and through the provision of maps in public places such as libraries, Garda stations and other public utilities, that these areas are designated. As a former member of a local authority, I might point out to Deputy Naughten that SACs would also have been applied in the ongoing provision and changes in county development plans. Every effort has been made by the Department to notify individuals of this designation.
The three farming organisations were made aware of the difficulties when they were met on 31 October. It was made quite clear to them at that time that what had gone on in the past could no longer apply. We got a reasoned opinion, as of 18 October, which clearly set out to us that unless some action was taken in terms of finalising the designation, this country would be subject to serious fines. Such has been the case in France and Greece. It is of substantial concern to this country that we would get this matter in its proper perspective and that we would abide by the provisions of the directive.
Is it not the case that the main delay in processing appeals has been the delay by the Department and its agents in furnishing documentation to the appeals committee? Is it appropriate to put a map in a library and in a Garda station where the vast majority of the population do not visit on a regular basis, and does that satisfy the criteria in providing public notification to farmers?
Is it not the case that there are numerous examples throughout the country of where areas of land have been designated, which are a significant distance from what people believe is the SAC, and of where there is no scientific basis for it? In fairness, the appeals committee has taken those parcels of land out of the designation. As farmers were given no notification, this decision was literally taken overnight. Is it not the case that when the Minister of State met the three farming organisations on 31 October, they expressed their strong objection to bringing in this decision literally overnight without giving farmers the opportunity to make a formal appeal?
Over the nine-year period, where the Department was aware of the ownership of land, all the people concerned were written to. In certain instances there might be a question over the ownership of certain parcels of land and to make contact with those people, all the other devices of making that information available were used — the media, public notices and maps in public places.
In addition, we used a process whereby we had access to all the land holdings known to the Department of Agriculture and Food. As a result, we were able to make contact with each of the owners of the parcels of land. Over that period 1,500 appeals were lodged by farmers, which seems to suggest they were very much aware of the opportunity to appeal within a three-month period. I can confirm that we will examine and honour all those appeals and we hope to have done that by year end.
49 Mr. Perry asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the anticipated effect of the national water pricing policy which will result in a new countrywide consolidated charge for water services; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42570/06]
There are no proposals for a new countrywide consolidated charge for water services. Each of the 34 city and county local authorities have financial and management autonomy in their functional areas, and will continue to operate individually, in the setting of water charges for non-domestic users.
The Government's water pricing policy envisages full and transparent cost recovery of water services supplied to the non-domestic sector. Cost recovery from the non-domestic sector is to be achieved by way of a consolidated, meter-based volume charge to be applied within the functional area of the relevant authority. I envisage that local authorities will have completed the metering of all non-domestic water users by the end of 2007. The effect of this will be to enable local authorities to measure the amount of water supplied to each non-domestic water connection, thus providing a transparent and equitable cost recovery mechanism for non-domestic water services in accordance with the polluter pays principle.
I should point out that the question was misspelled. It should have referred to countywide, rather than countrywide, charges. I apologise in that regard.
If counties have not completed their water metering programme, they do not have to apply the county at large charge in 2007. It is inequitable that the same circumstances do not apply in every county. Until it does, it can be deemed unfair that it applies to certain counties like, for example, County Louth.
Where non-domestic users in towns such as Drogheda and Dundalk had water and sewerage charges applied, users in Ardee and Dunleer paid water charges only. This year, users in Ardee and Dunleer will have to pay water and sewerage charges and this involves a significant increase — up from 80 cent per cubic metre to €1.55 per cubic metre. This will have a significant and adverse impact on some communities whereas other communities in other counties do not pay this county at large charge.
Individual councils control these matters. The current system of volume charges can be very unjust to individual users. One will find people paying higher charges than necessary if they are charged simply on the volume of water that enters their system. Some councils have also made a single charge for "water in and waste out".
The installation of meters is the only way to achieve equitable charging for non-domestic water users. I understand that metering is well advanced. The Deputy mentioned County Louth and I understand that it has almost completed its metering programme. We expect the balance of the country will be metered by the end of this year or early next year.
If the metering programme is not completed in a county, the consolidated county at large charge does not apply and businesses will therefore pay the same this year as they paid last year. However, where the metering programme has been completed, users in towns outside major urban areas which have a separate rating capacity now face a doubling in the charge they paid last year. Non-domestic users in other counties are getting away completely. These charges are being applied as a result of the directive the Minister issued. I ask him to delay the directive for at least another year until all counties are in compliance.
I am not aware of the specific case the Deputy has mentioned.
It is unusual and it is not equitable.
If the Deputy wishes to send me a note, I will look into it. It sounds like a perverse effect. It is, of course, more equitable that everyone pays on the same basis.
These users only had water charges levied last year, whereas this year water and sewerage charges have been applied in some towns.
The Deputy has made the point clearly. If that were to continue, it would be inequitable. Some users would be paying the full cost while others are not.
That is what the county at large charge means. That is the point.
Does the Minister believe it is fair that farmers should be charged for individual meters? In one instance, a farmer has been charged for the installation and running costs of 13 meters; 20% of farmers have to pay for more than five meters and the majority of farmers, especially those in the west, must pay for at least three meters. Does the Minister think this is acceptable?
Does the Minister believe the commercial users of water should have to pay for the leakage on the public element of that supply? This can happen where the local authority, through a lack of investment, has allowed leakage to occur. Should farmers and commercial users have to pay for the water that does not reach their places of work?
An allocation of €10 million was provided in the budget for the installation of equipment. Does this help cover the cost of the installation of meters and the repair of leaks?
Does the Minister accept that the increase in these charges, from 80 cent to €1.55 in Louth as outlined earlier, will have a substantial, adverse effect on the competitiveness of businesses in those areas and seriously damage the economy?
I previously received a reply from the Minister outlining the charges applied by each local authority and these varied from 60 cent per unit to €2.60 per unit. Can the Minister account for this variance? Is it an income generator, or is it only supposed to cover the cost of providing the service? For example, Intel in my constituency is a major user of water and we must be aware of the impact charges would have on future industrial developments.
Why has the installation of meters in new homes and apartment building been insisted upon?
I previously asked the Minister about farmers with many separate water taps and he said he would look kindly on their circumstances. A bill ranging from several hundred euros up to €1,000 can be a heavy ongoing expense for farmers. I hope he will reiterate his previous position. Some farmers may keep stock indoors for half the year and do not use the water meters.
I will start with the issue of multiple metering raised by Deputies Naughten and Cowley. It is a specific problem, particularly in places like Sligo and parts of the west where there are multiple or fragmented holdings. I have already indicated that I am favourably disposed to resolving that and will issue guidelines to local authorities. More prudent attention could have been paid to this factor when some local authorities were establishing their charging systems. As Deputies are aware, I do not like intervening in areas that I regard to be within the specific responsibility of local authorities. The active functions and powers of local authorities have haemorrhaged to the centre for generations and I do not like that fact. This is an area where local authority members have some responsibility and they should exercise it.
That leads me to the points raised by Deputy Murphy. There are inexplicable differences in charges from area to area and I was pleased to publish and circulate that information. We have informed local authorities by circular that when they are striking their rates they should not, to take the point raised by Deputy Morgan, perceive it as some sort of cash cow to be milked. They must ensure cost recovery because otherwise the burden will fall on the general taxpayer; it is right and proper that business should carry some of the cost.
Deputy Naughten asked about fragmented holdings. I will be issuing a circular in that regard. I do not think the Deputy asked specifically whether it was fair that a person with a smallholding had to pay for up to 13 meters but the answer, in any case, is "No." That case should never have arisen and I will issue guidelines on abatement. Local authority members can now make those decisions but there needs to be homogeneity.
The Deputy also asked about the cost of running the scheme, including the cost of unaccounted-for water, which is a euphemism for the more common term, "leaks". We do not charge for the domestic element in this country but we charge for all other aspects of water services. Irrespective of the charging system, and bearing in mind that the domestic element is paid for by the general taxpayer, the full costs must be met. However, a more significant issue arises with regard to leakage, in the reduction of which we have invested a lot of money in the past two years. It is unacceptably high in some areas, for example it is more than 40% in the city of Dublin, which is an outrageous amount. A small investment of capital to address the problem of unaccounted water, or leakage, in the past few years has reduced the level from over 42% to below 32% in Dublin. That is the way forward and it is an issue we continue to press with local authorities.
There is no incentive for local authorities to deal with it. It is paid for by local ratepayers.
That is not quite true.
50 Mr. Curran asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his views on the European Commission’s decision on Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions national allocation plan; and the way the decision on Ireland’s plan compared to the plans submitted by the other EU member states. [42649/06]
I welcome the European Commission's conditional acceptance of Ireland's second national allocation plan, which was announced on 29 November. This is the first stage in a process that will enable us to make a final decision on the allocation of allowances to operators in the emissions trading sector for the period 2008-12. The Commission's approach to our plan recognises that Ireland was one of the few member states which carried out the allocation process correctly in the first national allocation plan in 2004 and we have followed the same approach in the second plan.
The Commission has raised a number of issues in the plan, to which Ireland must respond by 31 December. In particular, it considers that Ireland has not fully substantiated its proposals for Government purchases of carbon allowances, which I addressed in the Dáil last week, and it expects transport emissions to increase by more than we have projected. On foot of these concerns, the Commission seeks a reduction of 6.4% in our proposed allocation of allowances to the emissions trading sector.
In my response to the Commission, I will be able to provide considerably more substantiation of our arrangements for Government purchases. Following the approval of the Dáil on 30 November, I signed a contract with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development for €20 million to secure carbon allowances. Last Friday, I published the Carbon Fund Bill 2006 and this is scheduled for Second Stage debate on Thursday, 14 December. I will seek Dáil approval this week to enter into agreement with the World Bank with a view to an investment of a further €20 million. I have also responded on the question of transport emissions and on a number of issues of a technical nature which were raised by the Commission.
Ireland's response will inform the Commission's further consideration of our plan and I believe we will reach agreement on an allocation closer to what was originally proposed in final discussions with the Commission.
I appreciate that the Minister must make the submission by 31 December but I wish to ask about the transport allowances to which he referred. The Minister for Finance made specific reference in the budget last week to the fact that he intended to review the manner in which car tax is paid, moving away from the current system based on cubic capacity to one based on emissions. Will that form part of the submission the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, will make?
I do not accept that the Commission's approach to the transport allocation is correct. The national allocation plan, when read with the ICF Consulting-Byrne Ó Cléirigh report of 2006 which underpins it, very clearly sets out information on projections, policies and measures for the transport sector. These do not appear to have been fully taken into account. I held only a very brief conversation with the Commissioner but I will make that point. I will also draw the Commissioner's attention to the fact that the transport sector is clearly dealt with in Ireland's Pathway to Kyoto Compliance, which was drawn to the attention of the Commission following its publication.
In general, the Commission's response to Ireland's second national allocation plan was very positive.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
