Vol. 629 No. 3
43 Mr. O’Dowd asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the number of extra affordable housing units he expects to be built as a result of the measures announced in budget 2007; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42881/06]
Budget 2007 introduced last week provides the necessary financial underpinning in my Department's capital envelope to deliver on its ambitious affordable homes target set out in Towards 2016.
Specifically, the Government has acted to address issues of housing affordability. A range of targeted schemes to assist first-time buyers has been put in place directed specifically at those who cannot meet their own housing needs. These include the shared ownership scheme, the 1999 affordable housing scheme, affordable housing through Part V of the Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2006 and the affordable housing initiative under Sustaining Progress.
In addition, we have established the affordable homes partnership to co-ordinate and accelerate the delivery of affordable housing in and around the capital. Since its establishment last year, the partnership has made progress in a number of areas. These include land exchanges, a "call for lands" initiative designed to bring forward additional land for affordable housing and the development of common approaches to the implementation of Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
The momentum of delivery under the various schemes is growing, particularly under Part V, and it is estimated that some 3,000 homes will be delivered from all the schemes this year. On the basis of the momentum now achieved, we have an ambitious target for the period 2007 to 2009 with some 17,000 homes in total to be delivered under the various affordable schemes. This is a substantial commitment to meeting the needs of first-time buyers seeking affordable housing.
Does the Minister of State agree that he has performed poorly in the supply of affordable housing, particularly under Part V? In view of the fact that approximately 90,000 houses will be built this year, the Minister of State should have told me that 18,000 affordable housing units will be coming on stream rather than the paltry 3,000 — welcome as they are — he has made available. Will he agree it is time for him, as Minister, to shake up the local authorities that are not delivering the affordable housing they ought to be delivering?
I do not accept the Deputy's suggestion that our performance in this respect is poor. The Deputy will note from the data available that the number of units has increased year by year. I explained the position about the Part 5 provision several times. It is a great idea and in time it will be a marvellous deliverer of social and affordable housing but, as we all know, it will take time for it to click in. It does not apply to planning permissions which existed prior to the introduction of the legislation. This year the figures are up on those of previous years. From now on we can expect a better dividend from the Part 5 provision. It will be proven in time to have been an innovative idea. The Deputy's party fought it tooth and nail at the time but I firmly believe in it. In time it will produce the goods in terms of social and affordable housing.
The Minister of State is not fighting tooth and nail for the people of Dublin or for the young people in his constituency. They have been forced to leave the city and must commute to Dublin from outlying counties. They have long commutes resulting in work days of up to 12 to 14 hours. This is the position because the Minister of State is not fighting their corner and ensuring that land is released. He is not ensuring that local authorities do their job.
It appears that the kernel of the issue is that a significant number of developers are sitting on land rather than developing it. Will the Minister of State introduce a "use it or lose it" provision in legislation to insist that where that is happening such land will be released and that affordable housing will be built on it? If he does not do that and continues on the path he is following, he will make it impossible for young people to buy their own home, to purchase an affordable house, particularly in his constituency and elsewhere in the city of Dublin.
This is the first generation of Dublin people who cannot afford to live beside their parents or grandparents and who must spend practically day and night commuting to and from work. In doing that they rarely see their own families. The Government has abjectly failed them. It has failed to provide the affordable housing that is badly needed. The Minister of State's performance today in saying that 3,000 units will be delivered this year is unacceptable.
The Deputy is making a long statement. He should ask a question.
It happens in every generation that, to a large extent, family members cannot afford to buy homes beside their parents.
That is not true.
In the part of Dublin from where I come people have moved from Drumcondra to Santry, Santry to Swords, Swords to Balbriggan——
People are now commuting from Portlaoise to Dublin.
——Cabra to Finglas and Finglas to Ballymun. That happens with every generation.
All aspects of the housing market have been under pressure in recent years because of the huge increase in population. One need only check the census figures to note that the population has increased by 8%. The percentage of people in the 25 to 34 year age bracket, which is the key household formation age group, has increased by18%, which is a huge increase. The people in that age bracket are working and contributing to the economy. Such an increase in the number in that age bracket has caused a huge demand for housing, be it private or other forms of housing. Dublin city is nearly totally built up. There is not much opportunity to provide further housing in the city other than increasing housing density. People are moving out further. Finglas County Council is the local authority area in which there has been the greatest level of development — a similar pattern applies to South Dublin County Council — and it has responded most to the challenge presented. Some people have moved to live in Drogheda, which is only up the road. Once one is at the airport it takes only ten minutes to reach Drogheda.
Some people have moved much further afield and they spend 12 hours a day commuting.
I realise that, but as I said to the Deputy previously, most of them are reasonable people.
This Administration has failed them.
If I was the Deputy I would not be afraid of them. Most of them are reasonable.
We are not afraid. The Government is not doing anything for them, that is the problem.
As the Deputy gets to know them and is nice to them, he might in time win their confidence.
The Minister of State should beware of the "Ides of April". We are nearing the Ides of March.
It may take a person ten minutes to travel from the airport to Drogheda but it took people ten hours to get through a pothole in Bray.
44 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the number of approved applicants for local authority housing in 1996; the number of such applicants in 2005; the percentage of housing output represented by social housing in 1996; the percentage in 2005; the number of social housing units completed to date in 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42630/06]
The assessment of housing need undertaken by local authorities in March 1996 indicated that a total of 27,427 households were in need of housing while the corresponding figure for March 2005 was 43,684 households. The March 2005 figure was a decrease of almost 10% on the corresponding figure of 48,413 households in March 2002. The decrease in the numbers on the waiting lists has resulted from the positive impact of the Government's investment in the provision of social and affordable housing.
Of the 33,321 new houses completed in 1996, 3,593 were social housing units, which represented over 10% of total output. In 2005, 80,957 new houses were completed, of which 5,559 units were social units, representing almost 7% of total output. The number of completed social housing units at the end of September this year was 3,340. It is expected that the total social housing output for this year, including acquisitions, will be in the region of 6,800. Overall, it is estimated that the needs of over 14,000 households will be addressed through social and affordable housing measures this year compared with 8,600 in 2000, six years ago.
Additional resources will be provided next year to address social and affordable housing need. A record provision of €1.5 billion is being made available, which is a 9% increase in Exchequer housing programmes over this year's levels and double the provision of six years ago.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply, notwithstanding the fact that he managed to describe a 16,000 increase in social housing numbers between 1996 and 2005 as a decrease. Did he see "Prime Time Investigates" last night? It showed the scandalous way in which home buyers in this country are being ripped off by estate agents and mortgage brokers, because of the failure of the Government to regulate these bodies. What action will he take to regulate estate agents and other professionals in the housing market? What action will he take to end the scandal of unfinished housing estates? What action will he take to regulate management companies and management charges? What will he do to end the rip off of young people trying to buy a home of their own?
Unfortunately, I did not see the programme last night, but from what I have heard, it covered areas that are not under my Department's responsibility.
The Minister of State was out knocking on doors.
The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has proposed that managing agents answer to the regulator dealing with estate agents. Mortgage brokers are already under the financial regulator and the data protection office. Several Departments are involved with management companies, including the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment when some management companies do not fill their company law requirements. The Law Reform Commission is working on an overall report, but several Departments are involved. The brokers also have to deal with the Department of Finance and the Central Bank.
I am surprised the Minister of State with responsibility for housing would not have taken time to watch a programme — well signalled in advance — dealing with an issue so central to housing policy. I am also surprised the extensive media monitoring units, available to the Government at the expense of the taxpayer, did not do the job for him so he could address the issue today. Instead, he has kicked to touch and stated it is the responsibility of other Departments.
The Labour Party proposed a Bill over five years ago to regulate the housing market, which was shot down by the Government. We have brought a number of private members' proposals before the House which dealt with taking charge of unfinished housing estates and the regulation of housing management companies and management charges, all of which were shot down by a Government that promised to do something in the future. After ten years in office, is it acceptable that the Government allows the scandalous rip-off that we saw demonstrated on television last night? Young people trying to buy a home of their own are being ripped off by unscrupulous chancers who have licence to do as they like from a Government which seems more interested in keeping some people's pockets full than protecting the consumer interests of home buyers.
I was not at home last night and I did not see the programme. I will try to view it this week. Nobody gave me a tape of it this morning. Questions were previously asked about the media monitoring service, of which I am aware.
We have acted on the issue of unfinished estates.
The Government half implemented our proposals.
Deputy Gilmore is stretching the question a bit.
I am asking about housing for which the Minister of State has responsibility.
The Deputy moved on a bit from that. I did not get to one part of the original reply and I am afraid that the Deputy might misinterpret the data I gave him.
I can count. There are twice as many people on the housing list now.
The information given was complete and thorough, but it did not include acquisitions. Local authorities buy approximately 1,000 units per year. If one were trying to make an accurate comparison between the numbers in social housing ten years ago and today, one would need to allow for the acquisitions. However, we could not give that figure because of the way the Deputy asked his question. Local authorities acquire houses through new buildings and second-hand purchases. We also need to look at the number in receipt of rent allowance.
Too many.
Okay. However, the number has risen from 30,000 to 60,000 in ten years. If the acquisitions and the number of private houses on rent allowances are factored in, things would be different.
45 Mr. Morgan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the results of meetings he has had recently with British Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Mr. Alistair Darling on the issue of Sellafield; if and when there are other meetings planned during the coming year; his plans to reiterate to the British Government the adverse environmental and health consequences that have arisen for Ireland in the past; the way he will reflect the unacceptable nature of Sellafield’s existence to the British Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42631/06]
In reply to Question No. 65 of 8 November 2006, I advised that my meeting with the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Mr. Alistair Darling MP, is due to take place on 9 January 2007. This follows my earlier meeting with Mr. Darling's predecessor, Mr. Alan Johnson MP, as well as contacts with my UK counterpart Mr. David Milliband MP, and with the chairman and chief executive of the British Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. I met earlier this year with European justice Commissioner Frattini, energy Commissioner Piebalgs and environment Commissioner Dimas to discuss Irish concerns on Sellafield in the context of the EU jurisdiction for nuclear safety.
Adverse environmental consequences have arisen for Ireland as a result of nuclear policy decisions and actions adopted by the UK. Our concerns about Sellafield have been consistently articulated to the UK Administration at Prime Minister, ministerial and official level and I intend to reiterate strongly these concerns to the UK Secretary of State next month. Ongoing contact through correspondence and meetings at ministerial, official and expert level is maintained with the UK authorities regarding a range of issues on the Sellafield plant. These contacts are productive and reflect an increasing recognition by the British Government of the serious concerns held by the Irish Government about Sellafield. This increasing recognition stems from the fact that this Government has consistently impressed upon the UK — through international legal actions and so on — that Ireland has a substantive interest in the nuclear issues under deliberation in the United Kingdom. However, there remains a significant difference in views between this Government and the British Government about the nuclear energy issue in general and more particularly on the continued operation of the Sellafield nuclear plant.
Government policy continues to reflect the firm position that the existence of Sellafield is an unacceptable threat to Ireland and that it should be closed in a safe and orderly manner. The Government will also continue to use every legal, political and diplomatic avenue open to it to secure the closure and safe decommissioning of the plant.
I should love to join the Minister at the meeting on 9 January.
The Deputy would be very welcome.
Will he agree that the British are now getting ahead of him again, substantially, as regards Sellafield and its reprocessing operations? Does he accept that the proposed new chain of nuclear power plants planned for across England, in particular, will feed Sellafield with waste for reprocessing for at least another generation? Is he aware that people wishing to object to those nuclear power plants cannot do so directly? They have to go through an advocate appointed by the British Government, who will not be permitted to engage, even to the point of giving information to the clients he or she represents, or share any information with the objectors. Will the Minister object to that whole new chain of power plants, because they will feed into and sustain Sellafield for some considerable time to come?
If the Minister so objects, will he accept an advocate acting on his behalf and through him, the Irish people? In the event, will he accept that level of restriction from the British Government? Given the week that is in it, that looks more like a salute to Pinochet than any type of democracy I could consider. I look forward to a brief supplementary.
I share the Deputy's view that the planning process about to be embarked upon in the United Kingdom is less than satisfactory. It is certainly less open, transparent and democratically acceptable than the Irish system. I have made clear, particularly in my meeting with Mr. Alan Johnson, Secretary of State for Education and Skills and the predecessors of Mr. David Miliband, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, that we do not agree with the build-up policy with which the British Government seems intent on pressing ahead. We have made it very clear that there is widespread opposition, not just in the Government parties, but across the entire democratic spectrum in Ireland. We have made it very clear that there are great concerns here.
We have also made clear to them that we have the right to do so, and, to be fair, they have accepted we have a view that must be factored in. The general issue encompasses the fact that we will continue to build as many alliances as we can on this, and not just across the Irish Sea. There are also concerns among other governments within the European Union. There is an increasing dawning of reality in Europe that the nuclear initiative, whatever else it is, is not the answer to global warming or the energy crisis. It is simply putting off the crisis and imposing on future generations the cost of dealing with energy issues today. The Deputy may feel assured that at each and every opportunity we will pursue the matter, and I am sure we shall have his support in so doing.
Does the Minister appreciate the level of destruction that is occurring on the eastern seaboard, particularly in my constituency in particular, as a consequence of the whole Sellafield plant and the emissions coming from it? Does he appreciate the urgency of the issue because people are dying in great numbers right across that area and a serious investigation is required to get to the bottom of this?
I am very sympathetic to the views expressed by the Deputy. These are views I have long shared. As a long-term reality we should all unite to make it abundantly clear to politicians of whatever persuasion in the UK that we do not believe this is acceptable, and neither is it a good solution for them.
46 Mr. McCormack asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he is satisfied that the level of local government funding is adequate to meet the increased responsibilities of local authorities, the increase in population as shown in Census 2006 and the increase in the level of housing due to the huge increase in construction activity in recent years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42879/06]
This question from Deputy McCormack touches on both capital and current expenditure so I shall deal with both. The Exchequer capital provision for mainstream capital programmes funded through my Department and administered by local authorities will amount to €1,976 million in 2007 representing a year on year increase of 7%. There will be some upward adjustment, when I mention non-national roads. When account is taken of the capital provisions for national roads, funded through the NRA, the Exchequer capital funding to local authorities in 2007 rises to €3,451 million, an increase of 8% over 2006. That is significant on the capital side.
Funding for 2007 to local authorities, through general purpose grants from the local government fund, will continue the strong trend of increasing central Government support for the local government sector. Yesterday I announced the allocation of almost €958 million to local authorities for 2007, increasing the level of general purpose grants by 8% over the final allocation for 2006. The 2007 allocations figure represents an increase 2.8 times the initial allocation provided in 1997. The allocation includes an additional €10 million to certain local authorities for additional operational costs associated with new water services infrastructure, which will be distributed shortly. Deputy McCormack will be aware that some local authorities are finding it difficult to make the transition from the full capitalisation of current costs and I will provide relief for them in that regard.
In total, the increase in funding is five times greater than the level of inflation, which was about 35%, between 1997 and the end of this year. This funding will assist local authorities in framing realistic and reasonable budgets in the statutory time period available to them to complete their budgetary process. Further allocations will be made to local authorities in January for non-national roads and local improvement schemes. These allocations will also show an increase on the allocation of €558 million provided for 2006.
The Government has provided unprecedented increases in funding to local authorities since 1997. I am satisfied that with our commitment to local government and increased income generated from the greatly strengthened commercial base supported by the Government's successful economic policies, local authorities are in a very good position to respond to the public's need for quality services. In allocating funding for 2007, I have taken into account the cost to each authority of providing its services, and factors including population increases and the income from local sources.
Additional Information not given on the floor of the House.
Local authorities have also benefited from substantial income from development levies, currently bringing in over €500 million per annum, as well as buoyancy in their rates' base in line with general business growth in the economy brought about by sound national economic policies. The adoption of a budget is one of the most important reserved functions conferred on local authorities as it underpins their financial business for the following year. While I have no direct function in budgetary decision making at local level, I have urged local authorities to continue to exercise appropriate restraint in setting any increases in commercial rates and charges. This is important to the long-term viability and competitiveness of commercial operations and to the overall competitiveness of the economy. Local authorities responded positively this year to my request in this regard and increases in rates and charges for 2006 were generally of a lower order than in previous years.
Current expenditure in the local government sector in 2007 is likely to be some €4.5 billion. Within this quantum of expenditure there is scope for efficiencies, innovation and further steps to ensure greater value for money. Elected members should examine their draft budget closely to ensure that every effort is made to get the maximum value for the expenditure proposed.
I accept what the Minister is saying to the effect that funds to local government have increased. He quoted almost a 7% increase in funds this year, but the cost to local authorities of fulfilling their duties has greatly increased also. They are now responsible for many more services than previously. The Minister mentioned funds for national primary and national secondary roads. I assume he realises that in the eastern and southern regions, as regards Cohesion and Structural Funds, six times more is spent than in the BMW region. There is clear discrimination against the BMW region as regards the amount of funds being spent on infrastructural projects. Recent figures showed that about six times more was being spent, despite the fact that it was the BMW region that helped Ireland qualify for the higher level of grants the last time, because the GNP was less than 90% of the European average.
Will the Minister explain, despite what he says about the 7% increase, why local authorities are still charging development fees and setting up management companies? The householder is paying for this all the time. Despite the fact that the Minister gave me genuine assurances in the House more than six months ago that he would instruct local authorities to discontinue placing conditions in planning permissions for management fees, they are still doing this. I should like him to look into that again.
I am grateful to the Deputy for that. If he wants to let me have particular details of any local authority which is operating in the manner he has outlined, I shall have the matter investigated. I am sure the Deputy is sincere in his assertion.
The increased funding for local authorities is five times higher than the rate of inflation over the past ten years, and that is a very significant increase. A question has been tabled for later on development charges in general, but there are absolutely phenomenal amounts of money flowing into the coffers of local authorities. The Deputy touched on the issue of the spend on non-national roads. The national road spend comes under the auspices of the NRA. He has a point in that regard. It is disappointing that as the Exchequer, under a number of different Administrations over the past decade, increased the resources it made available to local authorities for non-national roads, councils have cut the proportion of local funds they are putting into non-national roads. I have published some details on the website because it is important public representatives know the facts in this regard.
It is simply not acceptable that as central Exchequer funding for non-national roads rises, the proportion of funding from some local authorities falls. Ultimately however, this is within the control of local councils.
I have a supplementary question. If the Minister is giving this money to local authorities, why are there higher charges for water rates and development fees? Why are local authorities' commercial rates rising every year? Why are local authorities unable to balance their budgets, even with the 7% increase approved by the Minister, and still must impose such additional costs on the householders and business communities within their localities?
The Deputy is aware that last year saw relatively moderate rate increases nationwide and one local authority — Limerick City Council if I recall correctly — cut its rates for the first time for a long period. The circular letter I will issue this week to local authorities will ask them to exercise caution regarding rate increases. However, the gross rates figures achieved by local authorities reflect a considerable buoyancy in the commercial sector. The Deputy should note there are approximately 250,000 more small and medium sized companies than was the case and consequently, the rates yield is significant.
The Deputy is correct as this illustrates that tighter control within local authorities will certainly squeeze out more value for money. I made an announcement yesterday to the effect that I would make significant changes regarding audit committees within local authorities, to allow them to bring in expertise. A point made by councillors from across the political spectrum is that they find it increasingly difficult to come to grips with the estimates as presented. The latter are frequently described as being impenetrable and frequently are so. I want this to change because, like the Deputy, I want value for money in local government.
47 Ms C. Murphy asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he will seek an early review of local authority development contribution schemes; if so, when that will occur; the amount that has been collected by each local authority since the new schemes were adopted; if he has given consideration to the wide variation in the amounts levied per dwelling; if so, the impact this has had on the cost of house prices; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42633/06]
This issue touches on the point raised by Deputy McCormack's supplementary question. Prior to the enactment of the Planning and Development Act 2000, planning authorities could require payment of a development contribution as a condition of a planning permission on a discretionary basis. From 2004, in order to introduce transparency and openness to the system, each local authority was required to adopt a development contribution scheme stating the basis for determining the contributions to be paid in respect of public infrastructure and facilities in its area and indicating the contribution to be paid for different types of infrastructure.
Development contribution schemes are adopted by the democratically elected members of the individual planning authorities. They are reserved functions and it is a matter for councillors in each locality to decide democratically what the scale will be.
I consider the new system that was endorsed by the Oireachtas and which helps to ensure contributions are levied appropriately across all sectors of development to be fair and transparent. The question is asked as to why there are significant differences between localities. As development contributions constitute one of the fundamental sources of financing for infrastructure and underpin the facilities required in particular areas, it is inevitable there will be variation in development contribution rates.
However, in circular letter PD 4/2003 my Department advised planning authorities that they should be mindful of the policies adopted by other authorities in their immediate area in respect of setting the level of development charges. Planning authorities were also advised in the aforementioned circular that while it is expected that developers should make an appropriate contribution towards the costs of public infrastructure, care should be taken to avoid development contributions that are excessively high. Deputy McCormack's supplementary question touched on this point. My Department also has the opportunity to comment on draft schemes before they are adopted and has so done.
Circular letter PD 4/2003 also stated it would be advisable to review the scheme at two to three year intervals, where the scheme is adopted for a longer period. The Department has established an interdepartmental committee to consider issues raised by different interests regarding development contributions schemes. There have been some complaints in this regard.
As previously noted, since the introduction of the planning code paying a development contribution has been a basic cost for developers, which is payable in advance of the start of construction. There is no evidence that development contributions have had the effect of increasing the final price charged by developers, as is sometimes suggested. While the tabular statement is too lengthy to be read in the House, the Deputy will find the figures staggering. Last year, the amount collected by planning authorities in development contributions came to €519.4 million.
I will be interested in the months ahead to ascertain how these funds will be spent. The circular letter issued to local authorities has asked them to ensure the local councillors, as they enter the estimates process, are aware of the amount of money being collected. Based on returns made for the annual planning statistics, in 2004 the figure in development levies came to €337 million, which rose to €519.4 million last year. Consequently, any suggestion that local authorities are short of funding for the types of services all members wish to see them provide deserves close scrutiny.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The table below provides a breakdown of these figures by planning authority.
|
Area |
2004 |
2005 |
|
€ |
€ |
|
|
Carlow |
5,423,712 |
4,782,745 |
|
Cavan |
2,443,668 |
3,463,676 |
|
Clare |
15,012,318 |
8,459,942 |
|
Cork |
23,372,801 |
42,277,686 |
|
Donegal |
5,408,421 |
5,133,251 |
|
Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown |
12,005,514 |
24,197,857 |
|
Fingal |
36,418,076 |
50,499,281 |
|
Galway |
10,192,308 |
12,589,385 |
|
Kerry |
8,414,791 |
12,331,312 |
|
Kildare |
21,553,713 |
27,446,483 |
|
Kilkenny |
8,104,213 |
13,072,063 |
|
Laois |
4,846,814 |
12,679,478 |
|
Leitrim |
2,177,356 |
4,254,073 |
|
Limerick |
5,102,569 |
7,812,743 |
|
Longford |
2,840,998 |
2,724,196 |
|
Louth |
13,576,797 |
19,816,995 |
|
Mayo |
4,156,144 |
8,690,858 |
|
Meath |
23,739,581 |
38,569,452 |
|
Monaghan |
1,684,053 |
2,610,452 |
|
Offaly |
5,077,802 |
4,141,990 |
|
Roscommon |
3,679,966 |
6,405,252 |
|
Sligo |
2,669,171 |
7,419,691 |
|
South Dublin |
20,759,303 |
31,581,698 |
|
Tipperary North |
5,227,791 |
6,083,430 |
|
Tipperary South |
5,342,596 |
6,976,825 |
|
Waterford |
3,519,316 |
5,125,913 |
|
Westmeath |
5,274,025 |
6,984,991 |
|
Wexford |
11,591,327 |
33,916,182 |
|
Wicklow |
11,541,145 |
18,341,470 |
|
Cork City Council |
10,831,391 |
11,043,286 |
|
Dublin City Council |
27,571,393 |
63,572,817 |
|
Galway City Council |
7,358,804 |
5,249,281 |
|
Limerick City Council |
4,592,920 |
7,812,743 |
|
Waterford City Council |
5,807,685 |
3,367,703 |
|
Total |
337,318,481 |
519,435,198 |
I voted for the scheme in Kildare and sought some ring-fencing in order that councillors would have some control over it. It is obvious that in seeking local contributions from any capital schemes, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is one of the drivers of the final extent of the levies. There is no shortage of projects on which money should be spent. Indeed, a considerable amount was excluded from the Kildare scheme because it would not have been sustainable.
However, the burden has been shifted from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to local authorities. Although much money is being collected, some local authorities are in significant debt. I received a parliamentary reply from the Minister regarding capital and current debts as of last year and the amount came to €3.5 billion. Apart from a major capital debt, Kildare County Council has an additional overdraft of €25 million.
The jury is out as to whether levies have an impact on the price of houses. I will provide one example with which I believe the Minister will agree. In a development which was carried out in two phases, the price of a first phase apartment was €350,000. However, by the time the second phase was being sold, the price of an identical apartment with the same development levies and planning permission had risen to €500,000.
Last night's "Prime Time Investigates" programme demonstrated that unscrupulous auctioneers, valuers and estate agents have as much of a role in driving up prices as do development contributions. While I am unsure whether this is a cause for concern for the Minister, there can be variations in house type, as opposed to the amount of contributions paid. In the case of County Kildare, a large number of apartments are being constructed——
The Deputy should ask a question.
——for which there is a lower level of contribution. Such issues must be considered because apartments rather than houses are being built under the Part V provisions. Frequently, they are not the best solution in family situations.
At the outset, the Deputy noted she had voted for development contributions in County Kildare. She was correct in so doing because development contributions are meant to deliver value on the ground. She also mentioned the idea they should be ring-fenced, which is also appropriate. I have no issues in this regard. However, I wish to see greater transparency in order that councillors who enter the estimates process know exactly what money is on hand.
The Deputy also referred to an issue that is outside the scope of this question, namely to the treasury management or fund management capacity of individual local authorities. I find it difficult to understand the reason some local authorities run substantial overdrafts on schemes when, on investigation of the issue, one discovers the existence of draw-downs and a range of other issues. Perhaps the audit committees to which I have referred will be able to deal with this matter.
I accept the Deputy's other point that undoubtedly, there is unscrupulous profit taking. I know of a case in my constituency in which two housing estates were for sale. When the first estate sold out, the houses in the other estate immediately rose in price by €50,000. As for the issue regarding public funds and the control of development levies, the latter are now well in excess of €500 million and are heading for €600 million this year. This provides a significant fillip to local authorities and is one reason I become extremely impatient when local authorities state they lack money to install a footpath as they have imposed levies to do precisely that. This issue must be driven at both local and national levels and I am highly conscious of the value for money points raised by the Deputy.
On the Minister's point about the funds available to local authorities, he spoke of the development levies being part of the budget process. The budget process relates to the revenue account rather than the capital account. In his circular letter of 2004, the Minister specifically excluded the use of development levies. Where is the relevance there?
The relevance is that many of the activities for which local authorities now return the excuse to Deputy Murphy, me and every other public representative that they do not have funds are by their nature capital activities. Deputy Murphy correctly stated that local authorities cannot use the development levies. She mentioned that they are ring-fenced in Kildare, and properly so. They cannot use for current purposes developmental levies which were incurred for capital purposes because that would be simply unacceptable, but they can use them for all sorts of activities, for example, new roads, car parking, specific public traffic infrastructure in their own areas and specific land acquisition. They have used them, for example, to create certain facilities in individual areas.
I need and am looking for far more transparency for the people. The councillors have had to make the brave decision to introduce a levy scheme. They should have a clear account of where the levy scheme money is going and all too frequently that has not been the case. Councillors of all parties and none, from many different councils, have told me that they want to see the system more transparent. That is why I am introducing additional audit committees and will provide additional resources and supports for that by way of regulation in the new year.
