Vol. 673 No. 4
6 Deputy Joe Carey asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if his attention has been drawn to private waste collectors not picking up recyclable waste; if he will amend waste policy or legislation to combat this situation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3819/09]
The Waste Management (Collection Permit) Regulations 2007 provide for a system of permitting by local authorities of commercial waste collection activities and for nominated local authorities to attach such conditions as they consider necessary to give effect to the objectives of the statutory regional waste management plans, including in respect of recyclates. Enforcement of a permit is a matter for the relevant local authority and my Department has no direct function in this matter. I will continue to keep the regulations under review in the light of experience and in the context of the overall review of waste policy which is currently taking place.
Concerning the issue of the downturn in the market for recyclates, my Department, by circular letter issued on 4 December 2008, advised local authorities of the increased risk of breaches of waste collection permit conditions and activities such as fly-tipping and illegal dumping as a consequence of this downturn. Local authorities were asked to use the powers available to them to counter any such developments and thus to maintain support for ongoing efforts to increase recycling to meet national objectives and EU obligations. In support of local authority enforcement action, my Department is allocating €10.8 million for waste enforcement in 2009.
I can confirm that my Department is not aware of any cases of non-collection of recyclates by collectors, with the exception of a short-term issue in the Dublin area around Christmas last, which appears to have related to the transfer of a contract rather than to the downturn in the recyclates market and which was addressed by the local authority and the new contractor.
Does the Minister consider the litter Acts need to be amended in order to deal with the litter problem, which is an ongoing one? I accept some progress has been made in the area but, nevertheless, people still feel the need to throw litter around the place, especially near local authority recycling bins. Does the Minister intend to change the penalties or introduce new legislation to deal with this irresponsible activity?
Will the Minister comment on the roll-out of green bins across the country? Many local authorities have not done that yet. What action is he taking in order to encourage them to do so?
Strictly speaking the question does not relate to No. 6 but I will answer it anyway.
It is all waste.
I agree the litter problem is something that needs to be addressed. The Deputy may be aware that we increased the fines already. I am liaising with Irish Business Against Litter, which has done fantastic work. It has asked for a number of changes to be made and I am considering them.
In the context of the new international review that we are conducting on waste management, we are examining the issue of deposit schemes and how they can be used. A number of innovative proposals have been made in regard to litter, especially cans and bottles, which have real merit. I refer in particular to vending machines, which encourage young people especially to bring back bottles and cans. That has been shown to be most effective not just in regard to recycling, but more particularly in dealing with the litter problem.
On the question of the green bins and brown bins, the latter are vitally important because we must meet our targets.
I meant to say brown bins.
The circular I issued means that the brown bins are being rolled out. They have been rolled out in Dublin. That is vital if we are to comply with the landfill directive, especially the amount of biodegradable waste that is going to landfill. The brown bins can make a major contribution to that. Most people are complying with that. There are some initial teething problems but overall the roll-out of the brown bin will make a significant contribution.
The Minister referred to the downturn in the market for recyclable material. He had a meeting before Christmas with waste management operators about that issue. He suggested on the RTE "One o'clock News" that some of the material such as paper and cardboard could be processed in some way to make fuel pellets and that it could be used as fuel and burned in one of the ESB plants in the midlands.
I think I said cement kilns.
Does that mean the Minister is now in favour of incineration?
What I said was that it would be a last resort. We must look at those substances that have a high calorific value and consider what we do with plastics. I said previously that in combination with mechanical biological treatment, MBT, which is what is done elsewhere, we would examine separating out those materials that have a high calorific value. I refer to black bin waste that can go into an MBT plant. That can be separated out and it is what is done elsewhere. Our record on this issue is poor because we do not, and have not used, cement kilns in any way, unlike other European states. There is not a need for the amount of incinerators that have been planned. I said that consistently. My preference in terms of conversion technology has always been that we consider pyrolysis and gasification, which are higher up the recycling chain or the waste hierarchy. Cement kilns have a role to play and they play an important role elsewhere.
7 Deputy Mary Upton asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if, in regard to the Private Residential Tenancies Board, responsibility for operational matters has been devolved to the Minister of State at his Department; if responsibility for appointments to the board under section 153 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 has been devolved to the Minister of State; if responsibility for appointments to the Dispute Resolution Committee under section 159 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 has been devolved to the Minister of State; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3897/09]
58 Deputy Jan O’Sullivan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the names and the period of appointment of people whose appointment he has approved to be members of the Dispute Resolution Committee of the Private Residential Tenancies Board who are not members of the board of the PRTB; the fees he has consented should be paid to members of the DRC; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3910/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 58 together.
Under the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Delegation of Ministerial Functions) (No.2) Order 2008, the powers delegated to me in my capacity as a Minister of State include the powers conferred on the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government by the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, other than sections 153, 154, 155 and 180 of that Act. The specific sections referred to relate to appointments to the Private Residential Tenancies Board, PRTB, the appointment of a chairperson of the board and issues relating to the board's annual report and accounts; accordingly these matters remain the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. While the other powers contained in the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 are delegated to me, it should be noted that under the delegation of functions legislation, every delegated power and duty continues to be vested in the Minister concurrently with the Ministers of State and may be exercised and performed by either.
On foot of concerns regarding the procedural and technical correctness of a number of appointments to the Dispute Resolution Committee, DRC, brought to my Department's attention by the board in December 2008, the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2009 was introduced to regularise the appointments in question. Those concerns related to a number of appointments to the DRC that had not complied with the requirement under section 159(3) of the original Act that a member of the board must have at least three years remaining in their board term of office to be appointed to the Dispute Resolution Committee. In introducing the regularising legislation, it was decided, for the avoidance of doubt, also to regularise DRC appointments from the perspective of the requirement to consult with the Minister, as documentary evidence was not available to show that those consultation requirements had been complied with.
I am circulating in the Official Report a table setting out the names and periods of appointment of the 15 non-board members currently appointed to the Dispute Resolution Committee. The fees payable to members of the DRC were sanctioned by the Department of Finance in November 2005 and have subsequently been increased in line with general round pay increases. The current fee for members of a tenancy tribunal drawn from the Dispute Resolution Committee is €387 per day. The fee for the chairperson of such tribunals is €603 per day.
|
Name |
Date of Appointment |
Date of Expiry |
|
Mr. Charlie Corcoran |
31/12/2007 |
31/12/2010 |
|
Mr. Gus Cummins |
31/12/2007 |
31/12/2010 |
|
Ms. Kyra Donnelly |
31/12/2007 |
31/12/2010 |
|
Mr. John C. Elliott |
31/12/2007 |
31/12/2010 |
|
Mr. Michael Farry |
16/12/2008 |
20/12/2011 |
|
Ms. Geraldine Feeney |
31/12/2007 |
31/12/2010 |
|
Mr. Paul Good |
31/12/2007 |
31/12/2010 |
|
Mr. Bill Holohan |
31/12/2007 |
31/12/2010 |
|
Ms. Nesta Kelly |
31/12/2007 |
31/12/2010 |
|
Mr. John Lynch |
31/12/2007 |
31/12/2010 |
|
Ms Mary Morris |
31/12/2007 |
31/12/2010 |
|
Mr. Henry Murdoch |
31/12/2007 |
31/12/2010 |
|
Mr. Liam Nolan |
31/12/2007 |
31/12/2010 |
|
Mr. Pat Riney |
31/12/2007 |
31/12/2010 |
|
Mr. Liam O’Donnell |
31/12/2007 |
31/12/2010 |
I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Finneran, for his response. I wish to recap on the position we were at a week ago when the legislation was introduced into the House on an emergency basis. Twelve illegal appointments have been made to the PRTB to date. While I understand the Minister, Deputy Gormley, is not involved in the operational day-to-day running of the board, ultimately, the buck stops with him regarding these illegal appointments because he signed off on them. When we debated this issue on 9 October 2008, I asked the Minister five times how it came to his attention that two illegal appointments had been made but he failed to reply on each occasion. I also suggested that he should carry out an audit of other appointments to the PRTB, which he also failed to do. How did the issue of the ten illegal appointments come to the Minister of State's attention? I have a fair idea how it happened but I would like him to put on record how that came about.
Daily fees are €600 and €387. What is the current caseload? Has anybody in the Department read the Act? Both myself and my personal assistant have read it back to front and the illegal appointments did not result from a misinterpretation of the legislation. The Act is explicit on this matter, the illegal appointment of two councillors and the synchronisation of appointments to the DRC and the PRTB.
The matter was brought to the Department's attention in December 2008.
By whom?
By the PRTB. It was brought to my attention on 22 December 2008.
Was this discovered in-house by the board or was it brought to its attention by an external source?
It was brought to the Department's attention and then it was brought to my attention on 22 December 2008. I acted with haste and I dealt with the matter on the first sitting day of the new session in January and we regularised the position.
A full audit was carried out and it was established that there were no other illegal appointments. When the issue regarding the DRC appointments was brought to the Department's attention in December 2008, it requested the PRTB to urgently commission an external audit to check compliance with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 with regard to governance and legal structures, appointments of board and committee members and other relevant aspects relating to the governance provisions of the Act. The compliance audit was completed in January 2009 and it identified no similar issues requiring legislative correction.
Were cases lodged with the courts before the emergency legislation was enacted?
I am not aware of any. No cases have been brought to my attention.
The audit took place following the second and not the first error and I requested that the audit should be carried out after 7 October 2008. The difficulties referred to by the Minister of State arose on 10 December and the audit was carried out after that. Why were shadow spokespersons such as myself and Deputy Hogan kept in the blind about this?
The issue came to the attention of the Minister of State and the Department because somebody who was before a DRC pointed out it was operating illegally and it was not discovered by the PRTB. No audit was carried out. An individual who was before a committee noticed it was operating illegally and brought it to the Minister of State's attention. He should not state this was identified as a result of an audit. The audit to which he referred was carried out after the second mistake was discovered. I take on board there may not be difficulties following the audit but the mistake was not discovered by the audit.
I did not state the audit identified the problem. The audit identified there were no further problems.
But the audit was only carried out following the second error.
The matter was brought to the Department's attention in mid-December and it was brought to my attention on 22 December. In the interim, the Department sought an audit, the results of which were made available in January, and there were no further problems.
I do not blame the Minister of State because the issue of appointments lies with the Minister and the error and the failure to carry out an audit are firmly on his desk.
I acted as fast as possible when the matter came to my attention. I did not delay on it. I moved immediately but the Dáil was not in session when the matter was brought to my attention on 22 December 2008. The House had risen. I had the legislation available on the first sitting day of the new session and I ensured the audit was carried out in the meantime. I moved as fast as I could.
8 Deputy Pat Rabbitte asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if and when he will introduce regulations in regard to election postering; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3906/09]
218 Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he will introduce legislation to control the number, size and locations of posters for the upcoming local and European elections; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4064/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 218 together.
I held a public consultation regarding the control of postering for elections and referenda in autumn 2008. Following the analysis of submissions received by my Department, I informed the Government on 27 January that I intend to pilot test certain measures in the upcoming local and European elections to evaluate their impact on the proliferation of posters and the litter arising during those election campaigns. Local authorities are being asked to pilot four options in a number of local authority areas; the use of biodegradable plastic ties or colour coding of plastic ties; the display of posters to be restricted to designated areas only; the numbers of posters per candidate to be restricted; and the numbers of posters to be restricted to two per pole, back to back.
The pilot scheme will be evaluated following completion with a view to informing future policy development regarding the control of postering for elections and referenda. It is important that potential problems relating to implementation or enforcement of the measures are identified prior to legislation being introduced to ensure that the final legislation is as effective as possible. I will ask all candidates, local and European, in each of the participating areas to participate in the scheme in order that it is as comprehensive and representative as possible. I am also reviewing the litter legislation to ensure there is absolutely no doubt that posters cannot be erected before an election has been called and I will bring forward an amendment if necessary.
Will the pilot scheme be rolled out nationally or only in a number of local authority areas?
In consultation with local authorities, I am asking them to examine the various options I outlined. They can pick from these options to ascertain which ones are most appropriate to their area and I hope most of them will buy into this. I will meet managers and representative bodies of councillors, which is most important because we must have political buy in, and ask them which option is most appropriate for the upcoming local elections.
I thank the Minister for his explanation. As somebody who made a submission to the commission on this, I am glad the issue has progressed. I expected a response on how the report was proceeding. Will the Minister issue a brief to the Opposition spokespersons outlining what he has stated because it is of significance? Posters play a positive role in election campaigns.
Hear, hear. Especially for small parties.
I worked as an adult literacy organiser prior to my election to the House and I was involved in the campaign to ensure candidate's photographs were printed on ballot papers. Posters operate in a similar fashion, particularly in local elections. They allow people to discriminate between one side of the road and the other regarding their local candidate. Posters are an informative and valuable tool for local democracy. Following the pilot scheme, will legislation be in place to govern postering during the upcoming local elections? Will local authorities opt in and out? Is there the potential that one local authority will be operating one system and another operating another one? A key part of my submission is that we need a national system and not a localised one.
I agree with many of the points made by the Deputy on the role of posters. They are essential. It was never my intention to ban postering. The intention was to introduce some form of regulation so that we would not have the somewhat chaotic postering we have. It is getting worse with successive elections. We received 117 submissions, including that of the Deputy. Many referred to the plastic tag issue. We are trying to deal with that. Deputy Hogan referred to litter previously. Having a proliferation of plastic tags is a serious litter problem and we want to try to deal with that. We do not want to restrict public speech or people's right to expression. That is not what this is about. However, I have seen candidates putting four or five posters on a pole, which is excessive.
We have come up with a reasonable approach having considered all the submissions made. In my reply I said we would not introduce legislation until we have an idea of what is workable, which is a good approach. In the past local authorities have introduced their own pilot schemes with buy-in from councillors. Residents' associations have asked candidates not to put their posters in particular areas. On the whole we have had the co-operation of the council and councillors.
I urge the Minister to show some common sense on the issue of postering particularly for smaller parties, and Independent Deputies and councillors, as we approach local elections. Posters are very much a part of local democracy in this country.
Regarding the tags, after the last general election we bought a number of tree pruning shears. My election workers cut down the tags and took them away to be recycled. There are many common sense candidates and people involved in politics who took away their own litter. I urge the Minister to take on board these proposals. Posters form a very important part of any democratic campaign.
At the risk of repeating myself, we are taking a common sense approach. It is not restricting freedom of expression or unduly restricting postering. What may restrict postering is——
The election spending.
Precisely. That will have its own effect because postering is quite expensive. I understand that some parties have already printed their posters — including some in Northern Ireland, but we will not go there. I understand that people need to make preparations. The sort of dialogue we are engaged in with the local authorities will ensure that a common sense approach is adopted.
The Minister is wasting his time on this matter. It is playing up to some kind of prim political correctness. It is pandering to people who treat democracy and elections as if they are some kind of untidy intrusion on their lives. Deputies McGrath and Ciarán Lynch are correct. Postering is a cheap way to promote democracy. It is fine for those who can afford to pay for billboards and bus shelters. However, restricting the number of posters will impact most on people with the least money to spend on elections — smaller parties and Independents. I do not know why the Minister is spending time on this and going to the trouble of having pilot schemes. We put up posters for the duration of the election campaign and then ensure we take them down.
How many times do I need to repeat myself in this House?
Are questions not tedious, Minister?
If they are repeated ad nauseam they can become tedious. I have said a common sense approach is being adopted. This measure is not restricting postering. Deputy Tuffy’s colleague, Deputy Ciarán Lynch, made a submission on the matter, which indicates his interest in it. The restriction will come from the restriction on spending. My party has never had a billboard as far as I know. We do not have the resources to engage in lavish spending. In fact we have the lowest spending of any political party. I understand the necessity of getting out cheap advertising. I also understand the necessity of dealing with the litter problem, which is what we are trying to do. We are getting a sensible compromise through the measures we are adopting.
9 Deputy Kieran O’Donnell asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he will redraft climate change plans and strategies within his Department in view of public transport cutbacks and their knock-on effect on greenhouse gas emissions here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3878/09]
I refer to the reply to Question No. 1 on today's Order Paper, in which I outlined the range of work under way across all sectors towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the review being undertaken to ensure that emission projections reflect the changing economic circumstances.
The National Climate Change Strategy 2007-2012 sets out the measures on foot of which Ireland will meet its target for the purposes of the Kyoto Protocol. Compliance will be determined on the basis of greenhouse gas emissions over the period. The strategy places a significant emphasis on transport in recognition of the proportion of total emissions attributed to the transport sector. A modal shift to public transport was signalled in the strategy as a key measure in achieving reductions in transport emissions.
Greenhouse gas emissions from transport present one of the greatest challenges for many countries, including Ireland. We need to take radical action to turn that situation around and we need to do it quickly. Earlier today, the Minister for Transport published the new strategy entitled Smarter Travel — A Sustainable Transport Future. I welcome the publication of this Government action plan to free our towns and cities from choking traffic congestion, slash CO2 emissions and help car-based commuters to leave their cars at home. The plan represents a radical transformation in transport policy that puts people, rather than vehicles, first and has the potential to fundamentally change how we all travel. It will lead to a more sustainable transport system that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide a better quality of life for all.
What will the Minister do to ensure the cutbacks in Dublin Bus do not take place, as they would have a major effect on climate change?
That is more than a little broadening of the question.
The Minister mentioned it.
I did not mention it in my reply.
It is a good question.
The Minister does not have direct responsibility for Dublin Bus.
Does the Minister have an answer?
If you want me to answer it, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle——
The Minister is answering questions on the area of his own responsibility. Transport questions are more appropriately addressed to the Minister for Transport. The Minister may make a comment if he wishes.
I could understand why he does not want to answer. It is an embarrassment.
I would be happy to reply. The Deputies opposite know that transport continues to be the dominant growth sector. Emissions in that sector were approximately 4.7% higher in 2007 than in 2006. If we are going to achieve a reduction we need a radical transformation of our public transport system.
What is the Government doing? It is cutting public transport.
Fine Gael has a very different view from that of the Labour Party on public transport.
What is the Minister's view?
Fine Gael wants to build more roads and privatise.
The Minister is not stopping the roads.
The Deputy asked the Minister for a response.
Dublin Bus requires radical reform to meet the needs of bus users. The company made a profit of approximately €4.7 million in 2007, but it lost €10 million last year and is forecast to lose €31 million this year unless action is taken. I am sure Deputies will recall that unfortunately, there have been archaic work practices in that organisation. Even the slightest change is resisted. Over many years we had disputes over the opening of the middle door. We have tried to get integrated ticketing and real-time information so that people waiting at bus stops know when the bus will arrive. Unfortunately that has failed. We need to change radically the way Dublin Bus operates and that is what we will achieve.
Even though that was not the Minister's area of responsibility, he had a well-prepared reply on it.
I am now being accused of being well prepared.
The Minister was clearly expecting that question.
10 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the action he is proposing to tackle the issue of noise pollution; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3846/09]
My Department is currently preparing proposals to strengthen the existing legislation on noise pollution, in line with the commitment in the programme for Government. A public consultation process has been completed, and account is being taken of submissions received from the public and key stakeholders. While there is already a wide range of measures in place to deal with noise from a variety of sources, I intend that the new legislation will take a more integrated approach to noise pollution. There will be a greater emphasis on codes of practice for construction, commercial and domestic situations. Local authorities will have stronger enforcement powers to deal with nuisances from particular noise sources such as continuously sounding alarms, and I also see the need to extend the powers of the Garda Síochána in certain circumstances. There will, in addition, be measures to increase awareness of noise nuisance and of how it can be remedied.
This might seem to be an innocuous question but it is a very important issue which is very close to the Minister's heart. House alarms and anti-social behaviour are issues which affect a significant and growing number of people. When will these proposals be enacted and when will local authorities be in a position to enforce them?
I would hope to have this legislation published before the summer. We have embarked on a comprehensive consultation process. A total of 235 submissions were received which shows there is significant public interest in this issue. We are becoming an increasingly urbanised society. Stricter laws governing noise are in force in European countries and it is time we got our act together to ensure people can simply enjoy in some cases a good night's sleep. It is a quality of life issue and it should not be dismissed. I agree with Deputy Hogan that it is a serious issue and we are giving it the attention it deserves.
On a related matter I refer to the problem which arises in many housing estates where motorways and main roads were built in the years before proper noise regulations to do with sound barriers were in place. I am aware that different local authorities have been undertaking a review of such noise levels. Cork City Council has undertaken examinations of noise levels along the South Link Road and in other parts of the city. What progress has been made? People cannot go out into their back gardens because there is a four-lane highway at the end of the garden and no noise barriers or noise insulation measures have been installed.
Those are issues that should have been dealt with during the planning process. When major construction projects, such as the East Link bridge, were taking place in my constituency, part of the consultation process was that people received double glazing. This is an issue that should be dealt with during the planning process.
The introduction of annual noise reporting mechanisms is proposed. We can then see where the problems arise.
The Minister is incorrect in his response. The regulations were not in place when these motorways were built. I suggest the Minister ask his colleague, Senator Dan Boyle, because he lives across the road from one. I imagine Senator Boyle would have been aware of the planning situation with regard to his own street.
The Deputy must ask a general question rather than a question on a particular issue.
I believe the Minister is familiar with it.
I stayed in Senator Boyle's house on occasion and I got a good night's sleep. I am not quite sure of the import of the Deputy's question. Is he saying we should be taking measures now to deal with this?
It is a retrospective problem that has been created by ——
The Deputy should table such a particular question as a matter on the Adjournment.
I would be happy to deal with that as a separate question.
I welcome the Minister's proposals on noise pollution in general. The consultation document referred to arbitration in place of a court hearing in the case of noisy neighbours and this is a good idea. Is the Minister still planning on having the Garda Síochána raid people's houses for having their burglar alarms going off?
No. The Deputy should not exaggerate the issue. We are consulting with many of the alarm companies. It seems it is easier to fix that problem from outside a house. It may be the case that the Garda Síochána will require new powers but it is not our intention to have gardaí wrapped up in dealing with such problems because they have enough to be getting on with.
11 Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he plans to abolish fees charged to members of the public for making submissions in respect of applications under the Planning (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3917/09]
24 Deputy Joe Costello asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he will take steps, such as the abolition of fees charged to members of the public to make submissions, on planning applications in order to ensure a more public participation in decisions about planning in their area in view of the decision to implement the European public participation directive and his stated commitment to ratify the Aarhus Convention; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3919/09]
28 Deputy Joe Costello asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he plans to abolish fees charged to members of the public for making submissions in respect of planning applications to local authorities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3918/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11, 24 and 28 together.
The fee for making submissions or observations to An Bord Pleanála for development under the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006 is €50. The board is legally obliged to consider all submissions or observations before making a decision. Third parties also have the right to be notified of any new significant information provided by an applicant; request an oral hearing; and be notified of the decision of the board.
The fee for making submissions or observations to a planning authority in respect of a planning application is €20. It was introduced in the context of the comprehensive review of planning legislation that culminated in the Planning and Development Act 2000 and the Planning and Development Regulations 2001. The revised legislation provided increased rights for third parties in the planning process. Since the enactment of the 2000 Act planning authorities are statutorily obliged to acknowledge submissions on planning applications and to consider those submissions before making decisions on planning applications. Persons who make submissions are also entitled to be notified of any new information provided; the decision of the planning authority; and an appeal against the decision of the planning authority.
In a 2006 judgment, the European Court of Justice ruled that this €20 fee could not be regarded as constituting an obstacle to public participation in the planning process. I have no proposals for the abolition of these fees.
The first question was about the Planning (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006 which set the fee for making a submission to An Bord Pleanála at €50. When the Bill was going through the House in 2006, the Minister who was then an Opposition Deputy, was opposed to the charging of fees. He said he did not think people should be charged for making submissions under this Act. He also called for the removal of the €20 fee for making a submission about a planning application. This view is in keeping with the Labour Party policy that people should feel free to make submissions and comments about planning applications and not feel constrained by the cost from doing so. We want to encourage people to make submissions and it might not always be an objection to a planning application but rather a request for concerns to be taken into account by the planning authority. Will the Minister be getting rid of these fees?
I indicated in my reply that the European Commission issued Ireland with a reasoned opinion to the effect that the €20 fee for the making of a submission on a planning application for a development which requires environmental impact assessment was contrary to the public participation provisions. The Commission was of the view that the directive makes no express provision for the payment of a participation fee and suggested that the submission fee could act as an impediment. The court found that the Commission's allegation was without foundation in its entirety. Given our own economic situation and the fact that the planning authorities and the local authorities need some extra revenue, it would not make sense at this time to abolish those fees.
I will allow a brief supplementary question from Deputy Tuffy.
I do not think the Minister would be relying on an EU judgment with which he disagrees if he were still on the Opposition side of the House. I think he would be saying the opposite to what he just said.
I am relying on what the European Court of Justice said.
That is not what he would have done when he was in opposition. He was against these fees then.
The court has made its judgment and whether one is in opposition or in government, the decision of the court must be accepted. I accept the decision of the court in its entirety.
12 Deputy P. J. Sheehan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his views on policy changes to motor taxation to help restore the motor market; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3809/09]
15 Deputy Ulick Burke asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his views regarding the collapsing motor trade here; the impact this will have on local government and central Government finances; the measures he is considering to restore buoyant market conditions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3816/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 12 and 15 together.
The changes I introduced last year to charge motor tax on new cars based on their CO2 emissions, together with the linked changes to vehicle registration tax introduced by the Minister for Finance, provided significant financial incentives to purchase new low emission cars.
The two lowest CO2 bands for motor tax — bands A and B — are significantly lower than the minimum annual car tax rate of €172 charged under the engine size cc system. The motor tax rate for cars in band C is on par with the average tax rate charged under the old system.
The VRT rate imposed on cars in these three bands is also lower than the previous minimum rate charged prior to July 2008. The lowest rate of VRT is now 14% compared to the old minimum of 22.5%. The system of vehicle registration tax is administered by the Revenue Commissioners and issues regarding it are a matter for the Minister for Finance.
The incentives provided by the Government have been successful in ensuring a dramatic shift towards the purchase of more environmentally friendly cars. A total of 85% of all cars registered under the new system are in the lower bands A, B and C and are subject to a very favourable tax regime. The introduction of emissions based VRT and motor tax had a dual objective of encouraging a move to lower emission vehicles while protecting central and local government revenues. It is my intention to keep these dual objectives under review, in conjunction with the motor industry, in the light of experience of the new system.
Global economic conditions have had a significant impact on the motor industry internationally, and Ireland is no different. The Society of the Irish Motor Industry, SIMI, has put forward a number of proposals to Government on the car market and my Department met a delegation yesterday to discuss issues relevant to my departmental brief. The core SIMI proposal related to a scrappage scheme, and that is a matter for the Minister for Finance.
Unlike VRT, motor tax receipts depend on the total taxed vehicle fleet, and the motor tax rates charged, rather than the purchase of new vehicles. The economic slowdown is likely to impact on the total vehicle fleet. In 2008, the increase in the fleet was in the order of 2.3% compared to an annual average increase of 5% since 2000, and little growth may be evident in the fleet in 2009. Forecast motor tax receipts for 2009 are of the order of €1.08 billion. All motor tax receipts are paid directly into the local government fund for local government purposes.
My Department will continue to keep the position regarding the motor tax receipts under review.
There Minister will be aware there is a serious problem in the motor trade. Fine Gael advocates that the emissions bands should be backdated to 2001 — the Minister had the information available for new and second hand cars — to allow people make informed decisions regarding emissions. We support the new regime. People should have a choice of purchasing based on emissions.
Is there any new initiative, particularly in the Border counties, that can be introduced to stop dealers going across the Border and coming back with a car having paid VRT in the other jurisdiction and making a few euro in terms of sustaining the trade? There is a big increase in the number of imported vehicles at the expense of new cars being sold in this jurisdiction.
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle will appreciate that question is not within my own brief. It is for the Minister for Finance.
The Minister is answering broad questions. I hesitated to intervene.
I am sure the Minister has one prepared.
The SIMI has been lobbying for the introduction of a scrappage scheme for cars over ten years, and that involves a reduction in vehicle registration tax. These are matters for the Minister for Finance.
While a scrappage scheme could reduce CO2 emissions it should be noted that Ireland now has a relatively modern vehicle fleet. There are already incentives in place, and people are availing of those incentives. When they are purchasing a car they are moving towards the lower bands, and 85% of the new car purchases are in those lower bands.
We will have to examine what the SIMI is advocating but this problem is not unique to Ireland. We have had a global downturn and as we have seen, the motor industry in the United States is experiencing a serious problem, likewise in Britain and Germany where the car manufacturing industries are under real threat. It is a phenomenon whereby during an economic downturn people do not change their cars as often as they would in good times. That is the position, unfortunately.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
