Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 25 Nov 2010

Vol. 723 No. 2

Other Questions

Foreshore Licences

Brian Hayes

Question:

6 Deputy Brian Hayes asked the Minister for the Environment; Heritage and Local Government his plans to change foreshore licence application and assessment procedures; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44265/10]

Jack Wall

Question:

34 Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for the Environment; Heritage and Local Government the position regarding the proposed review of foreshore legislation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44418/10]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 34 together.

Short-term administrative and regulatory measures are being introduced to improve the throughput of foreshore applications by my Department, which has been working with the Department of Finance on a business process improvement exercise in the foreshore area.

This process has been completed and the recommended actions are now being implemented. These include the introduction of a pre-application consultation process; the development of a scheme of prioritisation for foreshore applications; introducing regulations to put a time limit on consultations with prescribed bodies; the development of standard operating procedures; the development of an application tracking database; and the publication of guidelines for applicants in relation to engineering and habitats issues.

The operation of the foreshore consent process is governed primarily by the Foreshore Act 1933 which has been the subject of only limited updating since its enactment. Work has commenced in my Department to develop a modernised foreshore consent regime and to integrate it within the planning system. This includes preparatory work towards the necessary legislative changes to integrate strategic foreshore projects within the consent process under the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006, other foreshore projects within the wider planning system and assessment of the requirements for the development of a marine spatial plan.

The draft offshore renewable energy development plan, and the associated strategic environmental assessment report, recently published by my colleague, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Ryan, and currently undergoing a public consultation process, will inform the development of the consent regime, as it relates to offshore renewable energy projects.

Will the Minister indicate the average timescale for an application for a foreshore licence to be dealt with? What is the timescale envisaged for the introduction of the primary legislation to which he referred?

The legislation is being developed and is at an early stage. It is extremely comprehensive. The original legislation dates from 1933. The Department is dealing with quite a number of outstanding issues. That is not in the main body of our current work but I hope we can give it priority in the new year. A foreshore licence can only be issued if it is in the public interest.

The current processing of a foreshore application includes the assessment of the application by the Department's internal technical advisers and, where necessary, the marine licence vetting committee which advises on scientific matters; consultation with statutory and non-statutory consultees, including the relevant Departments and agencies; a period of public consultation, which is normally 21 days; valuation of the site to be occupied by the applicant and other public interest elements which may arise in particular cases; obtaining the necessary legal advice; and Department of Finance sanction, where appropriate.

I can give the Deputy some idea of the number of foreshore cases we have inherited from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There are 700 foreshore cases following the transfer of functions and full caseload analysis was undertaken to determine the status of the cases.

The position is as follows. There are 300 live cases at various stages in the consent process — they are being progressed — of which 30 of them are strategy cases — priority one. There are 200 cases which are not active and to be closed off. There are 180 offshore renewable energy applications which will be considered in the context of the finalised offshore renewable energy plan and there are 82 enforcement-legal cases. There is a scheme of priorities — priority one, priority two and priority three — which the Department has developed.

The level of caseload in the Department is as follows. Since the functions transferred to my Department earlier this year more than 26 foreshore applications have been determined, 14 of these cases were determined in less than 20 weeks, another 300 cases are being progressed through the various stages of the consent process and 15 cases are close to determination.

I would like to pursue another aspect of the foreshore licence issue and place it in context. Foreshore licences are granted where somebody is developing a marina, a docking bay or something else which would generate local employment and improve the general aspect and environment of a location.

One of the difficulties people face relates to a specific clause in the licence. I am aware the Minister has inherited this from the Department of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries but there is a difficulty with section 12(2). Is the Minister aware of it and if so, is he dealing with it? The section allows the Minister to revoke a foreshore licence having given three months notice.

The difficulty people have when acquiring foreshore licences is that when they seek funding from financial institutions to proceed with the development of a marina, a docking area etc., they find the financial institutions will not fund the application because of this section in the legislation. The financial institutions say people do not have security of tenure in regard to the licence for a specific period of time.

The legislation states that the Minister can, at a whim or without any explanation, revoke the licence. That makes it impossible for people to get funding from financial institutions. Is the Minister aware of this difficulty and does he intend to amend the legislation to resolve it?

It has been brought to my attention but I do not know of any instance where a Minister has exercised that power. I have tried to determine that. An inconsistency of this sort will be part of a review of the legislation. There are priority one, priority two and priority three procedures in place. The Deputy is talking about priority three, so it is down the list. These refer to outfall pipes, if they are not part of a larger strategic infrastructure project, private boat moorings and extension of existing piers, slipways or jetties. They are down the list of priority and as far as the Department is concerned, far more major projects must be considered. We are getting through the list.

If the Deputy has a specific case in mind and if he drops me a line, I will look into it to see if there is undue delay. It is of concern if an individual cannot secure finance because there is a fear that having been granted the foreshore licence, it could be revoked at a later stage.

I would like to be of assistance to the Minister. He is correct about the revocation of licences. However, the difficulty relates to funding. People go through the planning process and acquire the foreshore licence but they cannot get a letter of comfort from the Department stating that the licence will not be revoked or stating the conditions on which it could be revoked. I will take the Minister up on his offer.

I welcome the fact this is dealt with on a case by case basis but it does not deal with the overall difficulty. It is not that licences have been revoked but given the constraints financial institutions face and the fact the Governor of the Central Bank of Ireland issued a directive to all banks in July to tighten up on lending practices, there is a difficulty with this existing clause in respect of loans.

Local Government Efficiency

Pádraic McCormack

Question:

7 Deputy Pádraic McCormack asked the Minister for the Environment; Heritage and Local Government the recommendations outlined in the Local Government Efficiency Review Group that he will implement; the reasons for not implementing rejected recommendations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44291/10]

Lucinda Creighton

Question:

49 Deputy Lucinda Creighton asked the Minister for the Environment; Heritage and Local Government the progress made in implementing the Report of the Local Government Efficiency Review Group; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44381/10]

I propose to take Question Nos. 7 and 49 together.

The findings and recommendations of the report of the independent local government efficiency review group are for consideration by the Government in the appropriate policy and financial contexts. I propose shortly to establish an implementation group with an independent chairperson to oversee implementation of relevant recommendations in line with Government decisions. The group's terms of reference will generally set out the recommendations to be covered by it and those which are matters for the Government to determine. This group will also build on the extensive efficiencies already achieved by local authorities over the past two years or so.

In the meantime, I have taken action to progress implementation of certain recommendations. In this context I have recently established a group, chaired by Mr. Pat McLoughlin who also chaired the efficiency review group, to carry out a review of the staffing complement and number of senior managers in Dublin City Council. I have asked the Dublin review group to report within six months with their recommendations on the actions to be taken to reduce the staffing complement. Similar arrangements will be put in place in respect of Cork City Council.

Specific measures to modernise local government are also under way in parallel with the efficiency review group's recommendations. These include implementation of the transforming public services programme and the Croke Park agreement in local authorities in areas such as shared services, HR, ICT and procurement. A directly elected mayor for Dublin, the legislation for which is currently before Dáil Éireann, will lead and promote efficiency in the Dublin region. A dedicated Cabinet committee has been engaged in finalising the policy decisions for inclusion in the White Paper on Local Government. A more efficient local government system will be a core objective of the White Paper. I am satisfied that these measures represent a comprehensive and targeted approach to achieving further efficiencies in local government.

The Minister has given us some indication about another set of committees he is establishing to make decisions. He has a group called the local government efficiency review group chaired by Mr. McLoughlin and he has recommendations. Why does he not seek to implement them rather than set up another group? Why must he sideline all his actions, which are important in terms of local government, to another implementation group in order to slow down the delivery of the recommendations of the review group?

The Minister promised us electoral reform measures in 2008 but we have not yet seen them. He also promised a White Paper on Local Government which we have not yet seen. He has committees sitting and reports coming in which are gathering dust.

With respect, all we hear is that the Minister will not make a decision but will send it off to another review group or implementation group and that he is one step away from executing the decisions.

Each time we make decisions, Fine Gael objects to them. That is the problem.

What decision has the Minister made?

There is the recommendation to implement the manager for two county-city councils.

Fine Gael agrees with that.

It is in the Fine Gael policy document, Reinventing Government. It endorses this specific proposal. When I met Fine Gael councillors recently, they objected out of hand——

The Green Party has only three councillors, so it would not have anyone to tell it anything.

Fine Gael has lots of them and they all object——

(Interruptions).

The Minister will not make a decision.

As far as I can see, the Deputy's party is one of blockers.

The Minister's party is one of bloggers, twitters and twits.

The Deputy's party was in government for years. Did it never dawn on the party that we needed water charges?

That is approximately 15 years from a total of 80 years.

We have introduced water charges fairly.

Nonsense, it will never be implemented.

It is in the four year plan. It is all there. We have also introduced a charge on second homes, which should have been done years ago.

Answer the question that was asked.

Those have all been put in place.

The Deputy should allow the Minister to answer.

I supported the Minister on both of the issues.

Allow the Minister to reply.

I recall the Deputy sending out scaremongering press releases at the time when I tried to discuss the issue with Fine Gael Senators.

I am glad the Minister is conscious of those. He is not too bad with the press releases himself.

That is the way he acts. All the recommendations are under consideration.

They are under consideration.

They will be kicked to touch.

I have already outlined those which have been implemented. We will continue to implement them and take the brave decisions we have taken before.

They are brave all right. Is the Minister ashamed of the state of the country as a result of his bravery? It has brought the country to a standstill.

The party across the way has indicated it will renegotiate the minimum wage.

Yes, we will.

That is nonsensical as this was the first demand by Commissioner Ollie Rehn and others. It had to be in the plan.

That is where the Government failed.

The Deputy's party will not do it.

The Minister has failed.

We should move on.

It is all talk over there and no action.

The Minister and his Government have failed.

The Minister's response was so broad-ranging it brought me into a number of different zones.

The Deputy should not exacerbate the problem by broadening the question.

I will not. Will the Minister restate the last comment, which I found interesting, that the reduction of the minimum wage came about on the insistence of Commissioner Ollie Rehn.

Yes, it was one of the things he said.

That is the Government's failure.

This is not really relevant to the question on the Order Paper.

It is very relevant to people outside the House, given that employers I spoke to were not seeking it. They sought reform of the JLC.

The Deputy should concentrate on the subject matter in the questions.

I will give the Minister a certain degree of flexibility on the matter. When he announced the Green Paper a number of years ago, the McCarthy report and the local government efficiency review group followed. Ultimately, the position remains the same and question is where the structure of local government lies. As the Minister is well aware, the structure is laid out by the terms of funding and how those structures are applied.

Where is the White Paper on local government? There were two significant reports in the McCarthy report and the local government efficiency review group report and the Minister will have taken cognisance of both of those in the move from a Green Paper to a White Paper. Will we see the White Paper before Christmas?

I can assure the Deputy that he will see it. The problem is we have had so many different initiatives to put in place. For example, yesterday the four year plan was published with significant proposals relating to funding for local government, including the local charge. All that must be consistent with the White Paper. We will now proceed with the White Paper, which will include those very important revenue raising powers for local authorities.

For the first time we will be in a position where local authorities will be self-financing. I have always felt that 1977 was a crucial election because local government was emasculated and it has not properly recovered since. There has been an erosion in the powers of local councillors, greater powers for managers and it will take some time to recover from that. Similarly, revenue raising powers were gone and there was a concentration on commercial rates and the local government fund. If these powers are not in place there is no local government but local administration instead. That is the emphasis of the Green Paper and it will be the emphasis of the White Paper.

There have been a number of initiatives in this respect. The Bill relating to the Dublin mayoralty is going through the House currently and that is a vital step in the right direction in revitalising local Government in this country. We have never had a directly elected mayor in this country and it is about time we had. It is about time for us to have greater powers at local level. Over the past number of years I have noticed that managers are becoming ever more powerful in this country and as a result, local councillors feel they must develop a relationship with the manager to get things done so they do not rock the boat too much. It is happening on an increasing basis.

Departmental Agencies

Simon Coveney

Question:

8 Deputy Simon Coveney asked the Minister for the Environment; Heritage and Local Government if he has satisfied himself with the fiscal position of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority and its output this year; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44295/10]

In response to its challenging financial position, the executive board of the authority has undertaken a major review and restructuring of its activities, cutting all discretionary expenditure and reducing staff levels from 55 full-time equivalents in January 2009 to 27 staff currently. Whereas the authority's 2009 annual report and audited accounts, which were published earlier this year, indicate progress was made in 2009 in stabilising the authority's day-to-day financial performance, the authority continues to face financial challenges with an operating loss of €7.4 million, compared with €27.1million in 2008; impairment losses and write-downs of €11.2 million, compared with €185.8 million in 2008; a reduction in the authority's net assets to €4.1 million, compared to €26.2 million in 2008; and borrowing within, but close to, the borrowing limit of €127 million.

Moreover, the prevailing uncertainty in the property and housing market will impact on the authority's development activities, and the outcome of its engagement with the National Asset Management Agency regarding the resolution of outstanding debts in the Becbay joint venture will also be central to the authority's overall future financial position. Achieving further progress towards a break-even position remains a key objective, and the authority is in ongoing discussion with my Department and the Department of Finance on its financial position and outlook.

The financial position of the authority has been a source of great concern for a considerable period. Will the Minister bring forward proposals to limit the damage this organisation has caused to its finances and the damage done because of recklessness exhibited towards staff which have been let go? They have had to leave the organisation because of the activities of a few people. Will any accountability be sought from the board members who have served in this organisation since its establishment for the manner in which they have led this organisation into disrepute and the current financial position?

As the Deputy is aware, I appointed a new chairperson, Professor Niamh Brennan, to take control of the authority. She was instrumental in producing two reports which demonstrated exactly what had happened in the Dublin docklands. Recently I spoke to board members who feel the authority is now finding its feet again and I hope it will be in a position to do some very good work for the community.

As the Deputy knows, this legislation was not introduced by this Government but rather by my constituency colleague, Deputy Ruairí Quinn. The idea behind it is good and it has provided some good employment in the area and has done some very good community work. I hope that under the stewardship of Professor Niamh Brennan the docklands authority can improve its financial position. It faces enormous difficulties and there are ongoing problems.

I have always indicated to Deputy Hogan that there are difficulties in this country in tackling white-collar crime. This includes people who have abused their positions. I am aware of the individuals who the Deputy may be referring to in this case and I believe our legislation is not strong enough. We must improve and we are going to ensure we can have more effective whistleblower legislation to identify problems in the first instance. There should also be strong legislation to ensure that those who engage in white-collar criminality can be brought to justice as quickly as possible.

Waste Management

Bernard J. Durkan

Question:

9 Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for the Environment; Heritage and Local Government the extent he has commented on or indicated a particular preference in respect of waste management policy or strategy; if policy is set down by him, other Government bodies or agencies or the Environmental Protection Agency; if he or any such body has expressed a preference for one or other method of waste management or disposal in respect of any particular location; if so, if this is or was in accord with his policy at local or regional level; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44444/10]

I have always made clear that I want to see a sustainable, resource based approach to waste management. This involves a shift in focus from residual waste management options, such as landfill and incineration, to technologies such as mechanical biological treatment which can maximise the value to be extracted from what should be viewed as a resource rather than as a waste.

On 15 July 2010, I published a draft statement of waste policy for public consultation which set out the various elements being considered as part of the development of a new national waste management policy for the coming decade and beyond. In particular, the draft statement emphasised the importance of waste policy being informed by domestic policy goals, EU and wider international policy and practice, and EU legislation and commitments, particularly the revised waste framework directive and the associated waste hierarchy set out in Article 4 of the directive. The draft statement contained a range of proposals, including, in relation to waste management, planning at national and regional levels. The consultation period closed on 1 October last and I am working to conclude a final waste policy statement, having given my fullest consideration to all the submissions received.

I intend to bring the final policy statement to Government for decision shortly. Following the Government's decision, I will publish the final policy which will provide certainty for those in the waste management sector and a framework within which the necessary legislative changes can be brought forward.

When does the Minister expect clarity to be provided on the proposed incinerator for the Poolbeg peninsula?

As I have stated on a number of occasions, the Government does not determine matters of this nature, which in this case is one for a private consortium and the local authority. When one considers residual waste arisings and the decline in biological waste, which is the most important consideration from a landfill directive perspective, an incinerator with a capacity of 600,000 tonnes is much too large. We must move towards mechanical biological treatment and ensure, when we embark on a strategy, that we have available to us sufficient waste for a facility of this type. We must avoid creating a white elephant which will cost the taxpayer a large amount of money.

In the case of the incinerator proposed for the Poolbeg peninsula, the contract which was signed against my advice commits Dublin City Council to providing 320,000 tonnes of waste per annum. Penalty clauses will apply if this level of waste is not provided and the local authority would have to pick up the tab. By bringing to Government the waste levies and a new policy statement, as I will do shortly, we will provide greater clarity on the proposed Poolbeg incinerator.

I have read media reports, which the Deputy has probably also read, to the effect that the company in question has indicated that if I introduce levies and publish a policy document, it will not proceed with the incinerator proposal. I am committed to proceeding with a new waste policy. A large multinational company should not dictate national waste policy, which is a matter for the sovereign Government.

Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.

Top
Share