I remind Deputies that there are six minutes for each priority question — two minutes for the Minister's initial reply and four minutes overall for supplementary questions.
Priority Questions
Planning Issues
Niall Collins
Question:1 Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government his contribution to the reviewed EU-IMF agreement in regard to the proposed change of the floor space cap set out in the draft retail planning guidelines; if they argued for a retention of the current floor space cap; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37874/11]
I issued draft guidelines for planning authorities on retail planning for public consultation on 21 November 2011 aimed at ensuring the planning system plays a key role in supporting competitiveness in the retail sector; advancing choice for the consumer while promoting and supporting the vitality and viability of city and town centres; and contributing to a high standard of urban design and encouraging a greater use of sustainable transport.
In response to the requirement in the EU-IMF programme of financial support for Ireland for an economic analysis of the potential impact on competition and consumer prices of eliminating or relaxing the floor space cap on retail premises, my Department and the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation commissioned Forfás to undertake an evidence-based and focused study to analyse the potential economic impacts of eliminating the cap on the size of retail premises. The draft guidelines take into account the recommendations of the Forfás Study Review of the Economic Impact of the Retail Cap, which I also published last week. The draft guidelines are open for public consultation until 20 December 2011, and I look forward to good engagement through submissions and observations which will be considered in finalising the guidelines in early 2012.
I thank the Minister for his response. I am sure he will agree that small business is facing great pressure and stress at present in terms of falling consumer demand as a result of the pressures on the wider economy. The Government has signalled that an increase of 2% in the higher VAT rate will be part of next week's budget and the retailers have reacted quite angrily to that. They also reacted angrily to the kite that was flown by the Minister for Social Protection regarding sick leave pay. Furthermore, they are concerned about the proposed reduction in the amount of the redundancy rebate. All these pressures are feeding into business. There is also the existing pressure of commercial rates, which we debated in the House last week. During that debate we highlighted the actions that must be taken in terms of recognising the changed economic circumstances and people's ability to pay.
Small businesses, retailers and family businesses throughout the country have an issue with increasing the cap on retail space for the bigger multiples. The EU-IMF deal did not specifically provide for an increase in that cap, and the Minister must acknowledge that. It provided for a study. Increasing the cap would allow for more space, which would squeeze the smaller retailers in town centres. It is a core function of proper and good planning that we develop from the core of towns and villages outward, rather than enhancing the already developed out-of-town shopping outlets. My native city of Limerick is an example of that, where the doughnut effect around the city is prevalent and has essentially torn the heart out of the inner city. All sorts of drastic measures will be required to rebalance that.
Our position is that we oppose increasing the cap. What is the Minister's position on it? The Irish Small and Medium Enterprises Association Limited, ISME, the Irish Business and Employers Confederation, IBEC, Chambers Ireland, Retail Excellence Ireland and the Retail, Grocery, Dairy & Allied Trades' Association, RGDATA, as well as the rest of the organisations all wish to know the Minister's thinking on the matter.
All those organisations have different views. The draft guidelines play a critical role in refocusing on plan-led development rather than a developer-led approach, which has bedevilled cities such as Limerick and other places throughout the country. I recognise that the retail sector plays a key role in generating employment and attracting people to cities, towns and villages. I am also conscious of the fact that in provincial towns, in particular, retail businesses are under pressure, so we do not wish to do anything that will massively distort the marketplace even further for those businesses. For that reason I have no proposals to increase the cap in the context of provincial towns.
Will the Minister clarify where he will be proposing to increase the cap? Second, will he acknowledge that it is not a requirement of the EU-IMF agreement to increase it and that the requirement was to undertake a study? Where is the Minister intending to increase the cap? Is it just the Dublin area? Will the Minister accept that it is a requirement of the EU-IMF agreement just to carry out the study, and no more?
When the EU and IMF ask one to carry out a study, they do so with a particular purpose in mind. There has been contact with the troika about the Forfás report and over the summer months we have been negotiating with the troika. The Government made the decision to release for public consultation the proposed changes in that submission to modify the grocery retail floor space cap in Dublin and the major cities but not to change the existing floor space levels for petrol station outlets, retail business parks or neighbourhood and district centres in provincial towns.
Building Regulations
Brian Stanley
Question:2 Deputy Brian Stanley asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government with whom the responsibility lies for the enforcement of building control standards in the situation in which the developer, having completed the development, has clearly not been in compliance; and if he will outline the way this process should operate. [37872/11]
Under the Building Control Act 1990, responsibility for compliance with the building regulations is a matter for the owner-builder of a building and enforcement of the building regulations is the responsibility of the 37 building control authorities. The resolution of problems arising between building owners and builders is a matter for the parties concerned, namely, the building owner, the relevant developer and the builder's insurers. Where the construction of a building is the subject of a contract between the client and the builder, enforcement is a civil matter.
Building control authorities are empowered to carry out inspections and initiate enforcement proceedings to ensure compliance. In addition to prosecution on indictment in the Circuit Court, building control authorities can bring summary prosecutions for all building code offences in the District Court and have wide powers to make application to the High Court to secure orders where buildings do not comply with the requirements of the building regulations.
This is a huge emerging problem across the State, with buildings and developments clearly not in compliance with building control standards. With regard to compliance, it is accepted that developers, their agents and architects are responsible for compliance. They must sign off on, and stand over, compliance with building control standards. The problem arises where it is clear that the building control standards have not been met. Where the developers are still in business, I find they are washing their hands of the problem. Receivers are also washing their hands of the problem. People are living in apartments that will probably have to be knocked down. I have seen some of these apartments. It is clear that self-regulation has not worked. Most people are agreed on that. Local authorities were inspecting between 10% and 15% of developments as they were being built during the years of madness.
Will the Deputy put his question?
Can I take it from the Minister that where the inspection regime and compliance have failed, the function of enforcement rests with the local authority? The evacuees from Priory Hall have repeatedly sought a meeting with the Minister. I believe it is a reasonable request, without prejudice to any outcome. Will the Minister finally agree to meet them in the context of the review of the building regulations?
First, I cannot meet the people from Priory Hall or any other development that is subject to court proceedings. When the court proceedings are concluded I might be in a position to meet people but I cannot do it before then.
I agree with Deputy Stanley that this is a looming problem, not just in Priory Hall but in other areas. There is general agreement now that a more rigorous enforcement regime is required. That is why in July of this year, before any matters relating to Priory Hall arose, I initiated a review of the building regulations and I will introduce mandatory certification of compliance by builders, and designers of buildings, confirming that the statutory requirements of the building regulations have been met. We put trust in professional people to do this job for the State in a devolved way, and it has not happened. More efficient pooling of building control staff and resources across the local authority sector is also required where we can target the areas in which we need more enforcement. A standardised approach with common protocols nationwide must be taken to ensure that people across the local authority sector, and across the professional organisations, will be in no doubt about their responsibilities.
I am disappointed in regard to Priory Hall but I hope the Minister's Department is doing everything possible to try to bring about a resolution to that problem.
In terms of where the inspections have fallen down, in most cases local authorities had a part-time person employed to carry out a building control function. Most of them had other jobs as well. It is basically a 19 and a half hours a week job but regarding local authorities, there are two local authorities side by side. In the case of Laois County Council, it is forcing builders who have not complied with building control regulations to do so, and it is taking measures to enforce that. Offaly County Council, on the other hand, seems to be questioning whether it is its role to do that. It appears to be dealing with this problem at arm's length and is questioning the legal basis for it. Will the Minister indicate if the same applies in that case because an estate in Portarlington, Riverside, is clearly not in compliance with the building control regulations? The residents are trying to get some resolution, as is the case in Priory Hall. That case is under the jurisdiction of Offaly County Council. Does Offaly County Council have to step in and enforce those regulations where there has been failure to comply?
I assure Deputy Stanley that the implementation of the Building Control Act is the same for every local authority. On the basis of the Deputy's response to my reply I will send out a further reminder to local authorities that they must uniformly apply the standards and the legal impact of the Building Control Act in regard to all of these developments. The issues relating to the review of the Building Control Act are out in public consultation and I will be bringing in new measures of enforcement and new responsibilities on a mandatory basis in 2012.
Clare Daly
Question:3 Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government in view of the epidemic of problems facing tens of thousands of home owners following the housing boom including pyrite related structural damage, inadequate foundations, inadequate fire protection, water ingress through faulty construction, sound transfer through party walls, drainage problems, unfinished estates and many other failures to comply with the building regulations and in view of the fact that developers, contractors, management companies and insurers are refusing responsibility for the cost of remedial works, if he will establish a task force of unemployed engineers, architects and skilled construction workers to complete the necessary remedial works and invoke the constitutional public interest provision to pay for these works by seizing the assets of parties refusing to honour their contractual responsibilities. [37878/11]
The statutory position on the construction of buildings, including dwellings, is set out in the Building Control Act 1990.
As Minister I have a responsibility to ensure that appropriate building regulations are in place setting out the legal requirements for the design and construction of new buildings, including houses, extensions and material alterations, and certain changes of use of existing buildings. The Act also provides for the publication of technical guidance documents outlining how the requirements of the building regulations may be achieved in practice. These responsibilities have been fulfilled and are not in dispute.
Compliance with the regulations is the responsibility of the owner or builder of a building. Enforcement of the regulations is the responsibility of the local building control authorities who are empowered to carry out inspections and initiate enforcement proceedings, where considered necessary. The resolution of problems arising between building owners and builders is a matter for the parties concerned, namely, the building owner, the relevant developer and the builder's insurers but where the construction of a building is the subject of a contract between the client and the builder, enforcement is a civil matter.
I have no plans or powers to mobilise a task force to intervene along the lines suggested in regard to structural matters or possible remedial works. I doubt whether such a solution would be practicable given the complexities that would arise in relation to the private property rights of homeowners and the potential uncertainties that would arise regarding legal liability for the original works and the possible remedial works. I have no powers regarding the seizing of assets which is a judicial function that can only be exercised by the courts.
The Minister seems to be suggesting that the current crisis has nothing to do with him. I suggest that if he continues to adopt that attitude he is facilitating a human and social disaster. Priory Hall residents were outside the gates of Leinster House today. They thought the works on their homes would be completed by Monday but as of today, nothing has been done to deal with the fundamental structural problems in their homes. There are the cases we have mentioned already here about pyrite. Tens of thousands of timber frame houses have been built without adequate ventilation which has resulted in humidity that is rotting the timber. All of that is going on. Residents expected they would get a remedy, be protected by the building regulations or that insurance companies would deal with those crises but nobody is dealing with them. Every agency is kicking the issue to the other and the Minister seems to be adding himself to that pot, so to speak. That is not good enough. This is an emergency.
Does the Deputy have a question?
Yes, I have. The Minister has not intervened enough. He said it is his responsibility to deal with the regulations. The regulations have contributed to the situation we are in now. The Minister has a role in that and I would like to hear more about what he intends to do about it.
It is a matter for Dublin City Council to enforce the regulations, and that is what it is doing. The issue is before the courts, and I cannot intervene in law. I will not break the law for anybody. I am keeping a close watch on developments in the courts but I cannot intervene at this stage.
A robust system of building control exists, and that is demonstrated by the Priory Hall case where the local authority is successfully using its powers, although I accept not fast enough. I would like to see the regulations implemented much more quickly and appropriately but when we are in a court situation to ensure that ultimately people get their rights, it is very difficult. It is unfortunate that the defective work carried out by the builder is responsible for the fact that we have residents in the traumatic situation in which they find themselves, through no fault of theirs. I assure the Deputy that when the court proceedings are concluded I will be taking a more active role to see what we can do to assist Dublin City Council, and the residents in particular who are the people of whom we are most mindful, and that we will be in a position to move but I hope that the court proceedings would end quickly.
Regarding the pyrite problem, the Deputy is aware of the panel I established and I understand she met the panel. I appreciate that she did that and gave them the benefit of her expertise and experience, and outlined some of the cases with which she is dealing. I expect to get a report from the panel chaired by Mr. Tuohy in January.
It is clear we do not have a robust system in place. The reality is that the houses of tens of thousands of people are literally falling down. To say it is a legal issue is not good enough. We have regulations but the Minister does not have the staff on the ground to implement those regulations. At the height of the boom there were two building enforcement officers in north Kildare, one of the fastest growing areas, and a similarly small number in Fingal. Since then we have had fewer staff, and we have lost many staff in local authorities. How will these regulations be enforced? There is no answer to that question. The victims are the people whose houses are falling down and the cost to society will be far greater unless we intervene now.
I share the Deputy's concern about the people who are affected by this, and I am doing something about it. Long before any Priory Hall problem erupted, in July this year, after three months in office, I authorised a review of the building regulations. They are out in public consultation, and we will be implementing them early in 2012. That process will introduce mandatory certification of compliance by builders, not the haphazard approach we had previously. Those professional bodies should have been much more engaged in ensuring that the membership of those professional bodies, in a devolved way, exercised the trust this Parliament and Dublin City Council gave them. We must have more efficient pooling of staff and resources to target the areas about which the Deputy spoke to ensure there is proper enforcement and implementation of the building regulations and a standardised approach and common protocols across the local authority sector, as already stated by Deputy Stanley.
Housing Services
Question:
4 Deputy Michael P. Kitt asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government if he will be responding to the submission from Threshold on the overhaul of the way that he deals with homelessness; his views on a deposit protection scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37875/11]
I agree with the views espoused by Threshold. Despite the very considerable public funding that has been utilised in the emergency homeless sector over the last number of years, insufficient progress on delivering people out of emergency accommodation into independent living has been achieved. The Government is determined to tackle homelessness in a more planned and strategic way, by adopting a housing-led approach and providing long-term solutions, rather than just managing homelessness.
The programme for Government commits to the introduction of a deposit protection scheme and it is important that action is taken in the context of a strong evidence base. I have asked the Private Residential Tenancies Board, the independent statutory body charged with the administration of the Act, to commission a cost-benefit analysis on such a scheme and to report back to me with recommendations. I expect the board will revert to me with detailed research and recommendations in the first half of 2012.
In July 2011, the Government approved the drafting of the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Bill 2011. The general scheme of the Bill proposes the introduction of fines where a landlord is found incorrectly to have retained a tenant's deposit as a first step to eliminating the problem of deposit retention. My Department is currently liaising with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel about the drafting of the Bill.
I would first like to pay tribute to the former Minister of State, Deputy Penrose. I worked with him for seven months and I found him very easy to work with. When will he be replaced? Many people are contacting us to know when there will be a voice at the Cabinet table for the most marginalised. Is the Minister aware that there are approximately 5,000 people homeless, one in seven of whom is a child? There are almost 10,000 people on social housing waiting lists and there are tens of thousands in fear of losing their homes because of rent and mortgage arrears. I would like to know what the Minister is going to do about that.
There is a considerable number of people in emergency accommodation. They have a roof over their heads and they have an integrated care plan to one extent or another. Not all of this accommodation is of a standard I would like, and that is why the Government has decided to adopt a housing-led approach, rather than an approach which puts people into bed and breakfast accommodation or hostels and leaves them there. They can be cared for individually with the help of HSE staff and other staff. I would like to see a situation where a significant number of properties are made available by local authority housing units and by the National Asset Management Agency, especially in our major cities.
There are currently 1,000 children in aftercare, and the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs is dealing with this issue proactively to ensure that no child is left uncared for in the context of homelessness.
I am happy that the deposit protection scheme is making progress. I have met representatives from many agencies, and Threshold has been particularly strong on the idea of a scheme like this. Disputes are currently taking 12 months to resolve, and I believe that Threshold dealt with 3,600 cases last year. The agency has prevented disputes in its work. I would like to see a more proactive role by the Government and by the next Minister of State with responsibility to ensure that these disputes will not take place. We can prevent disputes by having a scheme like this, as advocated by Threshold.
I agree with the Deputy that the level of proactivity on the part of the authorities in dealing with disputes is quite slow. Only 43% are resolved within one year, and that is not acceptable. That is why the legislation will be brought forward in the middle of 2012. We have to do a little bit of research in the first half of 2012 to make sure we get it right.
Water Services
Seamus Healy
Question:5 Deputy Seamus Healy asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government if he will provide funds to local authorities to update water infrastructure to deal with persistent flooding; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37694/11]
Measures to alleviate flooding are generally the responsibility of the Office of Public Works, which is the lead agency for flood risk management and funds a capital and maintenance programme for major and minor flood relief schemes in known areas at risk.
The Department's multi-annual water services investment programme funds the provision of water services infrastructure to address specific environmental, public health and economic needs. While the programme includes the upgrade and expansion of sewerage networks, storm water drainage is only funded where it is the most economic means of providing increased foul drainage capacity in combined sewer systems, enabling storm water to be diverted from the combined system. It is to this limited extent only that sewerage schemes provide flood relief measures. No funding is available from the water services investment programme for specific separate storm water drainage, flood prevention or relief works. It is possible in some instances to combine the procurement and delivery of works being funded for such purposes by the OPW with schemes being advanced by local authorities under the water services investment programme. I am sure the Deputy is aware of some of these cases.
The Department, in partnership with the OPW, published guidelines for planning authorities on the planning system and flood risk management in November 2009, with the aim of ensuring a more consistent, rigorous and systematic approach to flood risk identification, assessment and management within the planning system. These statutory guidelines provide the basis for planning authorities to identify, assess and take appropriate steps to manage flood risk in a sustainable manner.
That sounds a bit like gobbledegook to me.
I am surprised someone as intelligent as the Deputy cannot understand it.
The Minister speaks about this body and the other body being responsible, this report and so on. On 24 October, there was serious flooding in 89 different locations in my area alone. Hundreds of families saw their houses flooded. For many of those families, it was a repeat episode of flooding. It happened again, again and again. The thrust of my question and the appeal of the residents in Blackrock, Monkstown, Stradbrook, Sallynoggin, Dalkey, Ballybrack and Dún Laoghaire — I am sure this is repeated all over the city — is that the State takes responsibility.
How the Minister brings different Departments and the OPW together to sort this out is really up to the Government. That is what the Government is there for, but it is clear that this is not just a natural disaster problem, but essentially the consequence of developers being allowed to run amok over the years, putting up developments willy nilly all over the place and not putting adequate water and drainage infrastructure in place. Local authorities previously identified flood works that they knew had to be put in place, but they failed to do so over years and failed to require developers to put in proper water and drainage infrastructure. This meant a disaster for people on 24 October, which was not the first time for many of them. They cannot get insurance any longer and they quake in their boots every time the rain comes down.
Money should be made available to carry out the water and drainage infrastructure work in flood black spots as a matter of urgency. An insurance scheme should be put in place by the Government, so that people who cannot get insurance because they are repeat flood victims will be able to do so, and local authorities should be given the resources to do simple things like regularly clean out gullies, especially in flood black spots.
I know that Deputy Boyd Barrett expects the State to do everything and to provide resources to everybody and anybody, including the local authorities that are responsible in the first instance for making sure that the gullies are clean. He should direct his question to the local authorities and ask what they are doing with their maintenance budgets to introduce preventative measures so we do not experience the level of flooding to which he refers.
The Office of Public Works is in charge of providing the necessary remedial action for flooding. It has a rolling fund of €45 million for 2012. If the Deputy's local authority wishes to have matters prioritised, I am sure it is in a position to contact the OPW and request that certain areas be prioritised.
I sympathise with those people who suffered from the floods in October. Unfortunately, there was a huge amount of rainfall in just three hours. It was definitely unexpected at that stage that so much water would fall in such a short space of time. However, we have allocated €10 million to help people in these stressful situations to deal with their properties and their belongings and to mitigate the hardship in some way. Various voluntary organisations, local authorities and the Red Cross are dealing with those issues. Community welfare officers from the Department of Social Protection and the local authorities are helping people to mitigate the damage. However, we should never expect the State to do everything for everybody.
Of course the State has responsibility to put in place proper water and drainage infrastructure. I do not understand the Minister batting this off to the local authorities, as if he was disconnected from local authorities.
Deputy Hogan is the Minister with overall responsibility for this.
We are over time so, if you do not mind, please put the question.
Will the Minister make funds available to the local authorities to take urgent action to improve the infrastructure in flood black spots? I realise this is not directly the responsibility of the Minister's Department but perhaps he could raise this issue. For example, many people in Avondale Lawn in Blackrock are repeat flood victims. The backs of their homes look like disaster areas or like a Hollywood disaster movie. They have been informed that because of means testing they do not qualify for assistance under the €10 million scheme. What help will be provided for them?
Those people have insurance.
They do not because they are repeat flood victims.
If they do not have insurance then they are entitled to apply for the scheme and if Deputy Boyd Barrett has details of these matters and where they have been refused I will have them investigated.
The local authorities are devolved from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and are responsible within their budgets for the works which Deputy Boyd Barrett has outlined. The Deputy should make representations to his local authority and he should prioritise the areas that should be cleaned up. No Department should be responsible for an agency or local authority that has devolved function with regard to these matters or should hand-hold such agencies in respect of anything and everything. These people must exercise responsibility while they have budgets to do so.
It is a matter of resources.
Naturally, it is about resources; let us remember we are in an EU-IMF programme.