Vol. 764 No. 2
1Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for the Environment; Community and Local Government his estimate of the number of households that will be metered; the time frame for the roll out of metering; the costs of metering and the charges to households; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22282/12]
2Deputy Brian Stanley asked the Minister for the Environment; Community and Local Government if he will reconsider the proposal to introduce water meters and water charges as metering is not an option for one third of households in Dublin. [22569/12]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
The Government considers charging based on usage the fairest way to charge for water and has decided that water meters should be installed in households connected to public water supplies. International evidence has shown that where meters have been installed, significant reductions have been achieved in the level of consumption, and this is also borne out by the water savings achieved with metering in the group water sector.
My Department estimates there are approximately 1.35 million domestic properties connected to public water supplies in Ireland. Following detailed analysis of available data, it is estimated that up to 300,000 of these households may not be metered in the initial metering programme due to either the high cost or the technical difficulty in doing so. It is not true to say these households will never be metered. I expect these households will be metered in the longer term as shared service connections are replaced and further options relating to metering apartment blocks are evaluated, including internal metering. Households which are not initially metered will pay for water on an assessed basis.
Detailed cost estimates on the metering programme have been prepared by my Department. It would not be appropriate to release these estimates in advance of the competitive procurement process. I am aware of some estimates of the cost of metering which have been reported in the media in recent months. These estimates are speculative and will be shown to be significantly overstated when the procurement of metering is completed. The metering programme will begin before the end of 2012 and will be substantially delivered within a three year period.
The Government has also decided to assign responsibility for the economic regulation of the water sector to the Commission for Energy Regulation. The primary role of the regulator will be to protect the interests of customers and to ensure a consistent and appropriate level of service is provided to customers. My Department is working with the Commission on the development of the regulatory framework for the water sector, and legislation will be prepared to provide the Commission with the necessary powers to fulfil its new role.
In the likely event the Minister's target number of houses will not be metered by 2014, what is his plan B for the project? Will he address the anomaly in the units to which he referred which cannot be metered in the short term because there is a disparity? The Minister quotes a figure of 300,000 units and the House will be aware what the executive engineer from Dublin City Council has said.
I know that.
The recent census figures on which we can rely state that apartments, bed-sits and pre-1960 buildings combined come to a figure of 503,000 units. There is a fairly large discrepancy between the figure the Minister quotes and the figure the CSO quotes. Can the Minister elaborate on his statement that the units that cannot be metered in the short term would be charged on an assessed basis? Will they be means-tested? Will it be a flat rate charge? Can the Minister give Members any more detail on it? Can the Minister give the public who will face the wider metering project and the rest of us any idea on the structure of the free allocation and the pricing structure per litre above the free allocation?
The number of households that would not be metered was looked at in the context of the census data, the same as it was by those others whom Deputy Niall Collins mentioned, including the executive manager of Dublin City Council. We all were looking at the same figures. We have done a detailed analysis in the Department on the number of properties that will cause problems in the initial phase of metering. It is important to note that this figure is an estimate and it will be higher or lower. It is intended that each property will be individually examined for suitability for metering as part of the roll-out of the metering programme.
Deputy Niall Collins mentioned the media reports that one third of the houses will not be metered. My Department's analysis of the available data of property has taken into account the matters raised in the media reports, and where conventional metering installation is not possible, it is intended that alternative approaches will be considered, including a flat rate charge based on similar water usage in similar properties. For example, for housing units in apartment complexes, internal metering may be considered. Irish Water will be expected to ensure the maximum level of metering is achieved. It should fully evaluate the options for the properties where conventional meter installation will not be feasible.
The free allowance and the water pricing matters are the subject of an implementation plan, where Bord Gáis, which is the semi-State company put in charge of rolling out this project, in consultation with the regulator, will bring proposals to the Department and Government shortly. Bord Gáis is the company the Government is charging on behalf of the customer with responsibility to come to it with views about the free allowance. The Government will decide at the end of the day, in line with the programme for Government, on the free allowance and the amount that will be allowed in this case. On water pricing, we will be getting the proposals from Bord Gáis and the regulator on these matters as well in due course.
I have one more question.
I am afraid we are over time.
The Minister is taking Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
I apologise.
The Minister-----
I have not yet come in.
Deputy Stanley has to come in. I asked about 2014-----
We will let Deputy Stanley in and then come back.
We can leave it until Question No. 2.
Are we taking Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together?
Yes.
Then we discuss them together. Deputy Stanley should ask his question and then I will let Deputy Niall Collins in.
The Minister stated that there are in excess of 300,000 households that cannot be metered. The Dublin position has been mentioned, but would the Minister agree that this will also be a problem throughout the country?
Where there are apartments, the Minister mentioned fitting internal meters. What would happen in an apartment block where the occupants might not want meters fitted? Would somebody break down the doors?
That is what they used to do.
What would happen in the case of old housing estates in Carlow-Kilkenny, of which the Minister will be aware, and in many places throughout the State where there are pipes running at the back of houses, under garden sheds and under garden walls? Would one have to bulldoze one's way through garden sheds to try to get at these stopcocks to fit meters? These are real problems I am trying to point out to the Minister. I am trying to save him much head-on confrontation with residents. There will be many problems in trying to fit these. The senior engineer in Dublin City Council set out his stall in terms of the number of households in Dublin that cannot be fitted with meters, and he would know a thing or two about meters.
The Minister might address this issue. I have heard reports of these meters being installed in 18 months or two years. Is the Minister aware that across the water in England, there are parts that have not yet got meters? I spoke to somebody who worked in water services in England for ten years.
Questions, please.
That person told me that in their duration with Anglian Water, the company had not succeeded in completing the fitting of water meters in that time. Is the Minister aware of that? It would appear to be unworkable and impossible. Even if the Minister succeeds in having interior meters installed in apartment blocks, charging a flat fee flies in the face of the stated aim of this measure which is to conserve water. That argument does not stack up when one looks at the figures.
Does the Deputy have a question?
Does the Minister agree that if he is making a linkage between water metering and water conservation, a flat fee proposal is not in line with it?
I am surprised that Deputy Stanley would question a proposal to charge for any service considering that the average water charge per household in Northern Ireland equates to almost €1,000.
It does not.
Yes, it does.
The Minister is absolutely wrong.
The exact figure is €971. I am aware this is a sensitive issue for the Deputy given that Sinn Féin purports to be all-island party.
Householders in the North have access to free rural transport, free fire services and much more besides.
The Minister should be allowed to continue without interruption.
I am also surprised that the Deputy would take the word of an executive manager of one local authority above the very detailed analysis carried out by my Department on a nationwide basis.
I have acknowledged there will be difficulties in respect of the installation of meters in a certain cohort of properties. I will not be out there installing them myself, no more than the Deputy will, but we are putting people in a position of responsibility to do that job. Approximately 200 contracts will be tendered and granted before the end of the year by the semi-State body charged with responsibility for the scheme. The installation programme will create 2,000 jobs. There is no question of it being necessary for one contract to finish before the next can proceed. Rather, the 200 contracts will be ongoing at the same time. These are the means by which we will speed up the implementation of the scheme. A public water utility, Irish Water, will be established for the purposes of implementation. Notwithstanding the difficulties that will arise, which I have acknowledged, let us give it the opportunity to fulfil its task.
I asked the Minister to outline his plan B given that I am not convinced that his Department appreciates the complexity of the project being undertaken. All informed third-party commentators are of the view that the programme will not meet its deadline of the end of 2014. There is a discrepancy between the figures from the 2011 census and those contained in the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, which relied on the 2006 census data. This has led to the uncertainty as to whether 300,000 or in excess of 500,000 units will not be included in the initial metering programme. Does the Minister have a plan B if the deadline is not met at the end of 2014?
I am surprised at the Deputy's lack of confidence in a decision made by the Government to charge a semi-State company with what is the largest project since the establishment of the ESB, namely, to ensure the provision of water supplies in adequate quantities and quality for the people of this country. I would have expected him to support that objective.
It is not a question of support or otherwise. It is reasonable to ask whether there is a plan B in the event that the deadline is not met.
I expected his support given that scheme is in line with a decision made by the previous Government in 2009.
That has nothing to do with it.
Deputy Collins must allow the Minister to reply.
There is no need for a plan B. We have made the decision to charge a semi-State body with carrying out this important work for the benefit of the people of this country. Let us give it an opportunity, through an implementation plan, to do so. Any talk of a plan B amounts to scaremongering. We are proceeding with plan A.
There is no scaremongering. People are entitled to certainty.
They will have certainty.
There is only more confusion.
I asked the Minister about the time line of 18 months to two years for rolling out metering nationally. In England, it has not been possible to do it-----
This is Question Time. Does the Deputy have a question for the Minister?
Deputy Stanley is making a valid point.
What is the situation in regard to households which have already installed meters? Does the Minister agree that all of the money being invested in the installation of meters will do nothing to fix the leaks in piping systems? Surely it would be more effective, instead of proceeding with metering, to repair those faults and roll out the neighbourhood metering system on a national basis?
Some €200 million has been spent in the past six or seven years on the rehabilitation of mains and pipe networks, with an additional €120 million allocated for this purpose this year and next. I am surprised the Deputy is not supporting this water conservation programme. I am in support of clean water, but one can only conclude, on the basis of his attitude to the septic tank provisions, that he is opposed to it. The reality is that water leakage on the customer side is not being caught, with substantial losses arising in all local authority areas. That is totally unacceptable. Our objective is to address this issue by eliminating fragmentation and establishing a single public water utility to deal with these matters once. That will ensure we have adequate quantities of quality water for consumers, particularly on the east coast where a water shortage will develop if we do not plan for it now. I am determined, together with Bord Gáis and my Government colleagues, that we will do this in the shortest period of time, notwithstanding the difficulties and hiccups that will inevitably arise along the way.
3Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for the Environment; Community and Local Government if he will accept that in view of the information available (details supplied), the Building Regulations Advisory Board could have prevented the pyrite problem by ensuring adequate testing standards and that he has a responsibility and duty to the thousands of home owners, who invested in their family home believing that the Building Regulations were a protection against major structural damage, to remediate the major structural damage caused by the failure of the BRAB and his Department. [22284/12]
The Building Control Acts 1990 to 2007 set out a clear statutory framework for construction activity based on legally enforceable minimum requirements, as set out in the Building regulations. Detailed technical guidance documents, TGDs, accompanying each part of the building regulations outline how compliance can be achieved in practice. The regulations and relevant TGDs first came into effect in June 1992. They are subject to ongoing review by my Department, working in conjunction with the Building Regulations Advisory Body, BRAB, in light of developments in the construction industry generally.
My Department first became aware of the pyrite problem in mid-2007, and, in conjunction with the BRAB, took appropriate and decisive action to deal with the emerging problem and prevent the use of pyritic material in future. All building control authorities were advised of the problem and their co-operation sought in the enforcement of the relevant building regulations. Industry stakeholders were also contacted and advised of the problem and their assistance sought in containing it. The National Standards Authority of Ireland, NSAI, in conjunction with my Department and industry stakeholders, undertook a review of existing guidance in regard to hardcore material and, following a public consultation process, issued additional guidance, standard recommendation SR21, on reducing the risk of reactive forms of pyrite being present in material fill for use under concrete floors in dwellings and other buildings. Technical guidance document C was revised in 2008 to take account of the additional guidance given in SR21.
Acknowledging the very difficult and challenging situation faced by home owners having to cope with the consequences of pyrite problems in their homes, I set up the pyrite panel in September 2011 whose remit is to identify solutions for a resolution to the pyrite problem. I look forward to receiving its report shortly.
The Minister's response is factually inaccurate in several instances. He acknowledges that the regulations were inadequate and had to be changed. The issue, however, is whether he was aware of the problem at that time. There is now disputable evidence, given most recently at a symposium in Trinity College, that there was a massive awareness of this issue in terms of the ground engineering literature that was in circulation at the time and the geology of the area. It is indisputable that the information was out there and, as such, the building regulations should have ensured adequate testing to deal with it. Had that been in place, the nightmare scenario now facing families would not have arisen. Will the Minister respond to that point? His officials attended that symposium and have had it confirmed that the industry knew that testing should have been done, not least for sulphur attacks on concrete. The Department did not do that and although this was before the Minister's time, it remains the case that the Department is responsible for overseeing the building regulations. Given that it has been acknowledged as deficient in this regard, the Minister must take responsibility to remedy the matter now.
As the Deputy is aware, there was court action in regard to this matter and the Department was exonerated of any particular responsibility. The pyrite symposium to which the Deputy referred was organised by Professor Brian Hawkins, a former member of staff at the University of Bristol. He has an engineering and geological background and has been involved in a number of isolated pyrite-related incidents in the United Kingdom over a number of years. He has also had an involvement with the pyrite problem in Ireland since 2007. Four members of my departmental staff who provide technical and administrative support to the pyrite panel attended the symposium to which the Deputy referred and reported back to the pyrite panel yesterday. In response to a question from a member of the Pyrite Action Group as to whether the knowledge of pyrite was common prior to 2007, Professor Hawkins indicated that it was, referring to several academic papers and a book of his which dealt with pyritic heave. Paul Forde, joint managing director of DBFL Consulting Engineers, gave a presentation at the symposium on his experience of dealing with pyrite problems since 2007. He indicated he was not aware of pyrite prior to 2007 and had misdiagnosed cracking resulting from pyritic heave when he was initially engaged to deal with problems. The general view among engineering professionals is that there was very little knowledge of pyrite prior to 2007. It is not covered in third level engineering courses. Hardcore was seen as a low risk material. The question takes a narrow and selective view of what was said at that symposium.
If the pyrite panel comes back with a finding that makes points like those the Minister is making, the householders affected are going to be seriously disappointed. The Minister must understand the nature of the problem to come up with a solution and he has quoted two people's different opinions. Mr. Brian Hawkins is the world renowned authority on pyrite and I would give greater credibility to his opinion. He absolutely confirmed on at least ten occasions at the symposium that this was known about and society should have acknowledged this. It should have been reflected in the regulations. Unless the Department takes responsibility for that, there will be a real problem when the panel issues its findings.
As Deputy Daly should acknowledge, I have done everything possible to engage with Oireachtas Members and people through this pyrite panel to ensure solutions are on offer, not a blame game. If the Deputy wants to go down the road of a blame game, she will not find solutions for ordinary people. In recent litigation that led me to establish this pyrite panel, it was clearly stated the Department was not in any way culpable in these matters. People will have differences of opinion in all walks of life; I am interested in getting solutions.
4Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for the Environment; Community and Local Government if any changes have been made to payment methods for the household charge in response to the payment rate to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22283/12]
There is a range of options available for persons to pay the household charge. An online system , www.householdcharge.ie, is in place in the Local Government Management Agency to enable homeowners to pay the household charge by credit or debit card. In addition, homeowners can make payment by cheque, postal order, or credit or debit card by completing the relevant payment details on the declaration form and posting it to Household Charge, PO Box 12168, Dublin 1. Instalment payments were available before 1 March 2012 for those who wished to pay in four instalments. This deadline was necessary in order to meet banking requirements for direct debit arrangements.
A bureau is in place in the LGMA to administer the charge on a shared service-agency basis for all local authorities. The Local Government Management Agency is administering the household charge system on a shared service/agency basis. In addition, 178,000 postal applications have been received in the household charge bureau, which are now being processed and this work will be completed shortly.
I am satisfied that there are comprehensive suites of payment options available to persons to pay the household charge and I have no proposals to introduce changes to the payment options currently available.
The people who have not paid the household charge to date can be placed in one of two categories: those who have a principled objection and those with a clear inability to pay. The campaign to date lacked information. There were insufficient payment methods and there has been a series of incoherent messages from the Government about payment through An Post.
Will the Minister make provision for those with a clear inability to pay? There are genuine people who see these extra charges mounting up. It is acknowledged that the charge is regressive and the nature of the flat rate means there are unemployed people and old age pensioners with a genuine inability to pay. Will the Minister consider at some stage making provision for these people? There was a proposal to extend the payment deadline to September to avoid putting thousands of people outside the law. The Minister should consider that.
There are many unfinished housing estates that are not categorised as qualifying for the waiver. What process exists for residents' associations to contact the Department or local authority? There is no visible process. What is the Minister's strategy for dealing with those household that have not paid? Just about 50% have paid.
So far 57% have paid.
The figure has stopped climbing. Just over 40% have not paid and I am making the case for those who cannot pay. What is the strategy for dealing with those who can pay but refuse to pay?
All the doomsday people on the back row opposite said only 20% would pay. I know it does not suit Deputy Daly's argument but 57% have paid.
It does not bother me in the slightest but I could quote the Minister's own predictions for payment.
We had no comprehensive database of property, which meant we could not send a bill to people. An Post did not win the tender to deliver the leaflet, another company won it, although I have concerns about the manner in which it did that, which I will deal with in another way.
The extension of the deadline to September was proposed by Fianna Fáil and I rejected that. I operate on the basis that people will come up to a deadline and then pay. That is what happened, with 25% paying within a week of the deadline. If the deadline is extended, people will wait for that deadline to pay. We will process those who decided to pay at the 11th hour through An Post and that process will be completed in the next week or two. People will then get reminders in the same way as any payment that is needed for any utility. The data sharing protocols are in place to allow local authorities to send out letters over the summer. Ultimately people must decide if they want to comply with the law or not and if they do not comply with the law, they face litigation.
I accept there were difficulties with the categorisation of unfinished estates. Only categories 3 and 4 were eligible for the exemption, estates that were largely in receivership or liquidation, or that were very badly unfinished. The survey that was carried out did not capture all of them so we have asked local authorities to look at these matters in the light of genuine errors that were made and that city managers and county managers look at those sympathetically.
Will estates that have not yet been taken in charge form part of the survey? There are many estates that have not been taken in charge that have legacy issues the local authorities are trying to address by dealing with developers.
The Minister did not address the question of those who are genuinely unable to pay, such as the unemployed and old age pensioners.
Everyone knew what the deadline was and if people wanted to pay before the deadline, they would not have any penalties to pay. I will not extend any exemptions for people who have not paid to date. They will continue to pay in line with the legislation that was passed by the Oireachtas in December and in line with what I have said on all occasions, that there would be no more exemptions for people. People knew exactly where they stood on this charge and there will be no change in that.
5Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for the Environment; Community and Local Government if he will be reinstating the independent planning investigations commenced in June 2010; if he will make known the specifics of the complaint received by him in relation to alleged planning irregularities in Carlow County Council which formed the basis for that council’s inclusion in the aforementioned investigative process by former Minister Gormley; if he will advise when his Department’s Internal Planning Authority Review Report will be published; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22556/12]
The planning review is intended to assess the application of planning legislation, policy and guidance within the development plan and development management systems at local level and to inform further policy development in these areas. Seven planning authorities, including Carlow County Council, representing a broad geographical spread of both urban and rural areas as well as both large and small authorities, had been selected to assist in the review of policies and practices by reference to a number of cases raised with my Department. In the case of Carlow County Council, the issues raised relate to weaknesses in the procedures followed by, and governance structures in place in, the planning department of the Council.
The question of reinstating the review does not arise as it was never terminated. Rather, I am proceeding now on the basis of my predecessor's decision that instead of incurring significant costs to the Exchequer by securing outsourced expertise, the Department would carry out an examination of the cases involved to inform the planning review. I will be making a public statement in the coming weeks, setting out fully the nature of the complaints involved, the findings of the review and the conclusions and recommended next steps, as appropriate.
This question arises in the context of the report of the Mahon tribunal. We know what happened in Dublin and that serious complaints were made to the Department and the Ombudsman about what had occurred in Cork. I have a copy of the Ombudsman's report, delivered on 25 February, which refers to difficulties of a systemic nature. Essentially, what is happening is similar to what occurred when the Ferns report - the first such report of its kind on child abuse within the church - was published. In the context of child abuse, it did not come as a surprise that there was the same problem in other locations because the same structures and systems were in place. The position is exactly the same in the planning system which lies at the core of the economic difficulties by which we have been beset. People's sense of outrage regarding the Mahon tribunal cannot be temporary in nature. The investigation carried out must be credible and allow people to feel a sense of confidence in the planning system into the future. There can be no recurrence of past failures. Is the Minister of State confident that an internal inquiry will be seen as credible from the point of view of restoring people's confidence? Is she not of the view that there is a need for an independent assessment rather than an in-house one? I fully appreciate that money is tight, etc. However, an investigation must be credible, above reproach and independent. Will an internal review deliver in this regard?
I agree with a number of the comments made by the Deputy. First, there is a need to restore confidence in the planning system. In that context, we must respond to the abuses and corruption identified in the Mahon tribunal's report. The Minister, other Ministers and I intend to respond to all of the recommendations contained in that report in a substantial and complete way.
The investigations which are the subject of this question were instigated by the former Minister, Mr. John Gormley, and represent a selection of the overall number of complaints received by the Department in respect of virtually every local authority in the country. The Department receives approximately 8,000 complaints from the public per annum about a variety of issues. I am sure the position is the same in other Departments. The seven cases in question were selected by the former Minister and we are carrying out investigations into them. If the report on these matters suggests further and external investigations are required, I will order them. We will publish a full report. The investigators from the Department have carried out on-site visits in the seven local authorities in question and will supply us with a complete analysis. I intend to publish the reports and recommendations I receive in full. I am committed to ensuring confidence in the planning system is restored.
I understand the local authorities selected to be investigated were contacted and that they issued responses. I actually have a copy of the response submitted by the authority in Cork. I am sure each of the authorities involved has submitted a response at this point. Does the Minister of State propose to publish them? The State spent a small fortune on the Mahon tribunal and we were obliged to wait years for its report. Members of the public who are picking up the tab in respect of this matter - not just with regard to the report but also in the context of the property bubble and the lack of strategic planning relating thereto - continually state no action is taken. There is a need to resolve matters in a comprehensive and timely way with regard to individuals who still hold certain positions and in respect of whom questions have arisen in order that we might reassure the public and return to a position where we have a planning system over which we can stand.
The report of the Mahon tribunal identified instances of serious corruption. We must ensure we learn from what occurred in the past and implement the recommendations contained in that report. The seven investigations relating to the local authorities do not relate to instances of corruption but rather to suggestions the administrative systems were not as good as they should have been. For example, an issue arose with regard to the height of buildings in Dublin and there were a number of differences of opinion between An Bord Pleanála and Dublin City Council in this regard. Issues also arose in respect of pre-planning meetings in Cork. There were other issues regarding the way planning departments were run. These are all serious issues, but they are not of the same scale as those identified in the report of the Mahon tribunal. In fairness to the local authorities concerned, we must acknowledge this fact. If there is anything which suggests there is a need for further investigation to be carried out by an independent outside entity into the matters which are the subject of this question, I am committed to establishing such an investigation. The report of the Mahon tribunal contains very significant recommendations which I intend to implement.
