I remind Deputies there are six minutes allocated per question, with up to two minutes for the Minister's reply and a minute for each supplementary.
Other Questions
Dormant Accounts Fund Management
Michael Moynihan
Question:6. Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government his plans to introduce legislation to reduce the liability on the State for the re-imbursement of dormant accounts; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20469/13]
The Dormant Accounts Act 2001, together with the Unclaimed Life Assurance Policies Act 2003, the Dormant Accounts (Amendment) Act 2005 and the Dormant Accounts (Amendment) Act 2012, provide a framework for the administration of unclaimed accounts in credit institutions, namely, banks, building societies, An Post and insurance companies, and in unclaimed life assurance policies in insurance undertakings. The legislation requires the institutions or undertakings to take steps to identify and contact the owners of dormant accounts and unclaimed life assurance policies.
The main purpose of the legislation is to reunite account holders or policyholders with their funds in credit institutions and insurance undertakings and, in this regard, such institutions and undertakings are required to take steps to identify and contact the owners of dormant accounts and unclaimed life assurance policies. The fund consists of a reserve account from which reclaims and various expenses are paid and an investment and disbursement account from which investments and disbursements are made.
The transfer of moneys to the dormant accounts fund takes place on the basis that the beneficial owners of the moneys have a guaranteed right to reclaim their property at any time in the future. The dormant accounts fund derives, in the main, from private bank and building society accounts and must be handled and invested prudently having regard to the constitutionally guaranteed right to private property and the confidential nature of the relationship the credit institutions enjoy with their customers. I have no plans to amend this legislation.
Can the Minister tell me how much money has been disbursed under the dormant accounts scheme and how much there is in the disbursement account, not including the reserve account? Does he agree that in the real world it is slightly farcical that all this money is considered to be a contingent liability on the State? When the Minister goes to spend that money for the benefit of citizens, he is told by the Department of Finance the sum is adding to the national debt. Will the Minister further confirm that in every year since the dormant accounts fund was set up the claim for reimbursement on the fund has been less than the amount of inflow from the financial institutions?
As a former Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív understands better than anybody the difficulties relating to this matter and the complex nature of how the fund is operated. I believe some €82 million is currently in the account. The dormancy period is 15 years, dating each year from 30 September. An account is designated dormant when on 30 September there have been no transactions by the account holder in the previous 15 years. Due to constitutional and privacy issues it can often be difficult to trace people who may be entitled to the money in an account that is lying dormant. The dormancy period of 15 years is a considerable period of time and has its own implications as to how one can draw down moneys that might ultimately be drawn down by the account holder. It is a complex relationship. As to what the Deputy stated in regard to the general Government balance, this money is counted because it is deemed to be money owed to people at present under the law.
The dormant account money was spent very well when Deputy Ó Cuív was a Minister. I will be precise - the dormant account funding was very important to urban areas just as the Leader fund is welcome to rural communities as their social infrastructure money. Since dormant account funding has closed there has been no money for social infrastructure for urban areas throughout the country. Given the funds present, is there any opportunity to release some of them for urban areas?
There is a designated fund for urban disadvantage and the local community development funds provide some sort of assistance. The local and community development programme, LCDP, still operates in urban as well as rural communities - does the Deputy know that? I realise the moneys are not as great as they were and I agree the dormant accounts fund was certainly a good fund for educational, economic and social disadvantage needs. I have explained the difficulties in getting some of this money released. Since we had visitors to town, known as the troika, we must now include this money as part of the general Government balance but the matter is kept under review by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. If there are any moneys that can be released there are very worthy urban projects in the Deputy's and in other urban constituencies which can be taken into account.
It is fair to say that, constitutionally, rights to property are not absolute but are subject to the exigencies of the common good. Nobody is saying that when a person comes to make a claim his or account would not be paid. There is all the money coming in plus the reserve fund for that end. The problem is that about €300 million is written in the books of the State, of which the vast majority has been paid out. That is a contingent liability and it stops the Minister from supporting very worthwhile projects. I believe there are two measures he could adopt immediately. One is flagship projects where dormant account money is used to match community or philanthropic money. The other is the discretionary money we were giving to the RAPID area implementation teams, or AITs, for small projects within areas of severe disadvantage.
Thank you.
To free up the money, all the Minister must do is to decide that the order of claim on the money would be slightly changed. In other words, the person would be reimbursed and the first call would be on the constant funds coming in every year that become dormant. The second call would be on the reserve fund and the third would be on all the new dormant accounts coming in which every year have exceeded the outflows in reimbursements. However, to say that one needs-----
Thank you, Deputy.
-----a back-up of all the moneys that have ever been put in as dormant-----
We are over time, thank you.
-----is, in my view, farcical. I ask the Minister at least to consider I might have a point in this respect. I have followed this matter for years and will admit to having tried to persuade a Minister of Finance in the last year of the last Government to change this situation as part of a Bill we were introducing but unfortunately it did not get through in my time. For a number of years I have believed this was an understandable provision when the Bill was introduced-----
I must ask the Deputy to conclude. We are way over time. The Minister must be very brief.
I have sympathy with what Deputy Ó Cuív indicated and since I became Minister I have tried to implement what Deputies Ó Cuív and Humphreys have suggested. However, the people in the Department may be the same as those who were there in Deputy Ó Cuív's time. We have not yet got political buy-in on this matter that would allow me to make the changes they advocate.
Property Taxation Exemptions
Jonathan O'Brien
Question:7. Deputy Jonathan O'Brien asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government the reason some unfinished estates were excluded from liability for the property tax and some in similar conditions were not. [20493/13]
An exemption from the local property tax applies to developments listed in the schedule to the Finance (Local Property Tax) Regulations 2013. The list of unfinished housing developments eligible for the exemption was compiled by local authorities utilising the categorisation employed for the purposes of the national housing survey 2012. The survey was carried out over the course of summer 2012 by my Department in conjunction with local authorities and the housing agency. The categorisation methodology for the survey was different to that which was used in 2011 and which provided the basis for the waiver from the household charge. That earlier categorisation related largely to the level of on-site activity when the 2011 survey was carried out and had less to do with the physical character of developments. The 2012 survey was based purely and objectively on the actual state of completion of a development, and it identified 1,700 unfinished developments, of which 1,100 were deemed to be in a seriously problematic condition. This represents a 37% reduction in unfinished developments since 2010. Only developments that were deemed by local authorities to be in a seriously problematic condition, regardless of whether a developer was on site, were included in the LPT regulations. For the purpose of preparing the final list of developments to which the exemption from the local property tax would apply, local authorities were asked by my Department to confirm or update the then existing list of estates in a seriously problematic condition as appropriate.
The Minister of State referred to a survey carried out by councils. I understand housing managers in Fingal County Council and Dublin City Council were not consulted. Who carried out these surveys and where did they get their information? There are nearly 100 unfinished estates in Dublin alone but Priory Hall is the only exempted development. Smaller counties have more exemptions than the entirety of Dublin. Something is not adding up. I invite the Minister of State to visit the unfinished Heathfield estate in my own area. Seven estates remain unfinished in my area. In Heathfield, the roads are unfinished, some of the houses are unoccupied and the underground services and boundaries have not yet been sorted out. I cannot fathom how somebody could decide these houses should not be exempt. If they were exempt from the household charge why are they not exempt from the property tax?
I have explained that the lists were drawn up by the local authorities, all of which received a circular on the matter. While I do not know whether the housing managers saw the circular, some competent person would have been tasked with drawing up the lists. Every local authority designates an official to deal with unfinished housing estates and the public can engage with this individual if they have issues with unfinished estates. I presume Dublin City Council and Fingal County Council have designated people to carry out this role.
Deputy Ellis referred to an estate that he believes should have been on the list and described the condition of the estate. I am sure he has seen the list contained in the legislation which sets out the various criteria used to designate estates. It is a transparent process. We asked the local authorities to draw up lists in accordance with the guidelines they were given.
There is limited consistency in the designation of estates. The Minister of State indicated that the survey was carried out by the Department in conjunction with local authorities. Parts of the Rockview estate in Portlaoise lack footpaths but the property tax is supposed to be used to provide footpaths and lighting, which comes from the roads budget in every county council with which I am familiar. It is a question of ring-fencing money. Some €150 million has been taken from the car tax fund this year and moved to the loan account to pay off debts.
I was contacted in regard to four unfinished estates, namely, Bridgemeadow in Enniscorthy and Cluain Aoibhinn, Riverchapel and Aylesbridge in the Riverchapel area. These estates lack open spaces or footpaths and contain a number of unfinished buildings. When I asked the council why they were not included in the list of exemptions I was told that the original survey of estates was completed by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, which then compiled a list of what it deemed to be unfinished estates around the country. The council stated that it has tried to include additional estates it knows to be unfinished but the Department refused to add them to its list. It thus has estates which are not deemed to be unfinished and, therefore, cannot be exempted from the property tax. The Minister of State says the process is transparent but these estates meet the criteria. I do not understand why they cannot be included on the list.
The reality is that the Department has moved the goalposts. It is not logical to suggest that local authorities across the country have experienced a dramatic improvement in the completion rates for these estates. The Minister of State referred to estates which are in seriously problematic condition. Each of us can identify developments in our areas which meet these criteria and where residents are left without footpaths, lighting and basic amenities. They now face the insulting idea of being charged a property tax for local services they do not get. In many cases they are also being charged management fees. There appears to be a discrepancy between what local authorities are telling us and what we are hearing from the Department. Both sides cannot be true.
A number of the Deputies' questions related to finances. Deputy Stanley will be aware that funds were made available for the safety initiative. These funds have not been fully drawn down and they remain available to local authorities.
I welcome that.
Local authorities did not have their money reduced this year. From next year onwards, 80% of the property tax will be retained by the relevant local authority and the remainder will be redistributed fairly. The money will be used for the purposes that Members have suggested, such as completing roads and footpaths, as well as for other local authority needs.
With regard to the argument by Deputies Wallace and Daly that certain estates should have been included, my Department was in contact with local authorities in February, before the list was drawn up, to ensure that the inclusion of estates was finalised by local authorities. They were to identify the estates that fitted the categories concerned.
What happened in Wexford if it is not getting a break? What went wrong?
We cannot second guess local authorities.
Why is there only one estate in Dublin?
Criteria were drawn up on a national basis but we asked the local authorities to identify which estates fitted the various categories, including the seriously problematic category that was included in the exemption from property tax by the Department of Finance.
Can we find out who signed off on the list?
I stated at the outset that we had six minutes for each question. We have spent eight minutes dealing with this question. It is unfair to other Deputies.
I do not know what is happening in Wexford if it is not getting a break. I hope it will do better in the championship.
The Wexford youths won last night.
Rural Development Programme Projects
Éamon Ó Cuív
Question:8. D'fhiafraigh Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív den Aire Comhshaoil, Pobail agus Rialtais Áitiúil cén uair a íocfar na deontais ar fad a bhí ceadaithe ag MFG Teo. sular leachtaíodh é, cén fáth go bhfuil an oiread sin moille leis na híocaíochtaí seo; agus an ndéanfaidh sé ráiteas ina thaobh. [20459/13]
Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta, MFG, the group contracted by my Department to deliver axes 3 and 4, which are the Leader elements of the rural development programme in the Gaeltacht areas, went into liquidation on 7 September 2011. Since then my Department has been working with the liquidators and other relevant stakeholders to ensure the winding up process was conducted in an efficient and effective way. In 2012 a new system was put in place whereby the local development companies, LDCs, situated in the geographically contiguous areas were contracted to deliver RDP funds to the Gaeltacht areas.
The liquidation of MFG inevitably caused delays in project payments and approvals. However, the system put in place by my Department has been operational for a number of months and the contracted LDCs continue to facilitate the project payment process for projects in Gaeltacht areas. I understand that issues arose with the companies obtaining the necessary insurance bonds but this matter has been resolved and should no longer be a cause of any delay.
The new companies were required to review the MFG legacy projects to ensure compliance with European regulations and programme rules and this has taken some time. The revised arrangements for the Erris area will be finalised over the coming weeks with the Mayo North East Leader Partnership and the Department. The rebalancing of the RDP is now complete and I expect to be in a position to notify local development companies of their final allocations under the programme shortly. In this regard, I will be ring-fencing an allocation for the former MFG areas and for new projects in these areas. However, my Department has directed the LDCs to pay promptly all contractual commitments properly due and has funded the companies in this regard.
An bhfuil a fhios ag an Aire nach bhfuil íocaíocht dá laghad déanta i gceantar Chonamara atá faoi chúram Comhairle na n-Oileán? Le sampla a thabhairt dó de na fadhbanna atá ag éirí as seo, tá eagraíocht amháin atá ag fanacht le deontas ón samhradh 2011 agus táimid anois i mí na Bealtaine 2013. Tá fiacha ag an eagraíocht leis an chomhar creidmheasa agus tá €14,000 íoctha in ús aici. Níl Comhairle na n-Oileán ag tabhairt leide cén uair a íocfar na tograí seo i gConamara. An féidir leis an Aire Stáit deimhniú cén uair a íocfar na tograí i gConamara, a raibh airgead ceadaithe acu roimh leachtú MFG agus nach bhfuil a gcuid airgid faighte acu fós?
As Deputy Ó Cuív correctly noted, Comhar na nOileán Teo delivered the programme for the Galway Gaeltacht. A bond is required under the regulations for the payment of advances under the Leader programme. However, it is only required by the Department for administration advances. The bond that was in place until February 2013 also covered project payments. In February 2013, the insurance company gave notice to the Minister that it would no longer provide cover. Its decision appeared to be linked to the liquidation of MFG and a claim made by the Department on the bond. The board of Comhar na nOileán Teo was not agreeable to issuing project payments without a project bond being in place. The Department informed the local development company that it would not accept this position and the company was to issue payments to promoters. I understand that, following negotiations with insurance providers, the local development companies have now sourced a provider for the insurance bond and it is anticipated that this will address the delays with regard to project payments to projects previously approved by Comhar na nOileán Teo.
Mar a dúirt fear liom uair nuair a bhí mé ag déanamh leithscéalta, "Ní leithscéal atá uaim, tá maidí adhmaid uaim." Sa chás seo, séard atá ó na daoine atá ag fanacht ar a gcuid airgid ná airgead. Ní fadhb dóibh siúd plé idir an Roinn agus na comhlachtaí Leader. Cén uair a dhéanfar íocaíocht leis na dreamanna ar fad atá ag fanacht ar íocaíochtaí i gceantar Chonamara ar dheontais a bhí ceadaithe ag MFG? Sin an cheist. Tá siad ag fanacht le freagra ar an cheist sin le bheith in ann a rá leis an dream a thug iasachtaí dóibh cén uair a bheidh siad in ann íocaíocht a dhéanamh orthu siúd. An ndéanfar an íocaíocht sin as seo go ceann coicíse?
I wish we did not have a problem with MFG as this is causing the delays. The liquidation process was far from satisfactory. The Department had to threaten to go to the High Court to extract files from MFG when it was in liquidation, which was highly regrettable.
I agree.
The problem of delays can be traced to those who were charged with responsibility and contracted, on behalf of the Department, to do the work for the Gaeltacht areas. I am sure Deputy Ó Cuív knows a significant number of the individuals in question. I assure him that I have done everything possible, notwithstanding the protracted nature of the process, to get the legal certainty resolved, the contiguous areas involved and the bonds in place in order that payments can be made to the project promoters for job creation purposes.
I cannot provide a day or date on which the payments will be made but it appears everything is in place following negotiations with the insurance providers. The local development companies were reluctant to get involved and the Department had to force the issue to ensure the insurance bond required to allow payments to be made to promoters was put in place. I hope the payments will be made shortly.
Local Government Reform
Barry Cowen
Question:9. Deputy Barry Cowen asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government the total number of councillors in each Dublin local authority area; the total amount planned under Putting People First [20442/13]
The number of councillors for each Dublin local authority area currently is as follows: Dublin City – 52; Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council – 28; Fingal County Council – 24; and South Dublin County Council - 26. I announced the establishment of an independent local electoral area boundary committee on 15 November 2012 to carry out a review of local electoral areas. An objective in this context is to achieve a better balance and consistency in representation ratios. In light of the terms of reference for the boundary committee, there is a strong and logical case for reducing the degree of representational imbalance currently in the Dublin authorities. The terms of reference specify, therefore, that the number of members for Dublin City Council shall be fixed at 63 and for every other area, including the Dublin counties, it shall be subject to a minimum of 18 members and, other than for Cork County, a maximum of 40 members.
The Minister has been highly selective in the manner in which he answered the question. I asked whether, based on the population ratio included in the Putting People First document, he envisages provision being made for up to 60 new councillors in Dublin. Is that the case and, if so, what are the estimated costs of having a new cohort of councillors in the Dublin region? I do not propose to speak in detail about the rest of the country as the position in Dublin differs from that in the rest of the country. The boundary commission will report on the rest of the country in May. Is it envisaged that provision will be made for up to 60 new councillors in the greater Dublin area, that is, Dublin city and county? What will be the costs to the Exchequer of providing for more new councillors?
As Deputy Cowen will be aware, the terms of reference already provide for an increase from 52 to 63 in the number of councillors on Dublin City Council. The local boundary committee will make decisions on numbers based on its terms of reference and subject to the maximum and minimum number in each other local authority area, including the Dublin local authorities. If one takes a ratio of one councillor per 4,830 population, which is the average outside Dublin, it is clear there will be an increase in the number of councillors in the capital. I do not know the precise figure as this will depend on the decision of the boundary committee.
Surely the Minister has an idea of what will be the increase in numbers.
No, I do not interfere with boundary commissions as Fianna Fáil may have done in the past.
Based on the population ratio the Minister provided, the figure will be roughly 60. Is that correct?
I can tell the Deputy what the current ratios are. In Fingal County Council, South Dublin County Council, Dublin City Council and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, the ratios of councillors to population are as follows: 1:11,416, 1:10,200, 1:10,146 and 1:7,366, respectively. If we were to apply the ratio of 1;4,830 that applies in the rest of the country, the number of councillors in Dublin would increase substantially. That is not the intention, however.
How much will this reform cost?
I do not know the outcome of the boundary committee's deliberations.
Has the Minister not been given any indication of the outcome?
In terms of local authority reform plans for Dublin, is it still the Minister's intention to propose a directly elected mayor to the electorate of Dublin at the next local elections? If so, will this be done by means of a simple referendum with "Yes" and "No" options? Will the ballot take place in all the local authorities in the Dublin region? If the electorate vote in favour of a directly elected mayor, will further reforms be introduced after 2014 to accommodate the new system?
I welcome the Minister's reply. Not only has Dublin been vastly under-represented for, but the city has also been under-funded in terms of local government grants. For this reason, the re-balancing proposed by the Minister is welcome. I will make an issue of the under-funding of the capital in the coming year.
If we were to apply the 1:4,830 ratio, the number of councillors in Dublin would increase to 264. That is not my intention.
I understood the Minister was awaiting the report of the boundary committee.
If the Deputy were to read the terms of reference of the boundary committee, he would note that it is precluded from applying that ratio.
Did the Minister give any thought to the likely costs of the proposal?
The number of public representatives nationally will be reduced from 1,647 to 950, which is a radical decrease in numbers.
I thank Deputies Murphy and Humphreys for highlighting the imbalance in the number of councillors per head of population in respect of the Dublin area. A colloquium, chaired by the Lord Mayor of Dublin and involving all councillors in Dublin city and county, will be triggered immediately. Its first meeting will be held in May and it will discuss the merits and demerits of holding a plebiscite on the day of the local elections in 2014 on whether to have a directly elected Lord Mayor of Dublin. This will be a decision for the people of Dublin city and county to make in due course.
I get the Minister's point on the overall issue as well as the culling of councillors and abolition of town councillors. He has made a populist statement on this issue, which reflects the mantra he has used since the document was first published.
I specifically asked questions in respect of Dublin. The people of Dublin are entitled to be made aware of the sort of costs that can be associated with the expectation that, as the Deputy representing the Labour Party indicated, there will be a need for 60 additional councillors. I am sure those in the Labour Party will be delighted to think that their party's core urban base will be strengthened by virtue of this proposal.
Is the Deputy referring to underfunding in respect of Dublin?
It is only right and proper that the Minister should have made some provision or allowance in respect of the sort of costs that will arise as a result of what is proposed for Dublin.
Nationally, we expect the costs associated with providing support and services for local authority members to be reduced by €4 million.
What will be the position in Dublin?
I do not have a figure for Dublin.
The cost is going to increase.
Yes, that will be the case. If one is intent on increasing the number of councillors, then there must be a corresponding increase in costs. We are quite clear on that fact but I cannot indicate what will be the precise cost until the exact numbers become apparent.
House Purchase Schemes
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:10. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government when legislation underpinning the proposed incremental purchase scheme for existing local authority houses will be drafted, in view of the fact that there is currently no scheme available to tenants to purchase their local authority houses; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20477/13]
John Browne
Question:21. Deputy John Browne asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government when a new tenant purchase scheme for persons living in council houses will be announced in view of the fact that no scheme exists at present; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20301/13]
66. Deputy John Halligan asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government when legislation underpinning the proposed incremental purchase scheme for existing local authority houses will be drafted, as there is currently no scheme available to tenants to purchase their local authority houses; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20478/13]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10, 21 and 66 together.
While the 1995 tenant purchase scheme for existing local authority houses closed for new applications on 31 December 2012, two incremental purchase schemes, one for newly-built local authority houses and the other for local authority apartments, remain in operation. It is intended to advance the necessary legislative proposals as soon as practicable in order to underpin an incremental purchase scheme for existing local authority houses. Such a scheme will involve discounts for tenants which will be linked to household income and a discount-related charge on the property that will dwindle away over a period unless the house is resold or the purchaser fails to comply with conditions of the sale. The precise terms of the new scheme will be set out in regulations when the necessary legislation is enacted.
Will the Minister of State explain why there is a time lag? The tenant purchase scheme, which operated from 1995 until December of last year, was quite successful. It provided reasonable discounts for local authority tenants who wanted to purchase their own homes. The Minister of State was very vague regarding the context of when a new scheme will be established and she also did not indicate why there is a time lag between the end of the old scheme and the establishment of a new one. I am sure she is aware that many council tenants wish to purchase the homes in which they live. Obtaining council homes often acts as a stepping stone for those on lower incomes to eventually purchase their own homes. There is no good reason for the time lag to which I refer. Will the Minister of State clarify why it exists and will she be more specific as to when the relevant legislation will be brought forward and when the new scheme will be established?
I have been contacted about this matter by many people who live in the city. I stress that I am of the view that all of the moneys relating to any new scheme should be ring-fenced in order to provide new social housing. It should not be a case of running down the stock of social housing. If anything we desperately need a new social housing programme, particularly as the waiting time relating to some housing lists is now 12 years. Will the Minister of State answer the questions I have posed and indicate whether a new social housing programme designed to deal with the unsustainable waiting lists to which I refer will be put in place?
I am very supportive of facilitating tenants in purchasing their houses or apartments. In 2010 we informed tenants that the 1995 scheme was going to be brought to a conclusion at the end of 2012. Quite an amount of notice was given. I am sure the Deputy will recall that we discussed the matter in the House. Everyone agreed that we should inform tenants that the scheme would be coming to an end and that if they were interested in tenant purchase, they should submit applications. I also informed the House at the time that we would allow one year - this year - for the processing of outstanding applications from the 1995 scheme. There was also a once-off scheme in 2011 under which tenants with up to 15 years tenancy could avail of a maximum discount of 45% of the selling price of their homes. We did, therefore, provide plenty of advance warning.
I want to bring forward the legislation as quickly as possible. As the Deputy is aware, a number of Bills relating to housing are in the offing. I refer to that which relates to the Residential Tenancies Board and that which may or may not be introduced this week and which deals with the setting of new rents. There will also be another housing Bill later in the year and I intend to bring it forward as quickly as possible. It is not the case that we wish to delay matters in any way. We want to facilitate people in purchasing their houses. As already stated, however, plenty of advance warning was given in respect of the previous scheme coming to an end. We asked those who were interested in purchasing to submit their applications before the end of last year.
The tenant purchase scheme was excellent. I availed of it myself only recently.
So the Deputy is now a property owner.
Many people in local authority housing purchased their homes by means of this scheme. Everyone is concerned with regard to the stock of social and other housing stock. In the context of the incremental purchase scheme - the Minister of State referred to new houses in this regard - what is it proposed to do about people who have longer-running tenancies in older homes? The incremental purchase scheme documentation makes specific reference to new houses. Are we going to continue along similar lines to the old tenant purchase scheme? In the context of how the value of houses will be calculated under the incremental purchase scheme, it has been stated that the cost of building and the land will only be taken into account. I am not sure how this will work. The value of many houses has dropped considerably in recent times. A few years ago one would have paid €200,000 to €300,000 for houses in local authority schemes that would now be valued at under €100,000. Will the Minister of State elaborate further on what is going to happen?
I have always been very supportive of tenant purchase schemes. When one considers the houses purchased under such schemes, one will see that they are always kept in very good order. These schemes encourage people to help themselves and to look after their properties. In view of all the cutbacks that have occurred, it is very difficult to ensure that local authority properties are maintained.
Why do local authorities refuse to advance loans to people who are on social welfare payments even in circumstances where the loan repayments would be lower than the amount they pay in rent? It is ridiculous that the less well off are caught in this poverty trap. Will the Minister of State indicate if tenants who have been in their homes for 20 or 25 years will, under the proposed new scheme she outlined, be able to purchase those homes cheaper than would have been the case under the 1995 scheme or the 2012 scheme?
The Minister of State indicated that people were put on notice in 2010. I was not a Member of the House at that stage. The Minister of State has still not indicated why there is a time lag. The tenant purchase scheme was successful. As as been pointed out, giving people the right to buy their own local authority homes is obviously very good for them but in general it is also good for local authority areas because it gives those to whom I refer a stake in those areas. This is a positive, win-win situation. I do not, therefore, really understand the reason for the delay. If one were suspicious one might think that the Government is trying to wind down matters in respect of social housing altogether. I say this particularly against a background of there being no social housing programme, where the waiting times on the housing lists in my area are stretching out to ten or 12 years, where the only people who seem to be able to obtain houses are those who are given overall medical or some other form of priority and where normal applicants in places such as Dún Laoghaire are no longer being housed. Will the Minister of State explain the delay in bringing forward the legislation to create a new scheme? The old scheme was a success and there is no need for a break between the two.
I must inform Deputy Ellis that it is the current scheme which relates to new houses. The scheme it is proposed to introduce will relate to old and new houses. Old houses will not be omitted from the new scheme.
That is not stated in the material which was circulated in respect of this matter.
That relates to the current scheme, which involves new houses. We have work to do in the context of deciding how valuations will be deal with under the new scheme.
To address one of Deputy Ó Cuív's points, the payment system will centre more on income than the current scheme does. In the case of the latter, much depends on the length of time one has spent in a house. The income assessment model is fairer than the tenancy one. There is no conspiracy to stop people from purchasing their houses. I want to introduce this scheme as quickly as possible.
Where are the scheme and the houses?
It is normal to allow one scheme to end before the next one starts. I do not want the gap to be long and I want to introduce the legislation as soon as I can. I do not see a reason for a conspiracy. Not permitting people to purchase their houses will not address the issue of waiting lists, as people are already in the houses. There is no reason not to facilitate them in purchasing their houses as soon as possible, which is my intention.
What about the loan issue?
I am sorry, but I did not catch that.
No, we have gone over time.
Anti-Social Behaviour
Róisín Shortall
Question:11. Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government the progress made to date on reviewing section 62 of the Housing Act 1966, in view of a court ruling (details supplied); the target month in 2013 to which he is working to have legislation passed and commenced; and the issues that have arisen in relation to dealing with serious anti-social behaviour addressed. [20418/13]
The Supreme Court judgment referred to concerned two cases relating to section 62 of the Housing Act 1966. In one case, the court made a declaration under the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 that section 62(3) of the Housing Act 1966 was incompatible with the State's obligations under Article 8 of the convention due to the absence of appropriate procedural safeguards where there was a factual dispute as to the basis for termination of the tenancy agreement. There was no dispute as to the essential facts in the other case and the court did not make a declaration of incompatibility. It is a matter for housing authorities to decide in individual cases whether there is a factual dispute between the parties that would preclude the authority from applying for a possession warrant under section 62 of the 1966 Act.
The Government's legislative programme for the summer 2013 parliamentary session includes a housing Bill that is expected to be published later this year providing, among other matters, for a revised procedure for repossessing local authority dwellings that takes account of the Supreme Court judgment. I will progress that Bill as quickly as possible so that housing authorities have the necessary powers to deal with all serious breaches of tenancy agreements.
I thank the Minister of State, but I got no sense of urgency from her response. We must accept the fact that people who pay their rent and live with the scourge of neighbours' anti-social behaviour also have human rights and are entitled to live in peace and harmony, free from the types of trouble caused by anti-social tenants. Their rights should be upheld.
Does the Minister of State accept the urgency of the matter? The Donegan case dates from February 2012. Since then, promises have been made about conducting a review of the 1966 Act, particularly its section 62. However, there has been no firm commitment as to a date for that review.
Local communities are facing significant difficulties in dealing with the problems associated with anti-social activity. Council officials' hands are tied because the law has not been on their side since the judgment. Will the Minister of State deal with this issue as a matter of urgency? When will the review of the legislation be completed and the new legislation be ready? Will the Minister of State assure the House that adequate staff resources are devoted to the issue? My understanding is that there was a gap in those resources for several months. Will she take this issue seriously once and for all?
I take it seriously. In fact, I met one of the officials working on the legislation this morning. We will have it ready and published this year as part of the housing legislation.
When?
As to the delay, discussions with the Attorney General's office and a detailed examination were necessary. Complicating matters is the fact that the European Court of Human Rights has issued rulings in a number of other cases relating to Article 8 in other countries. We must consider those rulings when drafting our legislation.
I assure the Deputy that we want to deal with this matter as quickly as possible. It was raised by many Deputies when the House debated the residential tenancies legislation. We are also working on addressing anti-social behaviour issues in respect of private tenancies, although the Deputy's question relates to local authority tenancies. I intend to take action as quickly as possibly, as there is a lacuna that must be addressed.
With all due respect, saying "sometime this year" is not good enough. Officials cannot take action. While nobody wants to see anyone being made homeless, councils must have the ultimate sanction of evicting people who make life hell for their neighbours. This behaviour can be found in many communities. We need urgent action. Law-abiding tenants in local authority housing deserve better.
I can only agree with the Deputy that the problem needs to be dealt with urgently. Indeed, it is being dealt with urgently. The issue will form part of the next substantial Bill that comes from my Department. We will ensure that the lacuna-----
For what month is the Minister of State aiming?
The legislation is being worked on. As the Deputy knows, there are lists of legislation and Ministers must ensure their priorities are included on them. We are working on doing so with the Attorney General's office. We will lay the Bill before the Houses and have it passed as quickly as possible.
Will that be before the summer?
I cannot give the Deputy a date.
We have gone over time.
Written Answers follow Adjournment.