I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this issue which relates to the significant hike in rates levied on major sports stadia in Dublin and which will have major knock-on effects if replicated throughout the country in sports and voluntary organisations. In the past few weeks the two major stadia in Dublin - the Aviva Stadium and Croke Park - have been given a rates bill that shows a fivefold increase on the figure for last year. The bill for the Aviva Stadium has gone from €437,000 to €2.36 million, while the bill for Croke Park has gone from €528,000 to €2.112 million. For the three sports involved - GAA, rugby and soccer - the increase will amount to €3.5 million which accounts for well over 50% of the funding the organisations received from the Irish Sports Council to deliver various coaching programmes for members. The organisations provide massive business and economic benefits for our capital city and cities, towns and villages. If this is happening in the case of national stadia, there will surely be implications for sports and community organisations throughout the country. As a result of the economic position, the Government has had to reduce the investment in sport for a number of years. All of these organisations have volunteers who provide not just an economic but also a social benefit for communities, involving the young and not so young. They promote positive sports activities. One might argue that these organisations can well afford to do this, but in the case of the GAA, for example, 86% of funding into Croke Park is disseminated through the units at grassroots level. These stadia are of large economic benefit to the State via sports tourism and events such as the Rugby World Cup and it is hoped the likes of the European soccer championships could bring millions of euro into the country. We are, therefore, shooting ourselves in the foot with these massive rates bills.
Topical Issue Debate
Valuation Office
How much time do I have?
Strictly speaking, the Deputy has one minute, but I will be a little lenient.
The Acting Chairman failed to let us know at the start how much time we had.
The clocks are there for everybody to see. I am not supposed to interrupt Deputies.
I reiterate the comments made by my colleague, Deputy John O'Mahony. There will be almost €4 million less to be made available to clubs and communities throughout the country, with the money going to Dublin City Council instead because of the change in valuation of both premises. There is a fear that there will be a revaluation not only of the two stadia we are discussing but also of all clubs and facilities throughout the country. In my county of Kildare there are three race tracks and it seems that all of these facilities at the Curragh, Naas and Punchestown will see an increase in rates which will have a detrimental effect on them. Will Dublin City Council give the extra €4 million to my local GAA or soccer club in Kill or rugby club in Naas? I cannot see that happening. We need to reconsider the Valuation Act 2001 and ensure we obtain a derogation not only for the two main stadia but also for all the stadia and sports organisations throughout the country. They are creating an atmosphere for young people, in particular, to participate in sport and prevent obesity. I appeal to the Minister to contact the Valuation Office and examine the legislation to see if there is a possibility of providing for a derogation for the rates paid by these stadia which also support clubs and organisations throughout the country. We should also consider if we can extend that derogation to sports and community organisations that have a beneficial effect on the nation.
I have been generous to the Deputy who had his full two minutes and even a little more.
I am taking this issue on behalf of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin.
Deputies are aware that the Valuation Office, as part of its revaluation programme, is in the process of updating the valuations of all commercial properties. The revaluation process has been completed and the revaluation is effective for rates purposes in the areas of Fingal, south Dublin and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown. The revaluation process in Dublin city and the three rating authorities in Waterford is nearing completion and proposed valuation certificates have been issued in these areas. Final valuation certificates for rateable properties in these four local authorities will issue in December 2013.
At this time it is only the revaluation process that is likely to give rise to large increases in rates for stadia, as the local authorities, in order to assist business to the extent that they can, have not increased their annual rate on valuation in recent years. In Dublin city and Waterford the valuations proposed are not yet in the public domain and at this stage they are a matter between the occupier of the property and the commissioner. Before the valuations are published, the occupier can make representations to the commissioner and, after publication, appeals against a valuation can be lodged.
The Valuation Act 2001 provides for the exemption from rates of land that is developed for sport such as playing pitches, golf courses, tennis courts, etc. In accordance with this provision, all playing pitches are exempt from rates and the Act provides that community halls such as sports clubhouses which are not licensed to sell alcohol and the facilities of which are not used primarily for profit or gain are not rateable. This allows for the exemption of most sports club premises throughout the country. However, the Act specifically provides that where a club is licensed to sell alcohol and registered under the Registration of Clubs (Ireland) Act 1904, it is no longer deemed to be a community hall and, therefore, the premises occupied by the club are rateable. The sale of alcohol is a commercial activity and licensed club premises are competing with other licensed premises.
The vast majority of sports facilities throughout the State are rates-free and most of those which are rateable are licensed to sell alcohol under the Registration of Clubs (Ireland) Act 1904. Any reduction in the rates applicable to these premises could distort competition and any proposal to provide a concession for sports stadia would have no basis in current valuation law. If granted through a policy decision, such an act would in all probability be quickly followed by a similar claim by other commercial ratepayers, with the ultimate result being that Exchequer funding to all local authorities would have to be increased by an unsustainable amount to make good the shortfall that would result from such a reduction.
If sports stadia face an increase in rates as a result of the revaluation process, it is because it reflects a relative increase in the value of sports stadia when compared to all other rateable premises. This assessment of relative value is completed by the Valuation commissioner on an independent basis. The revaluation programme will update the values on which rates are based to reflect modern values. As it stands, rates in areas that have not been revalued are based on values and relativities that persisted in 1988 or much earlier. The revaluation programme will ensure rates are levied on a much more equitable basis and any concession that might be considered for any category of property is likely to erode the equity of the system. Any concession to a category of property would have to be passed to the occupiers of all other rateable properties. Local authorities calculate their annual rates on valuations on the basis of the aggregate value on the valuation list. Many sports stadia provide conference and other facilities on the premises on days when the stadium is not being used for a sports event and on these days they are in direct competition with other commercial providers who also pay rates. This would further increase the inequity of a concession.
The value placed on sport and sports events, large and small, cannot be expressed in monetary terms, but sports organisations have and continue to receive financial support from the State. Apart from the ongoing support for sport, some of the large stadia projects such as Croke Park and the Aviva Stadium received substantial grant allocations towards their development totalling in excess of €300 million. I hope that is of some help to the Deputies.
I will stick to the minute this time. The Minister of State makes the points well. Everybody understands there will be an increase in rates but the issue here is of a fivefold increase. This comes under the various remits of the Departments of Public Expenditure and Reform, Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Transport, Tourism and Sport. Have any discussions taken place? The danger is that the matter will fall between the remits of the various Ministers and nothing will be decided.
I refer to competition and distorting the market. If Ireland is awarded the hosting of the rugby world cup there will not be a bed in a hotel or a guest house within 40 km of Dublin city. That is not distorting competition or income but is helping the areas the Minister of State mentioned. We need to get real about the benefits if we are choking them through the rates. An increase is acceptable but not the one proposed.
To reiterate, the knock-on effect of that measure hits clubs and communities all the way down because of the money generated by Croke Park and Aviva stadiums and how they transfer the money down the line to clubs, through grants and the coaching facilities made available. That could be cut off if there is a fivefold increase in the rates bill. I wonder what publicans and hoteliers would say if the GAA decided to move the All-Ireland final to Cork. I would say every publican and hotelier in Dublin would be up in arms and knocking on the Minister of State's doors if the event were moved. It brings enormous benefits. The community where I live and those where other Deputies live benefit, and so do publicans and hoteliers within the area where such events take place. The worry is that there would be a knock-on effect for other facilities throughout the country if those concerned are allowed to get away with this measure.
We all understand the concern, particularly in respect to those large sporting bodies and the value they bring to our country. I must reiterate that the Commission on Valuation is an independent body, in accordance with the statute and it does not confer on the Minister any function in this regard. I again make the point that before valuations are published the occupier can make representations to the commissioner. There is only the proposed valuation at present. After publication, the occupier can appeal against the valuation listed - that process is in place.
I appreciate the Deputies' suggestion that the relevant Ministers should discuss the issue and I am sure there will be no difficulty in that regard. As it stands, however, the legislation indicates that the valuation process is entirely independent of any Minister. I will convey the concerns of the Deputies to the Minister, Deputy Howlin.
Defence Forces Medicinal Products
I thank the Ceann Comhairle for accepting this issue. According to media reports yesterday, a study on the use of the controversial anti-malarial drug, lariam, received by the Minister for Defence, Deputy Shatter, whom I welcome in the Chamber, is legally privileged and will not be published. The use of lariam has been a topic of concern for some time, and not only under the current Government. It is vital that we answer these concerns.
Yesterday The Irish Times carried a story stating that the administration of the drug to Defence Forces personnel travelling to malarial countries will continue, notwithstanding revised safety information from the manufacturer Roche, stating that the drug can cause serious neuro-psychiatric disorders. Roche states that possible side effects include insomnia, anxiety and depression. The company also mentions that hallucinations, psychosis, suicide, suicidal thoughts and self-endangering behaviour have been reported. It states that adverse reactions can persist for several months after discontinuation of the drug.
It seems that soldiers on a mission to Chad in 2009 were told that if they failed to take lariam and caught malaria through their own fault the Defence Forces would not be liable. It is also reported they were required to take the drug under supervision, were warned not to take any other anti-malarial medicine and were told that only lariam is effective in Chad. Other drugs such as malarone and coartem are used by other countries, including the United States. Alternative anti-malarial drugs found in the possession of any soldier would be considered contraband and soldiers were told they could face disciplinary action if found with such drugs.
Some serving and former members of the Defence Forces have begun legal action against the State, complaining of side effects including depression and suicidal ideation. The report of the working group on malarial chemoprophylaxis, set up in 2009, examined the use of lariam. The group reported to the Minister during the summer. A statement from the Department of Defence notes that the report was produced in the context of current and potential litigation, is legally privileged and would not be published.
I am astonished by this attitude. Surely the report should be published as a matter of course. Is it not in any case subject to discovery by any lawyers taking action in this matter? Does the fact it is not being published not give the impression there is something to hide on the part of the Department of Defence? Should a Government that claims to cherish transparency, which pats itself on the back on a regular basis about improvements in the Freedom of Information Act and other areas, not publish this report?
This particular controversy will not go away. The momentum demanding action and either an exposé or an explanation on the part of the Department is growing by the day. Whatever may have been said by different Ministers in the past, including those of my party who adopted a particular view on the matter, we cannot ignore the growing controversy. Apart from that controversy, the growing body of evidence seems to suggest that at least there are questions to answer. When we look at this drug as not only one of three possible medications that could be used, but also one in respect of which its own manufacturer has raised real and meaningful concerns, it is incumbent on the Department of Defence to address those concerns. In this instance, where I understand the Minister has a report, he should at least publish it.
I thank the Deputy for raising the issue. I am sorry he is making allegations that somebody has something to hide. I certainly have nothing to hide and I assume each of my predecessors who were Ministers for Defence for 14 years during the lifetime of the previous Government had nothing to hide. The document to which the Deputy refers, the instructions from 2009 published by the Defence Forces, was published when the Deputy's colleague, Deputy Willie O'Dea, was Minister for Defence. I have nothing to hide.
Arising from assertions which had been circulating regarding the prescribing and side effects of lariam, my Department established a working group in January 2011 to examine the use of lariam and other anti-malarial drugs in the Defence Forces. The group comprises representatives of the Defence Forces Medical Corps, Defence Forces personnel policy branch and Defence Forces human resources and litigation branch. It also includes representatives from the State Claims Agency and the Chief State Solicitor's Office.
The purpose of this group was to review issues arising in respect of the use of lariam, having particular regard to current and potential litigation, to review and confirm the approach of the Defence Forces in regard to the use of malaria chemoprophylaxis in the Defence Forces and to ensure that the procedures in relation thereto continue to be appropriate and in accordance with best medical practice as promulgated by the relevant medical authorities. The work of the group informs the Defence organisation's process of ongoing risk assessment and mitigation in the context of a proactive risk management strategy.
The group reported back to me in June this year. While the report was produced, as the Deputy correctly noted, in the context of current and potential litigation and is, therefore, legally privileged, I can confirm that the group investigated all the various allegations surrounding the use of lariam and that it obtained advice from leading medical experts. These experts concur with the practices followed by the Defence Forces in prescribing lariam.
On my behalf, the State Claims Agency is currently handling 24 cases taken by members and former members of the Defence Forces who allege personal injury as a result of their consumption of mefloquine, or lariam. High Court proceedings have been served in respect of nine of these cases.
It is important to draw to the attention of the Deputy and of the House that malaria is a serious disease that can cause serious complications and death.
It is estimated by the World Health Organization that approximately 1 million people die every year from malaria in sub-Saharan Africa alone. It has also long been recognised as being a serious threat to any military force operating in a malarious area.
The anti-malaria regime in place in the Defence Forces, including the use of lariam, has worked. In the decade of deployment to sub-Saharan Africa by the Defence Forces, not a single member of the Defence Forces has died from malaria. Research has shown that lariam is one of the most effective medications for protection against the type of malaria prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa. It is authorised for use by the Irish Medicines Board, IMB, which is the statutory regulatory body charged with the regulation of the quality, safety and efficacy of medicines available in Ireland. I am advised that the decisions of the IMB are taken in consultation with European and other international bodies and that the IMB remains of the view that the benefit-risk profile for the product remains acceptable.
The choice of chemoprophylactic medication depends on a number of factors including the type of malaria in the destination, resistance to particular drugs, the profile of the traveller - in other words, contra-indications, underlying health conditions and purpose of travel - the duration of travel and adherence issues. This choice must always remain a medical decision to be made by medical officers in the Defence Forces on the basis of best medical practice, having regard to the specific circumstances of the mission and the individual member of the Defence Forces. It is not a matter for ministerial direction.
The Defence Forces are fully aware of the range of reported side effects attaching to all anti-malarial medications and significant precautions are taken by the medical corps in assessing the medical suitability of members of the Defence Forces to take lariam or any of the other anti-malarial medications. Lariam must remain in the formulary of medications prescribed by the medical corps for Defence Forces personnel on appropriate overseas missions, particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa, to ensure that our military personnel can have effective protection from the very serious risks posed by this highly dangerous disease.
There is not, as the Deputy put it, a growing controversy. It is a question of how this matter should be approached. My central concern is the safety and health of members of the Defence Forces and in that context we will continue to abide by the best advices of the Irish Medicines Board and ensure that we have in place the appropriate medical procedures to pre-screen members of the Defence Forces as to their suitability for the taking of lariam before they go on any mission abroad.
I must first acknowledge that the procedure over the years in this country has been far better than it was in the United States of America where the drug was widely prescribed and that the screening adopted by the military authorities in this country is one that I acknowledge has been particularly effective. If the Minister believes there is not a growing controversy on the issue then he is once again denying reality and he is not aware of what is happening around him because it is a simple statement of fact.
The Minister indicated that the expert report concurs with the practices followed by the Defence Forces in prescribing lariam to date. Could he indicate whether the report recommends that the Department of Defence continues to prescribe lariam as heretofore? The report might well be accessible by way of discovery in the event of legal action being taken. A number of cases are before the courts currently. Given that in the event of legal action the report would have to be made available, why does the Minister not publish it now and let us see what it contains so as to clear up any concerns?
It is always legitimate that questions are asked but the fact that individuals raised concerns does not justify the Deputy being alarmist with regard to the use of lariam. As the Deputy well knows from responses to previous questions in the Dáil on the issue, which I addressed at great length, the difficulties that arose with the use of lariam by members of the United States army derived from the fact that there was no pre-screening and that all of the contra-indications, for example, if someone suffers from depression or other psychosomatic difficulty, were not screened out. There was a substantial problem in the American armed forces because they did not adopt the approach we adopt.
There is nothing in the report that indicates in any shape or form that the approach that has been taken heretofore should not be taken. I wish to be quite categoric on that. I reiterate that the choice of medication must always remain a medical decision to be made by medical officers in the Defence Forces on the basis of best medical practice, having regard to the specific circumstances of the mission and the individual member of the Defence Forces. It is not a matter for ministerial direction. The expert group investigated all the various allegations surrounding the use of lariam and obtained advice from leading medical experts. In the context of research, Lariam has been shown to be one of the most effective medications for protection against the type of malaria prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa. Other medications are available that are not suitable for sub-Saharan Africa. There are various types of malaria and we have an obligation to ensure that our forces have the protection that is appropriate to them. Malarone is another possible alternative but not all the alternatives are suitable for each location in which we deploy members of the Defence Forces.
Local Authority Staff Code of Conduct
Tá mé fíorbhuíoch seans a bheith agam labhairt ar an ábhar tábhachtach seo inniu. I am sure the Minister of State would agree that one of the biggest factors leading to the economic crash was the role played by developers and planners as well as bankers and corrupt politicians. Houses were sold at inflated prices. The hundreds of empty housing estates across the State are all evidence of the importance of Government agencies being scrupulous in how they manage housing. Each year, county councils spend substantial amounts of taxpayers' money on the purchase of properties for social housing so it is vital that there is transparency and certainty about the processes involved.
It has emerged that in 2010 Louth County Council bought two houses belonging to senior members of the council’s housing department. Moreover, a senior executive in Louth County Council’s housing department acted for the council in the purchase of his own home. When my colleague, Councillor Tomás Sharkey, and others raised this issue, they were told by the council that at all times proper processes and procedures were followed to ensure full compliance with all the relevant control mechanisms that govern housing acquisitions. They were also told that staff are not excluded from the housing acquisitions programme. Could the Minister of State tell us if proper processes were followed in this instance? Does she believe that proper processes were followed if the person selling the house to the council was also the person buying the house on behalf of the council? Will she urgently review the situation and if necessary clarify for local authorities the regulations surrounding the sale and purchase of housing by councils from staff?
Over the years we have had many issues with planners and planning. Inquiries and investigations have been carried out and hundreds of millions spent on tribunals with little or no return or convictions. Of course I do not for a moment suggest that the issues I raise are in the same category but, nonetheless, they are serious.
This issue has been brought to my attention and that of others, including the local media. The Dundalk Democrat and Councillor Tomás Sharkey have done much to expose it. The purchase of private homes by local authorities has been an integral part of how we deliver social housing and meet mounting housing need in this State. At the height of the boom, Louth County Council bought 18 homes of which two were from their own staff. That is an obvious conflict of interest.
While it might not always be negative, the potential for corruption is too great to allow it to happen.
The two homes in question belonged to senior executive officers in the council. Each recommended the other's for purchase. This, in itself, is an obvious problem but it goes further. One of the properties has serious questions over its suitability. A three-bed bungalow in Tullagee, Knockbridge, purchased for €137,500, had no building energy rating, BER, when signed off for purchase. When a BER analysis was carried out, it received an E1, which is very low. Thus, the house is not suitable for a council to be purchasing.
When a tenant was moved in, they were unhappy with the insulation and requested to be moved as it was too cold. The council then applied for and used significant funding from the SEAI to upgrade the home to make it suitable for occupation. That is further taxpayers' money to upgrade a home that should not have been purchased in the first instance given its condition.
There are further questions over rumoured inspections that yielded negative reports on the home before and after purchase which are now missing or unavailable. The owner of the property, in his capacity as an executive officer, wrote to solicitors confirming the property had been inspected by a clerk of works and that the "structure is in order". A response from the council stated:
The house was inspected by the Clerk of Works on December 1, 2010 and a detailed inspection form completed. This outlined various defects and areas in need of upgrading, including insulation, but attested to the structural integrity of the property.
After it was occupied for a time by a local authority tenant, additional works were carried out to address heat loss from this property.
I thank Deputies Adams and Ellis for raising this important matter. I share the concern expressed by both Deputies that where allegations are made with regard to a conflict of interest by public servants in discharging their official duties, this has the capacity to undermine public confidence in the service and the way public money is spent and accounted for. There are robust legislative procedures in place under the Local Government Act 2001 and the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 which set out the requirements on declarable interests and the conduct of public servants in exercising their functions. There are no exceptions to these requirements. I can certainly provide them in response to Deputy Adams's request.
New social housing supply is delivered through a range of measures under my Department's social housing investment programme, SHIP, including the construction and acquisition of social housing units directly by local authorities and by approved housing bodies, the social housing leasing initiative, the capital advance leasing facility and the rental accommodation scheme.
Louth County Council acquired 18 housing units within its administrative area during 2010 as part of the work programme financed under my Department's SHIP. I now understand that two of these were in the ownership of council employees, as indicated by the Deputies.
In 2010, when the units in question were acquired, local authorities had delegated sanction to acquire housing units. This delegated sanction applied where both the numbers of units and funding available for the acquisition programme had been agreed with my Department. My Department does not have a role in the selection of particular properties for acquisition by a local authority and would not, at any time, be aware of the identity of the vendor.
When identifying acquisitions, housing authorities are required to ensure that all the relevant issues are considered, including tenure mix and estate composition, specific local needs and that the acquisitions are appropriate for the purpose of social housing and the authority's management of its stock in so far as identified housing needs in its area are concerned. Housing authorities are also required to achieve best value for money in the acquisition of properties. It is an absolute requirement that the local authority obtains an independent valuation of each property by a suitable qualified person. I understand this requirement was adhered to in both these cases. If there is information to the contrary, I will be happy to receive it.
The matter of the alleged conflict of interest was brought to the attention of my Department in September. Following this, my Department was in touch with senior management in Louth County Council and requested a report on the alleged conflict of interest by council officials in the procedures leading to the acquisition of two properties. The county manager subsequently commissioned an independent firm of auditors and risk-assessment managers to undertake a comprehensive review of the council's social housing investment programme in 2010, including the acquisition of 18 properties and, in particular, the procedures that applied in the case of the purchase of the two houses owned by local authority employees. I understand that the review process is almost complete and that the independent consultants will report to the county manager very shortly. In fairness to all concerned, I do not propose to make any further comment on the issue until such time as I have considered the findings of the report and the views of the county manager.
I thank the Minister of State for her answer. I appreciate entirely and accept her point that she does not propose to make any further comment until the report and views of the county manager have been supplied to her and she has had the opportunity to consider the findings. That is only fair to those involved. I just want to make a broad point, that is, that the code of conduct for staff contained in the Local Government Act 2001 states employees should not negotiate or arbitrate in any matter affecting a contract with a local authority or the purchase from, or the sale of goods to, a local authority where, in their private capacity, they are involved in the company or body concerned. This is one of the criteria according to which we need to judge the report when it comes forward.
I thank the Minister of State for her response. We all await the views of the county manager in respect of the audit. I fear that we have seen more of this activity in other councils. The matter in Louth has been brought to our attention. I am not saying for one minute that what was done was wrong to the extent that there was very serious intent but I fear there could be other cases in smaller local authorities. There should be an independent way of assessing staff. There may be only three or four in an office, and they should not be making judgments, especially if their property comes up for consideration.
We should be examining further the suitability of the properties. Rules are laid down but I wonder whether Louth county council examined the matter properly. It gave one of the houses a low rating but still purchased it, costing the State an awful lot of money. We should be taking photographs of the properties, internally and externally. That would give us a better idea as to their condition. This is not done, although it has been done in respect of planning. If it were done at the time of purchase, it might represent a way forward in the determination of suitability at a later date. The clerk of works has a big role.
It is essential that the public have confidence in how public officials carry out their duties and that that their activities are in accordance with the law. Deputy Ellis is concerned about practices in other local authorities. With regard to my responsibility, my Department will issue a letter to reach director of housing requesting full compliance with all the requirements where a potential conflict of interest might arise in any area where public money is spent. This is especially important in the awarding of contracts and the leasing or purchase of properties by the local authority. The issue as to whether the BER was essential in 2010 is one of the issues that would now have to be raised. The rules should be pointed out clearly to the local authorities. If the review made available to the county manager makes recommendations, I will certainly consider them and act appropriately.