Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 21 Jan 2016

Vol. 903 No. 3

Topical Issue Debate

NAMA Social Housing Provision

Deputy Joe Costello

This issue is quite important because of the amount of potential social housing that was available and is no longer available. In December 2011, the National Assets Management Agency, NAMA, announced it would facilitate the provision of units for social housing over a period of time. A steering group was established, comprising the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, NAMA, the Housing Agency, housing authorities and approved housing bodies with the purpose of achieving this objective. It achieved its objective and NAMA put together a property portfolio of 6,574 units, all of which were offered to the 31 local authorities in which the properties were located. One of the most bizarre features of the housing crisis is that only one third of those units were taken by the local authorities despite the fact that NAMA had approved all of those houses. It had been done in consultation with the various other relevant bodies and agencies and the list had been compiled for the specific purpose of making a portfolio of social housing available. It is bizarre that this happened in the middle of a homelessness and overcrowding crisis.

Of the 6,574 units, 4,048 were refused by the local authorities for one reason or another. Of the 2,526 units that were confirmed, not all are occupied at present - 1,600 have been either contracted or delivered, 486 are still under negotiation and 440 are still under consideration - in other words, they have not even got to the stage of contractual arrangements. The remaining 4,048 are no longer under consideration by the local authorities and, by and large, have been disposed of otherwise by NAMA because the local authorities did not want them.

According to NAMA, the reasons for rejection by the local authorities fell into four categories: 1,130 were recorded as "no demand"; 1,175 were recorded as "no sustainable communities"; 84 were not suitable; and 1,579, the largest number, had been available but were no longer available after they were refused. Some 6,574 units could have made a huge difference to the housing crisis - 4,048 units would have made a real difference, but they have now gone to the private sector. The private sector's benefit is the State's loss. The only conclusion one can come to is that a wonderful opportunity to address the homeless situation has been squandered and lost forever.

The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government should demand a detailed explanation from each local authority as to why they did not avail of the NAMA offer. One should not forget that this was not done in isolation: it was done with the Department, the housing authorities and the housing agencies. It is incredible that some local authorities did not accept even one offer from NAMA - not one unit that was made available was accepted by some of the local authorities. It boggles the mind that in current circumstances we find that we could have dented the worst problems of the homeless crisis and could have dealt with it very easily by availing of all the units that were available. We now find ourselves in a situation in which the private sector has snapped up those units because the public sector, through the local authorities and the Housing Agency, has not bothered to do so.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Ann Phelan)

Since December 2011, my Department has been working closely with NAMA, local authorities and approved housing bodies to maximise the social housing output available from the properties that are part of the security for loans which NAMA has acquired. To the end of December 2015, a total of 2,000 NAMA residential properties have been secured for social housing use. This comprises over 1,400 completed properties, where tenants are now in situ, and a further 574 that have been contracted and where completion work is ongoing. A further 249 properties are considered to be active transactions where terms are agreed or active negotiation is ongoing by all parties concerned and where a detailed appraisal is being carried out. An additional 341 properties are to be further appraised. Overall, I expect that, at least, in excess of 2,200 units for social housing purposes will be secured from this engagement with NAMA. By the end of December 2015, NAMA had identified a total of 6,634 properties as being potentially available for social housing. Over the last number of years, local authorities and the Housing Agency have been working systematically through these units with NAMA to determine if there is a social housing demand for the properties identified. The result of the effort will produce, as I have stated, more than 2,200 social housing units.

There are a number of reasons why local authorities may determine that units identified by NAMA are not suitable. A small number of units were declined on the basis that they were not suitable for social housing either by virtue of the nature of the development - for example, they were holiday-type developments or because the units were in areas of exceptionally high market rents or they required high management services charges and were therefore not viable. Equally, local authorities may have determined that there was no demand for the particular type of unit or no demand for social housing in particular locations. In many cases, a demand for a smaller number of properties in the same development may have been confirmed with the balance declined on the basis that there was insufficient demand. Alternatively, there may already have been a high concentration of social housing units in the development and to take further units for social housing would therefore not be consistent with the authority's commitment to mixed tenure and sustainable developments. The properties under consideration are part of the security for loans that NAMA has acquired. In the majority of cases, properties remain in the ownership of the original borrowers. The remaining properties are controlled by receivers appointed by NAMA. Once a demand has been identified, NAMA makes contact with the relevant property owner or receiver to determine if the properties are still available and to discuss how these properties can be best utilised.

In some cases, while the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA, initially had identified units as potentially available for social housing, when the local authority confirmed an interest in that property it emerged the unit subsequently had been sold or let by the relevant receiver or owner.

Overall, my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Kelly, and I are confident that local authorities have utilised every available opportunity to secure social housing units in this way in an effort to meet the housing needs of families in their areas, including those who are homeless.

Deputy Joe Costello

While I find it hard to disagree with the Minister of State, in this case I must. I do not accept the local authorities could refuse nearly two thirds of the houses that had been identified as potential social housing properties by NAMA between December 2011 and December 2015 and that the agency would sell them off to the private sector, which snapped them up. I am not satisfied the reasons given by the local authorities are adequate. I note 1,130 were recorded in the category "no demand" according to the local authorities. What does "no demand" mean? There is huge demand for housing. A further 1,275 units were recorded in the category "no sustainable communities" or, in other words, there were too many units on offer. How does one determine there are too many units on offer when one has a housing crisis? The local authorities decided not to take them. A total of 84 units were recorded as not suitable, although not because it was not financially viable for them to be acquired or leased. The local authorities did not wish to get into the business of management but I do not accept that reason either. A further 1,579 units, which is the largest category, were recorded as being no longer available. Of course they no longer are available, as four years went by and NAMA will not wait forever. The receiver has a duty to sell or the owner will sell if the local authorities do not act in time. This is an extremely flimsy argument on the part of the local authorities. They literally have reneged on their responsibility as the housing authorities in Ireland. Had those additional 4,000-plus units come into circulation despite the aforementioned categories, the housing crisis could have been dealt with much more effectively. I must state that a more thorough and more detailed explanation is required from the local authorities as to why they turned down these units. There are 31 local authorities, some of which turned everything down. Others, such as Dublin City Council, rejected two thirds of them but the current position is that local authorities are trying to find as many units of accommodation as they can, anywhere, to try to house families that are homeless or are in severe need of housing.

Deputy Ann Phelan

I do not necessarily disagree with the Deputy that we should have acted sooner. We all should have done many things before we reached this point. I must admit delivery was extremely slow in the early stages of this process, given that the mechanism for delivery of social housing was novel to all parties concerned. Such novelty was accompanied by the added complexity of getting agreement from multiple parties operating within an environment subject to a range of legal and financial constraints. Against this backdrop, it is fair to state that significant progress has been made. I am satisfied that the social housing potential of the approximately 4,000 units that are no longer under consideration has been explored in depth. Many of these units were in areas of low demand, while in areas where demand is high, such as Dublin, the list of units has been reviewed with units reconsidered when circumstances change. There will continue to be active, ongoing engagement between NAMA and local authorities in respect of those units that remain under consideration for social housing.

Rural Development Programme Funding

Deputy Michael McNamara

Some time ago, a specific scheme for financial instruments in agriculture and rural development was agreed by the European Investment Fund. Together with Deputy Doyle, the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, I met Commissioner Hogan in Brussels and this scheme was one of the good news items he announced to us. While he came to Ireland and spoke favourably of the scheme, I seek to ascertain what is going on between the Minister, Deputy Coveney, and Commissioner Hogan. Where is the money? There is considerable investment in agriculture in Ireland. One hears about how well performing it is and I am delighted it is performing so well. As 61,000 new jobs have been created in Ireland in agriculture, forestry and fisheries since 2013, by any stretch this is a sector that is performing well.

Many farmers are prepared to put their money into agriculture in the future and as the Minister of State is aware, the targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS, is oversubscribed. This is a scheme whereby a relatively small grant is made towards capital investment in farms such as farm buildings. The Department was obliged to go through the applications before Christmas - I should put on record I am glad it did - to identify and deal with those applicants who were seeking new investments in dairying, such as the building of new milking parlours. Obviously, as cows are calving at this time of year and are beginning to start milking, work must be done and there was a certain amount of bureaucracy in the Department that delayed it. Nevertheless, all these farmers are investing all this money and are borrowing it from the banks at normal business rates. A rate of approximately 6.5% is the average for unsecured loans whereas a rate of approximately 4% obtains if the loan is secured. However, Commissioner Hogan mentioned a rate of 1.5% and Members can imagine the difference such a rate would make to Irish farms.

The Minister, Deputy Coveney, refers to productive farmers and appears to think that farmers from where Deputy Fitzmaurice and I come are not productive farmers, but are the ones who are waiting to be taken over by a productive farmer. I do not accept the Minister's conceptualisation of Irish agriculture. I note it is not his alone but also is the direction in which the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has been going for nigh on 15 years through successive Governments. However, even by the Minister's own definition of what amounts to a productive farmer, he is failing them because the people who are investing in big new slatted houses or big new milking parlours or who are buying land, becoming more productive and achieving economies of scale are borrowing huge sums of money. Moreover, they are doing so at rates of 4.5% if the loan is secured and 6.5% if it is unsecured. Why are such farmers unable to draw down money at a rate of 1.5%, when this is what was promised by Commissioner Hogan? I believe he made this promise in good faith. Some members of my party have taken issue with Phil Hogan and some of what he has done but he is on solid ground in this regard. He pointed to specific examples of these funds being drawn down in other European countries. One example he cited was Romania where huge amounts of money were made available. People obviously are able to leverage more money when interest rates are lower. They are able to borrow more or at least the cost of borrowing is lower for their businesses. Second, banks are prepared to lend more where a guarantee scheme is in place and I note this is a guarantee scheme. However, it is not being availed of in Ireland and I wish to know why not.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

Hear, hear.

Deputy Ann Phelan

Under the regulations governing the European Structural and Investment Funds, including the rural development programme, RDP, it is open to member states to fund interventions via financial instruments. Essentially, financial instruments offer an alternative to the traditional grant-based approach whereby schemes under the RDP may be funded via loans, guarantee funds or equity investments. The funding for any such financial instruments would have to draw on the existing RDP allocation of European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, EAFRD, funding as well as national Exchequer funding. It is also possible to incorporate funding from other sources such as the European Investment Bank for such instruments.

Financial instruments must also be linked to a rural development programme measure and must respect the rules and restrictions applying to that particular measure.

The European Commission has indicated that it is aiming to double the use of these financial instruments in the 2014-20 programming period. The most recent data shows that €429 million has been allocated to financial instruments in seven programmes across five member states and a further 20 programmes, including Ireland, have committed to examine the possible use of financial instruments within the rural development programme.

The Department has been engaging with the European Commission, the European Investment Bank and other stakeholders in order to identify areas where financial instruments could be implemented to best strategic effect. In order to include a financial instrument as a measure in the rural development programme an ex ante evaluation is required by EU regulation. This evaluation can take between three months to a year to complete. It includes a range of steps and must prove that financial instruments are required due to an investment gap in the market place. Once this is done, an agreement must be reached between the Department and any other potential stakeholders or financial institutions on a clear investment strategy that is developed from the gaps, if any, identified in the ex ante evaluation. Following this, a new measure description would have to be drafted and inserted into the rural development programme by way of an amendment.

The Department continues to explore new and more competitive sources of funding for the agrifood sector. For example, the Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland, SBCI, provides an agriculture investment loans product. This credit is available at favourable terms for investments in primary agriculture products. The features of the SBCI products compared with those currently on the market are lower interest rates, loan amounts up to €5 million and increased repayment flexibility. Since its launch, the SBCI has made €750 million worth of low cost loans available for small and medium enterprises, including farmers. In its last report, the SBCI stated that one third of the loans approved and drawn down by SMEs had been accessed by the agriculture sector. The Minister and his Department are considering the possibilities for farmers in this context.

Deputy Michael McNamara

I am afraid I find the Minister of State's response slightly inadequate. She tells us that a scheme has to be drawn up and approved. We know all of that but is the scheme being drawn up? I am slightly worried about what she says because she stated, "an agreement must be reached between the Department and any other potential stakeholders or financial institutions on a clear investment strategy that is developed from the gaps, if any, identified." Does that mean that the Minister of State's Department will discuss with the banks whether they should make low-interest loans available to farmers due to a gap in the market? I suspect - as a matter of fact, I would be prepared to bet my farm on it - the banks will say there are no gaps and that there is nothing to see here. Of course they will say there is nothing to see here. Of course, they will not encourage the Government to provide loans at 1.5% when they are currently charging 6.5%, or 4.5% if the loan is secured. They will say there are no gaps.

We just heard about our housing crisis. Why is our entire economy being sacrificed to the banks? Farm loans have performed. They are one type of loan that did perform. The banks threw out loads of money on housing and those loans are not performing. Every other area, including SMEs, farms and everyone else, along with their economic futures, is being held back so the banks can reclaim the money they threw out. It seems bizarre in the extreme.

Joseph Stiglitz said today that Ireland would have been better off if we had been allowed to burn the bondholders. That is not necessarily to say that we should have burned the bondholders because we were not allowed to do so. We really have to look at the economic cost to this State of not burning the bondholders. It means the money has to be repaid by the Exchequer if not the banks and the banks have to be helped to perform. This is just one other example in a sector which is performing. It is clear that agriculture is being held back by the banks. It seems to me, reading between the lines, that the Department is giving the banks a veto in this area. The banks do not want low-interest loans.

The Minister of State mentioned the SBCI. The rates it is offering are one quarter of a percentage point lower. I was asked by SMEs about it. Despite all the fanfare, a quarter of a percentage point does not add up to a hill of beans.

Deputy Ann Phelan

The funding for any such financial instruments would have to be drawn on the existing rural development programme allocation of the European agriculture fund for rural development, as well as national Exchequer funding. The door is not closed on this one. Just yesterday, officials of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine held a meeting with officials from the Department of Finance, the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund and the Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland on the uses and rules of financial instruments and funding requirements for the agrifood sector. The meeting proved useful and informative. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine will reflect on the discussions within the meeting and is considering a series of steps based on those discussions. I suppose it is a matter of advising the Deputy to watch this space.

Deputy Michael McNamara

One never knows.

Statute Boundaries

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

This issue was discussed this morning in the Dáil and the Minister of State is on record as supporting the people of Roscommon in respect of it. It makes no sense whatsoever that someone decided to take from Roscommon a part of what is Roscommon's. The position with regard to rates and future rates must also be considered. People do not realise that, in 1975 or 1976, Roscommon County Council, without funding from the Department of the Environment, put in the infrastructure to create an area in Monksland which has boomed. Some 1,000 people are employed in the pharmaceutical industry there. This is a good news story.

We must examine the area which should be Roscommon's and which was given to Westmeath years ago. When we look at it now, we see it has been depleted. Travelling through the area, it is clear it was never looked after by Westmeath. Some 1,500 people did not just show up at a meeting in Athlone for the craic. They showed up because everyone in County Roscommon - north, south, east and west - is sick to have even seen what has been proposed. The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government has it in his gift to scrap this ludicrous situation. Businesspeople in Monksland have been open about saying they do not and will not support this proposed change.

Who is pushing this agenda? I know that four parts of Ireland are being examined. However, this does not make any sense. Roscommon County Council has spent a great deal of money down through the years putting infrastructure in place. This is a trophy town and a fabulous example of what can be done in rural areas. It is a credit to the people who envisaged it down through the years. Will the Minister make a decision to scrap this proposal? It does not make sense. Anyone looking at it would scratch his or her head and ask what is going on here. Will the Minister call a halt to this proposal before this Government's term finishes? If a person is doing something that is not right, he or she can stop at any time. The Minister has it in his gift to call a halt to this proposal before the election.

He can say to forget about it and scrap it because it makes no sense. Furthermore, in fairness to Deputy Troy and the Westmeath side, they wrote a letter saying that it does not make any sense and they are not supporting it.

Boxer Moran has made it very clear. Many public representatives have also made it very clear that they do not support what is going on. Across the political divide in County Roscommon, everyone is standing shoulder to shoulder with the people. This cannot go ahead. There will be uproar. Can we cut to the chase? Can we forget about the toing and froing on 27 February, 30 March or whatever date this commission is to come back? I ask for the Minister to stand up and be counted and for once to cut what is going on, leave Roscommon to Roscommon and Westmeath to Westmeath and let everyone live happily.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Frank Feighan)

Thank you, Deputy. I endorse your Topical Issue matter and made a submission myself last week in this regard. I call the Minister of State, who has four minutes to reply.

Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Joe McHugh)

I acknowledge the Deputy for tabling this matter. I listened to the radio the morning after the public meeting, and a figure of 1,500 people at a meeting shows it is causing grave concern. I am speaking today on behalf of the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government and will read his reply into the record for the purposes of laying out where the situation is at and who has responsibility in the matter. I am happy to update the House on the matter and clarify a few points on the Minister's behalf.

As Members are aware, the Minister, Deputy Kelly, announced the establishment of statutory committees to review local government boundaries in Athlone, Carlow, Drogheda and Waterford on 19 June last. In the case of Athlone, the committee has been asked to carry out a review of the boundary between Counties Westmeath and Roscommon and to make recommendations with respect to that boundary that it considers to be necessary in the interests of effective local government.

The main rationale for undertaking the review in Athlone is that the 2011 census shows there is a significant Athlone environs population in County Roscommon. The question that arises is the appropriate relationship between administrative jurisdictions and the current settlement and development position. Bringing an entire town within a single local authority area can eliminate or prevent any possible anomalies or distortions of divided administration, service provision, regulatory and enforcement responsibility and electoral representation that might arise. Potential problems can also be addressed, including differing policies and practices between authorities in respect of matters such as planning, rating and charges, which can impact negatively on town centres.

The Athlone boundary committee has been established under section 28 of the Local Government Act 1991 and, in accordance with subsection (3) of that section, it is independent in the performance of its functions. While it would be inappropriate, therefore, for me to comment on the substantive matter under examination, I would like to take the opportunity to address briefly some misconceptions that have been reported recently regarding this issue. First, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government is not proposing that the boundary be changed; the task of examining and analysing the issue has been entrusted to the independent boundary committee and it is that group which will consider and report on the matter. At that stage, it will be open to the Minister of the day to suggest the alteration of a boundary by order, having regard to the boundary committee report. In this context, I would like to point out that the matter will not be decided finally by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, but by the Oireachtas. In accordance with the 1991 Act, a draft of any order made by the Minister providing for a boundary alteration must be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order cannot be made until a resolution approving the draft has been passed by each House. This would normally follow a submission to Government.

Feedback thus far suggests that the revised structures and measures implemented by this Government are generally operating well and I am sure the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government will look forward to studying the various reports, including on counties Westmeath and Roscommon, to assess whether further adjustments are required.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

We talk about joined-up thinking. For years, this has been a success. Roscommon has liaised with Westmeath in terms of both councils. They have worked perfectly together. Roscommon is well capable of looking after planning and doing whatever thinking has to be done. It needs to be left in Roscommon's care.

One thing that is mentioned in the reply is different services. The main medical centre for all of that area is in Monksland and it covers parts of south Roscommon. What is the Government going to do? Will it have people from south Roscommon going to Westmeath to get care, and leave out Ballinasloe or Roscommon town? This is the kind of thing that is going on.

At the end of the day, with all due respect to the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, he can talk about independent bodies or whoever he wants. It is still stated clearly in his reply that while the review body will come back and give its decision, it is for a Minister to decide whether it goes ahead or not. Those are the simple facts. The legislation will come through the House but it is for a Minister to decide to bring it in. The current Minister has it in his gift to turn around and stall the whole thing. He would be very well placed to do that coming up to an election and he should do so.

This is not about politics. Across the political divide, there is one united front in Roscommon. Everyone is in full support of each other and all are saying this is a ludicrous measure and it must be stopped. I ask the Minister of State to bring the message back to the Minister, Deputy Kelly, that in the next week or two, before the Taoiseach goes to Áras an Uachtaráin, he should call a stop to this.

Deputy Joe McHugh

This discussion is going into the record of the House and will be landing on the desks it needs to land on. The message is loud and clear and is coming from the people, including a public meeting of 1,500. I have spoken in depth with the Acting Chairman, Deputy Feighan, and he has explained the practical realities on the ground, which have to be reflected.

I reiterate and emphasise that, as of now, there are no proposed boundary changes. There is a fear of the report recommending the proposed changes and the Minister of the day having a decision to make to bring it to both Houses. However, at this stage, nothing is proposed. While the responsible people are independently evaluating the general geographical area, I am sure they are listening attentively to the public, and the loud voice coming from the House and from across the political divide in Roscommon.

Flood Relief Schemes

Deputy Robert Troy

I welcome the opportunity and thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this important matter. The devastation caused by the flooding since early December is still widely affecting our communities. We have seen the destruction of land, business and of so many people's family homes. Last night, in excess of 100 people gathered in the Bounty in Athlone. I could see in their faces that they were suffering from physical and mental exhaustion. I was struck by the frustration they are experiencing, and the heartbreaking stories they shared with me and other public representatives who were there last night. One woman spoke about getting up in the morning and putting on a pair of waders to wade out to her gate to get on the back of a tractor, for the tractor to bring her down the road where she could get into her car just to do a little shopping. That is the level of inconvenience that these people have to endure.

Another elderly woman spoke about having to relocate from her house to a hotel and of coming down to breakfast one morning to be told she had to vacate the hotel by check-out at 11 a.m. that day.

Many of the issues in regard to the community welfare officer and the restrictive nature of the scheme were dealt with by Deputy Dooley this morning with the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection. I have a real issue with legitimate, tax-compliant businesses being refused access to the Red Cross scheme. The Egan family business has self-catering chalets which are exempt from commercial rates, and it is not the case they are not paying the rates. Thomas Cleary, a horse trainer, is also exempt from commercial rates, and there is also the case of Patricia Doyle. It is not that these people are not meeting their obligations but they have not been able to access the Red Cross funding despite the fact they have legitimate businesses that have been flooded and devastated.

The sad part is that the Taoiseach, the Minister, Deputy Coveney, and the Minister of State, Deputy Harris, all came and met each and every one of these people and they promised that the criteria would be changed in order that people could avail of the funding. It is simply not good enough that, four weeks after the most senior members of the Government visited Athlone, these people still cannot access funding to help them repair the damage that has been caused by the flooding, which is totally outside their control.

What is in the control of the Government is the eligibility criteria which would give these people the money to which they are entitled. The community welfare officers need to be given instructions by the Minister responsible, the Minister for Social Protection in order that people who voluntarily took time off work to protect their homes, who have incurred additional expenses through ESB charges and the hiring of pumps, and who had to buy in food and incur additional costs would be supported by the Government. It is a damning indictment of this Government that Ministers came to Athlone four weeks ago, made promises and, today, those promises have not been honoured. While I accept it is not the responsibility of the Minister of State, Deputy McHugh, I plead with him to speak to the relevant Ministers in order that they can make the necessary amendments and give these people their just entitlements.

Deputy Joe McHugh

I thank the Deputy for raising the issue. I acknowledge the suffering and hardship many families have endured in recent weeks. To an extent, we had our own issues in Donegal before Christmas, particularly in the Finn valley area, but the situation was more acute in the midlands. I acknowledge the considerable hardship many people have gone through. With regard to the three examples, it is important we know the details, whether that is through myself or the Minister, and we are happy to follow them up.

In the immediate aftermath of Storm Desmond at the beginning of December 2015, the Government approved the allocation of €5 million to be distributed as emergency humanitarian support to small businesses which, through no fault of their own, have been unable to secure flood insurance and had been flooded during the period of 4 December 2015 to 17 December 2015. Subsequent to the storms which continued into late December and early January, the Government decided to expand the scheme to cover the period of December 2015 to January 2016. It was also decided to allow community, voluntary and sporting organisations which could not obtain flood insurance and had suffered flood damage to their premises to apply for assistance.

The scheme, which is being administered by the Irish Red Cross Society, provides a once-off ex gratia contribution towards the costs of returning business premises to their pre-flood condition, including the replacement of flooring, fixtures and fittings and damaged stock. It does not cover repairs to football pitches, race tracks or golf courses affected by the floods. The scheme does not provide a contribution to loss of earnings or loss of business goodwill. The scheme is not intended to act as a compensation for loss, nor is it intended to provide an alternative to insurance cover.

The emergency nature of the flooding incident required an urgent response to try to make payments to small businesses for business continuity purposes in the run-up to Christmas. A two-stage approach was agreed by Government. The first stage provides a contribution of up to €5,000 per property, depending on the scale of damage incurred. Applications under the €5,000 threshold are being paid following a quick verification process between the Irish Red Cross and the local authority responsible for the area in which the business was flooded. The second stage of the scheme provides a means to seek further support of up to €20,000 per property. This involves a lengthier process requiring a detailed assessment of the damage by loss assessors appointed for this purpose by the Irish Red Cross. The total level of support available for both stages combined is capped at €20,000 per property. Application forms for the scheme are available on the Irish Red Cross website.

I thank the Irish Red Cross for the work it is doing in ensuring applications are processed and payments are disbursed in a speedy manner. While the Irish Red Cross is an independent charitable organisation, the allocation of the funds is provided by the Exchequer. As with any funding provided by the Exchequer, there is a requirement for governance and accountability. There has to be prudent management and financial controls. While controls must be in place, the emergency nature of the response requires a system which is not cumbersome or overly bureaucratic. In the case of small businesses, the controls that have been put in place for payment under the scheme include that the business must have been trading at the time of the flooding incident and that the business must have been operating in a rateable premises. This allows for the speedy turnaround in the processing of payments as once these details are verified by the relevant local authority and subject to the application form containing full details, the Irish Red Cross can then make a payment to the applicant for an amount up to €5,000. The Irish Red Cross continues to receive application forms and payments are processed daily. The charity advises that 122 payments have been made to date.

The Minister for Defence has visited a number of sites affected by flooding in recent weeks and has seen at first hand the difficulties many small businesses have experienced. In cases of particular hardship, I understand the Minister is open to having the criteria reviewed where exceptional circumstances arise.

Deputy Robert Troy

With all due respect, we know the schemes that are available. My point is that the schemes available are too restrictive and legitimate family-run businesses, the backbone of the local economy, are being penalised. The Minister visited the areas and the Taoiseach came out of hiding after four weeks and visited the areas. Well done, he did his job. However, he made a promise when he visited the areas that the people who were not getting funding but who deserved it would get it. Four weeks on, that has not happened.

All through Christmas, I was in a dry house, thank God. What must it be like for people who were left with the severe destruction of flooding? The Government is not providing the assistance they deserve. I do not want to hear any more about reviews or exceptional needs payments. These people need help and assistance now. The Minister, Deputy Coveney, needs to say he accepts that the scheme as it was originally set up is too restrictive and that these people will be accommodated. The Tánaiste, Deputy Burton, needs to say she is instructing the community welfare officers in this regard. I pay tribute to community welfare officers for the work they are doing but they too are operating under restrictive conditions.

People who gave up their time and took unpaid leave to protect their homes have additional ESB and fuel charges and the cost of the hire of pumps. These costs must be included. What we are effectively saying to people is that if they did not protect their houses and let them flood, we would have put them up in the local hotel and given them assistance to repair the houses on their return. The people who protected their houses should also be compensated.

It is not their fault their houses, businesses and lands were flooded. It is not their fault they cannot obtain insurance. However, it is the Government's fault that it is not stepping up to the mark and providing the compensation that is urgently needed.

Deputy Joe McHugh

I am not going to get into the bear pit with the Deputy today. I think that may be what he wants me to do. The Deputy's question relates to the need for the Minister for Defence to amend the eligibility criteria. The Minister has indicated that he is open to having the criteria reviewed. Therefore, he is answering the question.

Deputy Robert Troy

When will that happen - four weeks on?

Deputy Joe McHugh

The Deputy asked the question and the Minister has responded. As I said at the outset, the examples the Deputy gave are important and it is equally important to give them to the Minister. He is open to amending the criteria.

Deputy Robert Troy

It is only three examples.

Deputy Joe McHugh

I am not going to jump into a bear pit on a Thursday evening. This is a serious issue. It is not just the Red Cross that is involved. The Deputy is aware of the great work his local authority did and the great work done by the local authority in Roscommon. I was speaking to Deputy Fitzmaurice about the work done at the height of the devastation by the emergency services and the community. A massive effort was made. The Government is responding to that emergency and it had to respond quickly.

The Deputy has highlighted issues that need to be dealt with and has cited specific examples relating to businesses. The Minister is open to reviewing these and I will speak to him privately on the matter. He will have this record and his officials are listening to this debate. Circumstances change. This is about addressing issues at this difficult time for so many people. I take the point raised by the Deputy and accept he has raised a serious issue. The Minister is serious about the issue also.

Deputy Robert Troy

I will raise the issue again in parliamentary questions to the Minister for Defence next Tuesday and I hope he will have a concrete answer for me at that stage.

The Dáil adjourned at 5.15 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 26 January 2016.