Senators are expected to cover the whole country, not just constituencies. This Adjournment matter concerns the community school in Clifden and the need for the Minister for Education and Skills to address the shortfall in suitable permanent accommodation for Clifden community school. I ask for an update on the proposed timeline of the provision of a new school to replace the existing community school. I had been pestering the Minister for Education and Skills for a meeting on the topic and thank him for meeting representatives of the community school, through Councillor Eileen Mannion, when he was on holidays over the summer. The Minister kindly agreed to meet the representatives of Community School Initiative: Clifden and I thank Councillor Eileen Mannion who intervened in the matter.
Adjournment Matters
Schools Building Projects Applications
Was the Senator there for the summer?
I was. There is no better place to be for the summer. I thank the Minister for giving of his time. The meeting was a positive step and put the topic on the table. It has been on the agenda for over ten years. The current school was designed to accommodate 250 pupils in 1974 but the original design was never completed. The school is in poor condition. A detailed technical evaluation showed that the school building was unsuitable. Two independent studies were carried out in 2000 and in 2003. The second study concluded that the problems identified with the building were such that they could not be resolved except through the provision of a new building. The conclusion was accepted by the Department of Education and Science in 2003. The problem is not resolved. Following on from the meeting between Community School Initiative: Clifden and the Minister, there is a new plan for special consideration for school projects in isolated areas, as opposed to areas with population growth. The Minister mentioned a plan to take into account schools in isolated areas so that criteria can be used for selection and advancement on the five-year list for schools in isolated areas. Does the Minister of State have any news on this?
We are living in unprecedented economic circumstances but a new school for the area is a priority. If one uses the criteria for population growth to get new schools on the list, one will be waiting forever for Clifden. With unemployment, emigration and location on the western seaboard, the existing criteria alone cannot be used. I ask the Minister to take into account criteria other than population growth. He should also consider the isolation of the area and outline the new criteria used.
I ask the Minister of State to explain the timeline of when this project will be realistic. Plans come and plans go and five-year plans are developed. This project is not currently included in the five-year plan. Some projects may be cancelled or will not go ahead and if other criteria are used now that were not used in the past, perhaps the Minister can explain the timeline envisaged for the commencement or completion of the new school. I do not want it on the back burner. I thank the Minister for meeting Community School Initiative: Clifden but meetings are one thing whereas actions are another. I want to see some follow-up. I ask the Minister of State for a timeline and hope he has the information in time to respond to this Adjournment debate. If not, perhaps he can e-mail or write to me.
I am responding on behalf of the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Ruairí Quinn. I thank the Senator for raising the issue relating to Clifden community school and welcome the opportunity to clarify the current position on the new school building project for Clifden.
Clifden community school is the only second level school in the Clifden post-primary feeder area. There are 14 primary schools in the feeder area. The enrolments at primary level have remained stable, with 656 pupils in 2001-02 and 654 pupils in 2010-11. The Department's projected enrolments show a slight decrease over the coming years, with a projected figure of 627 primary level pupils in 2017.
The design of the proposed new school building for Clifden community school has been developed based on a long-term projected enrolment of 425 pupils. The current enrolment is just over 400 pupils and enrolment levels have been relatively stable in recent years. Full planning permission for the new school was granted in February 2011. The school's design team have recently submitted the stage 2(b) reports that include the detailed design of the school and tender documents. The submission is under review by the Department.
In view of the need to ensure that every child has access to a school place, the delivery of major school projects to meet the demographic demands nationally will be the main focus for capital investment in schools over those years. Total school enrolments are expected to grow by around 70,000 students between now and 2018 - by over 45,000 at primary level and 25,000 at post-primary. Second level enrolment is expected to continue to rise until at least 2024.
Recent birth rate data published by the CSO show that there were nearly 20,000 births registered in the first quarter of 2011, the highest number of births registered in a quarter since the series began in 1960. It is vital that the schooling system be prepared to cope with these increasing numbers. Therefore, the Government's priority is now to focus on major school projects to meet these demographic demands. In order to meet the needs of our growing population of schoolgoing children, the Department must establish new schools in addition to extending or replacing a number of existing schools in areas where demographic growth has been identified. The delivery of these new schools, together with extension projects to meet future demand, will be the main focus for the Department's capital budget for the coming years. In March 2012, the Minister, Deputy Quinn, announced a five-year construction programme as part of a €2 billion capital investment programme, which outlined all the major school building projects at primary and post-primary levels which had been scheduled to commence construction over the timeframe. The project announced will account for the bulk of the capital funding available each year from 2012 to 2016. In that context, it was not possible to advance all applications for capital funding concurrently.
All other schools building projects within the architectural planning process, including the project for Clifden community school, will continue to be advanced incrementally in the context of the funding available. However, in light of current competing demands on the Department's capital budget, it is not possible at this time to progress the project at Clifden community school to tender and construction stages. I understand the Minister attended a meeting during his summer holiday period in Clifden with members of CSI Clifden and the board of management. Officials of the planning and building unit in the Department held a meeting last July with a delegation from the patron body and the board of management in which the current position was fully explained to the delegation. I thank the Senator for allowing me the opportunity to outline the position as it stands.
I thank the Minister of State. I did not expect him to come in this evening with the school in his back pocket. While one should not believe everything one reads or hears, I must draw attention to the Minister of State's allusion to the possibility of establishing a new category of school, namely, "isolated school". When might this be defined by his Department? Will it mean the school in Clifden could receive funding in this context to build the new building that is so badly needed? Could he return to the Department, albeit not tonight, define "isolated school" with the Minister and revert to me with information by e-mail?
I will undertake to do so.
Ground Rents Abolition
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I wish to raise the issue of ground rents, a long-standing issue for many individuals and families in the State. Ground rents are something of an oddity and an anomaly, but they do not comprise a benign anomaly. They are, in effect, a hangover from a colonial past. It is shameful that, almost 100 years since the proclamation of the Irish Republic, citizens are still paying rent to absentee landlords. I refer not only to individual citizens as I understand the Office of Public Works pays ground rent of €14.44 per annum to the Duke of Leinster for the National Library of Ireland's premises. While this may be seen as a small amount, it is preposterous that State and Government buildings are still subject to ground rents to absentee landlords.
Ground rent landlords do not need to be compensated in the event of the abolition of ground rents. As a legacy of colonialism, ground rents have been unjust from the beginning. Therefore, compensation would legitimise what is manifestly unjust. Those who are bearing the real brunt of this ongoing ground rents fiasco are those private homeowners who find that their ground rent leases are about to expire and who face having to choose between buying out their ground rent lease, paying one eighth of the value of their home to the ground rent landlord or renewing the lease for a far higher rate than they had previously been paying. People are faced with demands for huge sums from the ground rent landlords and this is causing severe hardship for many.
I was motivated to raise this issue because I was contacted by the chairperson of the Lismore Park residents' association in Waterford, an association that covers hundreds of houses in Lismore Park, Lismore Heights and Lismore Lawn in Waterford city. Many people find that their leases are up for renewal and they face bills. The alternative for those who cannot afford to buy out the expired lease is to sign a renewal of the lease for 35 years. Many of those who find themselves in this invidious position are elderly and have no income other than their pensions. The rents are an unjust feudal imposition and are uncommon and unacceptable in many other countries. Ground rents primarily affect elderly people whose leases often expire when they reach a senior age. Ground rent landlords and their legal professionals capitalise actively on the frailty of the elderly.
I will not get into the detail of the Shirley case, of which I am sure the Minister of State is aware. Based on this case, the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach once made very clear commitments that, if they ever were in government, they would legislate on this issue. When in opposition, the Taoiseach, when supporting a Fianna Fáil-led Bill following the Shirley case, stated his party shared the then Government's view on the important issue and looked forward to being in a position to act following the general election. He was speaking about abolishing ground rents.
In March 2007 when in opposition, Deputy Gilmore, now Tánaiste, said:
As you know, the Labour Party wishes to abolish ground rents. As you know we brought forward a Private Members’ Bill some time ago to this effect. If in government, we intend to introduce legislation along those lines.
Where is this legislation? Is what I propose legislatively possible? I believe so and the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste believed so when in opposition. We owe it to the citizens who live in Lismore Park, Lismore Lawn and Lismore Heights in Waterford and to many others across the State in the same circumstances. It is unacceptable that this has not been fully resolved. It is a hangover from our colonial past and we should deal with it. We have a responsibility regarding the affected citizens. I look forward to the Minister of State's response.
I am standing in for my colleague, the Minister for Justice and Equality, who is unavailable. I thank the Senator for raising this matter on the Adjournment. The Minister has asked me to inform the House that he is not in a position to comment on the particular situation in the Lismore Park area of Waterford but welcomes this opportunity to outline the current situation with regard to ground rents.
The rights of tenants occupying residential property under long leases have been under discussion since the latter half of the 19th century. In such situations, the tenant normally pays a ground rent to the landlord. The problem that arises is the tenant's rights on expiry of such a lease. Under common law, the land and buildings reverted to the ground landlord leaving tenants with no right to compensation for losing the houses they, or their predecessors, had bought and no guarantee of any renewal or extension of their leases. In the event of renewal or extension, there was no guarantee that the terms were fair or reasonable.
A number of changes in the law during the 20th century greatly improved the situation for tenants. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1931, as amended by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1943, tenants with a "long family equity" became entitled to new tenancies on expiry of the original lease, or up to seven years before expiry, at rents fixed by the Circuit Court, in default of agreement. The Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) Act 1967 gave tenants the right to acquire the freehold - that is, to acquire the fee simple - of the property. The ground landlord has no option in the matter. The Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) Act 1978 prohibited the creation of new ground rents in respect of dwellings, and leases after that date are only valid if they operate as a renewal of an existing lease. The Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) (No.2) Act 1978 simplified procedures and gave the Land Registry, now the Property Registration Authority, responsibility for operating a special scheme for dwelling houses. This scheme greatly reduces the costs involved for tenants and, to date, over 80,000 ground rents have been bought out under this scheme. Of course, other ground rents may have been dealt with without recourse to the scheme.
In summary, the Landlord and Tenant Acts from 1967 to 2005 have improved conditions for ground rent tenants and contain provisions which permit certain tenants to acquire the fee simple, thereby ending their liability for the payment of ground rent to the ground rent landlord. The Acts provide a general right to such tenants to acquire the fee simple and for mechanisms for determining the purchase price in order to compensate the landlord. One further aspect of the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) (No. 2) Act 1978 worth noting is that section 27 provides that a landlord cannot re-enter or take possession of a premises where the tenant is in arrears with a ground rent. While prohibiting the creation of new ground rents on dwellings, the 1978 Act did not abolish existing ground rents and this has given rise to periodic demands for their abolition.
The position on the possible abolition of ground rents is that legal advice obtained from the Attorney General's office in recent years has drawn attention to possible constitutional difficulties with proposals to abolish remaining ground rents.
These relate mainly to the possible infringement of property rights. First, difficulties in respect of the rights of tenants could arise by forcing such a tenant to acquire the fee simple, that is, the act of transforming a current right into an obligation. Such a tenant may have no wish to purchase the ground rent, or not immediately at any rate. The current scheme is open ended. On the other hand, a tenant might not be able to afford the purchase price despite the reasonable way in which it is calculated. Second, removing for compensation purposes the distinction between leases with more than 15 years to run and those that have either expired or have less than 15 years to run could be seen as infringing upon the property rights of ground landlords. Third, securing payment of the ground rent purchase price as a charge on the property, for example, in order that the tenant does not need to pay cash up front for the buy-out of the ground rent, could also create problems, in that there could be an accumulation of interest charges until the dwelling changed hands. Payment of the accumulated debt might then require that the property be sold.
The Minister, Deputy Shatter, would add that the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, which published its ninth progress report, dealing with private property, in April 2004, also noted that a ground landlord's ground rent represented a right to an income that, in principle, was constitutionally protected and that any legislation to abolish ground rents must include a scheme of adequate compensation.
I thank the Minister of State for his response. I will be helpful and suggest something. The most obvious and achievable step is to pass legislation in order that the one eighth of the land's value that is due on the expiry of a lease can be reviewed downwards as well as upwards and lowered to a number close to zero so as to negate the value. After a year or so, ground rents would become well established as not being meaningful sources of income. The rents having no effective value, the Oireachtas could pass legislation to eradicate ground rents altogether by making them illegal.
A number of propositions could be put to the Attorney General to determine whether they were possible instead of simply tabling a blanket question on abolishing ground rents. All parties have grappled with this issue. In opposition, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste clearly supported the concept of abolishing ground rents. Will the issue be re-examined? It is a burden on many residents and the State has a responsibility to act.
This is a complex legal issue. The owners of the ground rents have significant constitutional protections afforded to them. The Senator mentioned the Shirley judgment, which was issued by the Supreme Court in February. The judgment is being examined by the Department of Justice and Equality and the Attorney General's office to determine whether it has an effect on current ground rent legislation. There may be further developments following that review. In that context, if the Senator wishes to submit his opinions to the Department, I am sure they would be most welcome.
Primary Care Centres Provision
Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach as ucht an deis seo a thabhairt dom an t-ábhar seo a ardú ar an Athló. This important matter has been in the news for the past week and relates to the primary health care centres. Although the row between the Minister of Health, Deputy Reilly, and the Minister of State, Deputy Shortall, is ongoing, the public need primary health care.
I am particularly concerned about the centre in Kells, County Meath, the Minister's addition of which to the list was welcome and understandable. He made the right decision, but what was the reality behind it? For years, a number of efforts were made to get a primary health care centre for Kells and to launch a public private partnership, PPP, model in conjunction with local doctors, yet nothing came of them. My colleagues on the town council, Councillors Sean Drew, Bryan Reilly and Frankie Lynch, tabled a motion calling on the Minister to establish a primary health care centre in Kells. The motion was passed and forwarded to the Minister. Perhaps he decided to reinstate the centre on the list in response to those representations.
The people of Kells deserve to know the up-to-date position. Regardless of the unnecessary brouhaha about the provenance of the list, people in the towns in question want to know whether they will get the centres that they have been promised and deserve.
I thank the Senator for raising this matter. I welcome the opportunity to outline the current position on Kells primary health care centre. As the Senator is aware, the programme for Government sets out the Government's commitment to ensuring a better and more efficient health system and a single tier health service that will deliver equal access to health care based on need, not income. In a developed primary care system, up to 95% of people's day-to-day health and social care needs can be met in the primary care setting. The key objective of the primary care strategy is to develop services in the community that will give people direct access to integrated multidisciplinary teams of general practitioners, GPs, nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and other health care disciplines. This is central to the Government's objective of delivering a high quality, integrated and cost-effective health system.
A modern, well equipped primary care infrastructure is central to the effective functioning of primary care teams. These teams enable multidisciplinary services to be delivered on a single site, provide a single point of access for users and encourage closer co-ordination between health providers. The infrastructure development, through a combination of public and private investment, will facilitate the delivery of multidisciplinary primary health care and represents a tangible refocusing of the health service to deliver care in the most appropriate and lowest cost setting.
The intention to date has been that, where appropriate, infrastructure for primary care centres would be provided by the private sector through negotiated lease agreements. The Exchequer will also fund the delivery of some primary care centres, particularly in deprived urban areas, small rural towns and isolated areas. In addition, a list of 35 potential locations for development by way of PPP as part of the Government's infrastructure stimulus package was published in July.
The provision of a centre in Kells has been progressed to date by way of a private sector operational lease process. Submissions were assessed by the HSE. A preferred provider was identified that satisfied the HSE key criteria and offered acceptable accommodation, in development, at a suitable location on the Dublin road in the town. An agreement for lease was reached with the preferred provider in 2010 and planning permission was received for the approximately 30,000 sq. ft. development. However the preferred provider has not been able to deliver the new primary care accommodation, due mainly to funding difficulties.
The HSE continues to engage with the preferred provider in the hope that the facility might be delivered within the timeframes of the agreement. While it continues to consider the possibility of delivering the centre by the private sector operational lease process, it is also considering alternative mechanisms and opportunities, including the PPP process. Kells is included in the locations being considered by the HSE for the Government's infrastructure stimulus package. Accordingly, the HSE is engaging with GPs in the area to assess GP interest and determine how best to deliver primary care accommodation in Kells.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply. He acknowledged the work of his former party colleague, Ms Mary Harney. Many of his colleagues would not do that, but she did a great deal of work in this regard in Kells. Unfortunately, the private sector let her down.
The HSE seems to be continuing with unrealistic negotiations. The Minister and Deputies Hannigan and McEntee promised a primary health care centre to the people of Kells. I will continue to fight to ensure the Government delivers on its promise. The people of Kells will not accept the vague language of the Minister of State's speech, as specific promises were made.
I have delivered a number of speeches in this House in the past year and a half and argue that this was one of the least vague. The HSE is working closely with GPs in the area. We must assess the GPs' resources as well as their level of interest in delivering a primary care centre. I have been assured the HSE is being as creative and innovative as possible in securing the best possible solution in the shortest timeframe to provide Kells with a centre.