The Dáil referred the Revised Estimates for Vote 25, Environment, Heritage and Local Government, to this committee for consideration. On behalf of the select committee, I welcome the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, and the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Noel Ahern. I also welcome the officials from the Department to this meeting. The committee's clerk has circulated a draft timetable for consideration. Is the general timetable agreed? Agreed.
Vote 25 — Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Revised).
I am grateful for the opportunity to run through the Revised Estimates for 2005 with the committee as some very significant progress has been made in my Department's area, not all of which has been noted. My colleague, Deputy Noel Ahern, will make an opening statement on housing. I regret that the Minister of State, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, is not here today as he had previous arrangements made for this week. I will cover his general area of responsibility.
In terms of the total funds available, approximately €3.447 billion is available to my Department. This includes finances from the environment and local government funds. This reflects the importance the Government attaches to supporting environmental protection, improving infrastructure and building sustainable communities at local level. This is our first year of experience of the new arrangement for capital envelope agreements, which ring-fence funding for a period of time and provide a more logical approach to funding. This year's budget incorporates a carry over permitted under the capital envelope agreement on two programmes, these being €43.8 million on housing and €31.8 million on water services. Members will share my surprise that there was a failure in some areas to spend money allocated in 2004. Usually, there are logical explanations for this but I encourage local authorities to be ambitious and to bring their programmes up to the level of output for which we are making funds available. I want to get value for money. I cannot knock on the Minister for Finance's door and ask for more resources when he can see that some money was not spent on housing or water services in 2004. Every member of this committee and every Member of the Dáil wants value for money, but we also want ambition.
Local authorities have responded well to the needs of economic growth and demographic change. We should recognise exactly how much work has been done. In 2004, almost 77,000 housing units were completed, including social and affordable housing for nearly 12,250 new households. This output of nearly 19 per 1,000 capita is an extraordinary statistic. If one compares our performance to the UK where there is a major housing emergency, we are building at four or five times the British rate and are far above any other European country in terms of housing output. The local authorities dealt with approximately 95,000 planning applications in 2004, an increase of nearly 40,000 on 1997.
Numbers of bring banks and civic amenity centres have both doubled over the past five years. Our latest figures show that 28% of household and commercial waste was diverted from landfills in 2003, up from 13% in 2001 against a target of 35% for 2013, as members of the committee are aware. We are well on target. To coin a phrase, we have a lot done but have more to do.
The key role of local authorities in the area of social inclusion is particularly important. Through their leadership of the county and city development boards, local authorities actively support RAPID programmes in disadvantaged areas, rural transport initiatives and a range of social inclusion measures. These address increasing social diversity, disability, provision of community facilities and local enterprise support. It is right to acknowledge what is being done in these areas. If I appear critical at times, it is because I know that more can be done in respect of local governments achieving all of their targets.
Since assuming office, I have placed a particular emphasis on monitoring the performance of local authorities and promoting best practice to maximise the benefits of the considerable resources being made available. I am determined that my Department, local authorities and other agencies should target the highest levels of performance and internalise best practice across their operations. Delivery of a quality customer service by the Department and local authorities is a priority shared by every Member of the Oireachtas and every member of local authorities around the country. Arrangements for accessing local government services are being improved, in many cases through innovative use of information technology, such as the phenomenally successful motor tax renewals. On-line inquiry access to planning lists will help both the public and its representatives as will access by voters to a live register and the e-tenders website. These are all indications that we are using new technology in an intelligent way to improve the delivery of services. The services indicators initiative involving a set of 42 service indicators spanning the main service areas is now being used to identify good practice and under-performance. Where people are under-performing, we will encourage them to increase their standards. Where people have achieved best practice, we will ensure everyone knows. I will publish these as soon as they become available.
I will now address the local government fund. Local government services such as local roads, waste management, water services, housing, libraries and other facilities, touch every household and every business in the community. This is where the citizen and the State interface. I am seeking significant funding to assist local authorities in their day-to-day operations. The amount available through the local government fund in 2005 will be €1.3 billion. The transfer of resources to local authorities on such a massive scale underlines the Government's commitment to sustaining and developing the sector. The equivalent transfer fund was €236 million ten years ago, which is not a very long time. The increase is above the rate of inflation and is significant by any standard. The equivalent was €339 million when this Government came to power in 1997. People who suggest that the Government is not investing enough are not making truthful comparisons between the figures. Members of the Dáil and Seanad always want more to be invested but we have significantly improved the general funding.
The general purpose grants notified for 2005 amount to €816 million. This is an increase of 8.6% over the amount provided in 2004 and continues the trend of providing greater resources to local authorities that started when the Government took office. Since 1997, grants of this nature have increased by approximately 130%, which is above inflation. Increased grants from central government and the strengthening of their local income base have put local authorities' finances on a more sound footing than they have been for many years. However, there is a continuing need for local authorities to seek efficiencies and ensure they get value for money. One point that is not a criticism of local government is that virtually no agency at local or national level is performing anywhere near 100%. If we can increase our overall performance by just a few percentage points, we can squeeze more value for money for the taxpayers out of the significant resources being made available and can deliver better quality services to the people we all serve.
Last year my Department commissioned a comprehensive review of local government financing. This was considered timely in light of the challenges facing local government and developments in the wider economy. The independent consultants carrying out this review are due to present their final report shortly; this will inform debate on local government financing into the future.
I turn to non-national roads because this is an issue in which every Deputy has an interest. For Deputies with a rural base this is the big issue. A sum of €441 million is provided in 2005 for roads in the local government fund. The equivalent figure in 1994 was €135 million and the figure for 1997 was €225 million. I make the point that there have been significant increases in this area. In addition a further capital provision of just over €50 million for key strategic non-national road projects is provided to assist with housing and other related development. This will enable local authorities to progress work on critically important schemes situated on the country's regional road network.
I represent a constituency that is both urban and rural, and one that has a particular type of rural hinterland. I am fully aware of the non-national roads and the connection they provide between communities. It is an area in which I take a particular interest. We are allocating €441 million compared to €135 million ten years ago and €225 million seven years ago. The proportion of funding now being put into non-national roads has fallen in real terms. As the central government has provided more funding the proportion of funding spent locally has been cut. This is not good as we receive complaints that there are cutbacks, when in fact there is more money being provided by the Government. If there is a retrenchment it is at local level. This is something Members need to examine.
Local government is also making major efforts to provide improved resources for the disabled, in line with the recent outline sectoral plan published by my Department. Budget 2005 provides new capital allocation of €10 million and a current allocation of €5 million in respect of services for the disabled. This new funding will accelerate a range of initiatives and services for the disabled, including improved access, equipment, staff provision and training, adaptation of information and equipment for special needs. I take the view that access is a human right, and it is a view widely shared in the Oireachtas. Some local authorities are magnificent in this regard and others have a great deal to do. I refer to Waterford city, which has provided sparkling examples of what can be done with modest funding to improve access for people with disabilities. I encourage local authorities to be ambitious in this area.
My Department will have a key role in responding to the requirements of the Disability Bill. Since 1998 the Department has overseen a seven-fold increase in capital expenditure on essential repairs and disabled persons grants from €7 million to €48 million this year. By comparison the corresponding allocation in 1994 was €4 million. I would like to allocate even more than €48 million but a twelvefold increase over ten years is not a bad performance.
I now refer to water services and the investment programme. This is a very challenging area in which €3.5 billion has been invested between 1994 and 2004. I am seeking some €434 million for investment in water infrastructure this year. This funding is needed for ongoing investment under the strategic environmental and economic objectives of the national development plan. Some €309 million is for major wastewater schemes and public water supplies. A sum of €125 million is allocated to the rural water programme, mainly to tackle water quality standards in private group water schemes. As we get the big schemes completed we focus more and more on the rural programmes. The funding for major schemes has peaked and the focus is increasingly on the smaller schemes.
I can provide the members with some comparative figures. In 1994 €141 million was allocated under this heading whereas €207 million was allocated in 1997. The figure rose to €507 million in 2001. Government is allocating significant resources. Last year, as the major schemes had come through the system, the figure dropped to just over €400 million. This year the figure is back to €434 million.
A major objective of our wastewater investment under the national development plan is to ensure compliance with the requirements of the EU urban wastewater treatment directive. The directive requires specific wastewater treatment and/or collection facilities to be in place by 31 December 2005 for discharges according to a graduated range of treatment standards. At the beginning of the current national development plan, Ireland's compliance with the year 2005 requirements of the directive stood at 25%. Our compliance rate is now at 90%. That is a remarkable achievement by any standards, particularly given the delays that have been caused. For example, in my constituency, people who have "environmental concerns" have held up one much-needed wastewater treatment plant. This has gone on for twelve and a half years. I hope to push our compliance rate higher. While we have achieved much there is some further work to do on compliance under the terms of the Government's water services investment programme.
In all, the new wastewater schemes completed since 2000 have produced additional treatment capacity equal to the requirements of a population of 3 million people. There are very few countries in Europe, and I am not aware of any, meeting the standards as rapidly as we are and that are rolling out the investment in this area. I accept that there are areas in which we need to improve but this is a significant rate of achievement and all sides should take credit for it.
The most recently published EPA report on drinking water quality in Ireland relates to the year 2003 and confirms the fundamentally good quality of our drinking water, with an overall compliance rate of 96.1%, which is up from 95.9% in 2002, from both public and private supplies. Around one third of all rural households, some 160,000 households, receive their water supply from a group water scheme. The group water scheme is one of the most extraordinary examples of voluntary activity achieving results. Significant credit is due. About 60% of rural households are connected to high quality, local authority public supplies. The remainder depend on private sources such as rivers, lakes and boreholes, many of which are subject to organic pollution. In addition, water treatment and disinfecting equipment is either inadequate or absent. The most recent census returns show that this type of scheme supplies around 46,000 rural households. Particular emphasis needs to be put on this area. The group water schemes have been tremendous and the emphasis on funding in the rural water programme reflects this.
Earlier this year I announced a record annual capital allocation of €125 million under the rural water programme to help resolve water quality problems in the group water sector in the shortest possible timescale. The group water schemes and the federations recognise that. This year's allocation is up 45% on 2004 and reflects my priority. The 2004 allocation of €86 million was a record, and a 45% increase on that is, by any standards, noteworthy. The bulk of the funds are earmarked for the provision of water treatment and disinfection facilities for group water schemes with deficient private sources. We are using bundled design-build-operate contracts to get speedier resolution of water quality difficulties in the sector. A measure of the significance the Government attaches to this can be derived from comparisons. We are putting infinitely more into this area than any Government in the history of the State. I am determined that funding will not be a constraint in bringing privately sourced group schemes up to standard.
Current projects include 234 new stand alone water treatment plants for group schemes. These will produce quality drinking water for almost 40,000 rural households. I look forward to real progress being made in this sector throughout 2005 and I am confident the sector will respond to the additional allocations.
The serviced land initiative was introduced to increase the supply of serviced land available for housing development. At the end of December 2004, 213 schemes, totalling 155,000 sites were completed or were under construction. A further 51 schemes providing for an additional 46,000 sites are due to start construction. Some 200,000 sites in all will be provided under the initiative compared to our original target of 100,000 sites. The Government is certainly playing its part to ensure that serviced land becomes available and as we all know, the more sites that become available, the easier it becomes to tackle the escalation in house prices. It is simple arithmetic and we should all recognise that.
In the area of waste management, we have moved relatively quickly, from a very low base, towards achieving EU specified targets for recycling and for diversion from landfill. The latest data shows that the proportion of household and commercial waste diverted from landfill in 2003 was 28%, up from 13% in 2001. Our target is 35% to be achieved by 2013. We are on target to reach that level and I hope we can reach it before 2013. In addition, by the end of 2003, a segregated waste collection service was provided to 42% of all households in the State.
In one of the main waste streams, packaging waste, a successful producer responsibility initiative enabled us to achieve the EU target of 25% recovery by 2001 and we are on line to achieve the 2005 target of 50%. Further producer responsibility initiatives are in place in the construction and demolition waste sector, about to be implemented in the electric and electronic equipment sector and under negotiation for end-of-life vehicles, tyres and newsprint. This will all help us to move along and reach our targets. What we have achieved to date is impressive but we still have a big mountain to climb and we should not delude ourselves about that. We have not solved the problem. However, if one examines the initiatives one can see that some of them have been phenomenally successful, particularly the farming initiative whereby waste plastic is removed from farms. Last year almost 10,000 tons of plastic was removed from farms under the scheme. That scheme is reaching its targets, doing tremendous work and is a good example of how a partnership approach can solve problems.
There has been good progress on the delivery of recycling infrastructure. The numbers of bring banks and civic amenity sites have both doubled over the past five years. However, I would encourage local authorities to be more ambitious. I am frustrated by the fact that I have provided funds to a number of local authorities and they have not introduced civic amenity centres. Where such centres are in operation they are proving to be hugely successful. It is not good enough, when funding is available, that somebody drops the ball somewhere and we are left in a situation in some towns, including my own, where there is no civic amenity site.
The implementation of EU environmental legislation presents Ireland, and member states generally, with considerable challenges. We have made good progress in meeting targets but we still have a great deal to do to ensure that we are up to standard in terms of our EU responsibility. We will introduce a free take-back scheme for electronic waste by the due date of 13 August next and we are being ambitious in that regard. I am setting the target and making it clear that I expect the producers and distributors to meet their responsibilities because we will not seek a derogation. We have invested heavily in our sewage plants to meet the 2005 targets and we are on schedule for implementing the pilot EU carbon emissions trading scheme this year.
Our record on the transposition of EU environmental directives is among the best in the Union. We are not at the top of the class but we are certainly not at the bottom either. Where application is late it is often because of the extensive consultation processes in which we engage with stakeholders. Environmental directives can have major implications for sectors such as agriculture and industry and we must recognise that. We must adopt a partnership approach, as was done with the nitrates directive, and deal with the organisations directly in order to achieve our aims.
Our record on the implementation of the legislation has come under scrutiny and rightly so. It has not been as good as it should be and we should make that point clear. It must be appreciated that infringement proceedings are part of the European Commission's engagement with every member state and they are not unique to Ireland. We still have many legacy issues to deal with in this area. We have made, and continue to make, progress. Our approach to environmental enforcement has been strengthened with the establishment of the office of environmental enforcement and the improvement of the enforcement capacity of the local authorities.
My priority is to bring about improved communication and co-operation between my Department and the European Commission. I have established a task force to oversee a concerted effort to resolve all of the outstanding cases. There are still one or two cases that we must face and there will be other judgments from the European Court, with which we will have to deal. These are legacies of the past, however. I am putting a structure in place to deal with the situation in the future as well as dealing with the legacy issues.
Ireland is pressing ahead, in co-operation with our EU colleagues, in implementing the Kyoto Protocol. Two new subheads are being established to address our obligations. A nominal sum of €1 million is being provided to cover the costs of Kyoto credits purchased on behalf of the Government. Depending on how quickly and at what rate costs rise, it may be necessary to augment this provision. If one examines the tonnage costs, they have risen significantly in recent months.
A second new subhead will provide for the cost of Ireland's contribution to the climate change funding mechanism for developing countries. In 2001, the original 15 EU states, along with five other countries, agreed to contribute a total of US$410 million per annum from 2005 to developing countries. Ireland's total share will amount to US$3.25 million.
There is a substantial increase in the resources available for the national parks and wildlife service of my Department. The funding has increased by 47% to just over €35 million, which is 3.5 times the amount of 10 years ago. This funding provides for the maintenance and management of the State's national parks and nature reserves as well as protection of wildlife and habitats. Our national parks and reserves are a valuable recreational and educational facility, both for the public and for the tourism industry. The investment in this area is worthwhile and will return dividends.
Current expenditure also allows for the cost of preparing conservation management plans for designated sites and completing commonage framework plans. Some 811,437 hectares or 11.5% of territory of land and freshwater area are subject to designations for conservation purposes. This places a major resource demand on the State, but we are in a position to meet that demand.
This year €23.6 million is being provided for the built heritage. This funding is being provided as part of an integrated package tackling the issue of protecting the built heritage. I am particularly pleased to provide a 60% increase in 2005 in the funding for the architectural protection grants scheme, administered by local authorities. This funding has increased to €6.45 million from €3.9 million in 2004. It is a good scheme and it is worth putting funds into it. There are some remarkable pieces of architecture around the country that need support and I am helping local authorities to do the best they can. The increased funding sends a clear signal of our determination to support the efforts of local authorities in conservation of heritage property, particularly property in private ownership, and the local authorities are rising to the challenge.
The built heritage capital element supports key developments in properties in State care and certain other large properties open to the public. These include the Rock of Dunamase, St. Enda's, Castletown, Russborough House, Westport House and the Lucan Demesne. The package also includes €1.033 million for 50 grants under the urban and village renewal scheme.
We need new and innovative instruments to support heritage properties and, in this regard, I have already indicated that I will bring proposals to Government later in the summer for the establishment of a national trust, with a strong focus on accessing non-State sources of funding to acquire and manage appropriate properties. There is no doubt that there are some marvellous properties in the country that are reaching a point where significant support is needed. Establishment of a national trust will help us to protect our built heritage.
Important non-Exchequer initiatives are also in train. The National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004 responds to new challenges to the protection of the archaeological, architectural and historical heritage and takes account of, and responds to, various Supreme and High Court judgments.
There are many other programmes, functions and services of my Department about which I could give comprehensive accounts but I am sure the committee does not wish to spend the day listening to me. They include funding for various non-commercial semi-State bodies which operate under my Department's aegis — the successful on-line motor tax renewal service, which has a tremendous take up of 65,000 users per month; nuclear safety; urban regeneration measures; planning and development control; and fire and emergency services. In this regard, I pay tribute to the brave firemen and women throughout the country and I send my regards and, I am sure, the best wishes of the committee to the firemen who were injured in the Louth incident at the weekend. There is also funding for the library service and playground facilities. Any issues the committee members wish to discuss with regard to these programmes can be dealt with in our discussion on the subheads.
The Estimates before the committee will make a significant contribution to social and economic development and will enhance the quality of life and of the environment for this and future generations. I commend the Estimates to the committee.
Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. N. Ahern)
The Government's strategy to increase housing supply has proved effective. Efforts over several years have turned around problems of housing supply and house price inflation. Last year, 76,954 housing units were constructed, a huge increase of 11.8% on the previous year. It was the tenth consecutive year of record completions. To put that in context, ten or 12 years ago the number of completions was around 25,000 per year. Housing construction has increased from 25,000 per year to 77,000, which is a huge increase. The Minister put this in context when he explained that Ireland is way ahead of every other European country. Spain and Portugal are the only countries that come near in terms of output. The indications are that although there probably will be no more 12% increases per annum, there will be a high level of output this year. We expect it to be at about last year's level.
The trend in house prices has moderated significantly. The Permanent TSB index published a week or two ago showed that in the 12 month period to April the increase was 5.3% in Dublin and 7.3% outside Dublin. It forecasts price growth in the region of 5% for the year, which is probably the lowest forecast made. Many groups forecast 7% to 7.5% but the signs are becoming more hopeful by the day. For most of last year the increase was between 10% and 11%.
This is very positive in the context of the strong economic performance and income growth we are experiencing and the favourable interest rate environment. The general consensus among commentators is that price moderation will continue and that we will have what is called a "soft landing" in the housing market. There is a significant increase in the number of first time buyers purchasing second-hand houses, which demonstrates that the stamp duty changes in the budget have been significant and helpful to those buyers.
Public investment in housing is being maintained at significant levels. Ensuring best value for the taxpayer is a significant part of that. That was one of the features in Sustaining Progress and we continue to work with the social partners to ensure that our housing programmes meet people's needs and that we are satisfied we are getting good value for money. At present, we are giving detailed consideration to the findings of the NESC and other recent reports on housing and related issues. The NESC report provides an important analysis of the Irish housing system and an agenda for the future development of policy. The report recognises that the general thrust of current policy is well directed. The Department is addressing the issues raised in these reports and the merits of new measures that might be desirable in the short and medium terms. It is anticipated that Government consideration of these matters will be finalised quite soon.
The Government has responded actively to increased levels of housing need by providing significant resources. In the current year total capital spending on social and affordable housing output, including non-Exchequer finance, is just over €2 billion. That will meet the needs of approximately 13,000 families. In addition, it is anticipated that a number of households that are currently in private rented accommodation will transfer to the new rental accommodation scheme we announced some months ago. This is a significant development. A sum of €19 million has been allocated for the current year. Under this scheme local authorities will, over a four year period, assume responsibility for accommodating supplementary welfare allowance rent supplement recipients who are in receipt of the allowance for 18 months or more.
To ensure an integrated approach in our programmes, we recently initiated the five year action plans for social and affordable housing with local authorities. They will bring a co-ordinated and coherent approach to our work. The plans should also help to ensure that there are strong programmes of social and affordable housing in the future. These action plans have been signed off and the Department is giving strong encouragement to local authorities to press ahead. They have outlined their five year needs and we have put the funding in place. The local authorities should press ahead and implement what is required. There is certainty of funding so we are seeking action.
The area of largest capital spending is the local authority social housing programme. A sum of €732 million is allocated — the announcement was made a few weeks ago — which is an increase of €112 million on last year. This will enable us to provide approximately 5,500 starts or acquisitions. In addition, €219 million is being provided for regeneration and remedial works and we expect 500 houses to benefit from that. This is an important part of our programme. Some housing schemes are not up to current standards and it is important to improve the living accommodation of our tenants.
The voluntary and co-operative sectors are also significant. We expect more than 1,800 completions from that sector this year. Activity under the range of affordable housing schemes is continuing to grow and over the next three years we expect it to yield a total of 12,000 affordable houses. I am satisfied that local authorities and the voluntary sector are delivering housing efficiently and effectively under the various schemes and that costs are favourable. In the past, local authorities would complain that they did not have long-term plans or long-term commitments of money. However, given that these are now in place, I expect good progress to be made over the next couple of years.
I welcome the Minister and the Minister of State. It is exceptionally difficult to penetrate the figures the Minister has given. There should be greater use of targets and indicators in examining the work of the Department, which is exceptionally varied and complex. It would make sense to try to reduce the work of the Department down to a set of keynote indicators to be used each year.
In many respects, the way in which the Minister is using actual expenditure is at best banal and at worst misleading, particularly at a time when construction costs have risen dramatically. It is difficult to compare figures year-on-year, based on expenditure alone. We have seen exceptional increases in the cost of housing and road construction, so we need to see what kind of output there is. Given that the key word in the Minister's Department is "environment", most commentators would say that clear baseline targets and indicators are required. If that were the case, it would make it much easier to examine the revised Estimates and get some traction on what is going on underneath the glowing reports from the Minister and the Minister of State. I find it hard to reconcile the glowing reports from both Ministers with the down-beat assessment from Eurostat in recent days, suggesting that Ireland's green image is very much at risk and that, in many respects, we are not doing that well compared to the rest of Europe.
As regards the use of targets, let us look at the amount of people on housing waiting lists. How many people are waiting to access housing this year, compared to the statistics for 2004, 2000 and 1995? It does not make sense to say, yet again, that tens of thousands of homes are being built without cutting to the chase to see how it is impacting on those in need.
As regards climate change, let us examine Ireland's annual emissions to see what is the baseline trend. That is a crucial figure. While we see figures for expenditure on emissions trading and what money we have borrowed from the environment fund to start up such trading, what is the bottom line on whether or not we will achieve the Kyoto targets? Is the work of the Department contributing to meeting those targets?
We should examine local authority households to see what percentage still does not have central heating or hot running water. I would like to see those figures presented in a revised Estimate.
There is a surreal sense to these discussions, given the reports in today's newspapers about the decisions taken yesterday at Cabinet in respect of environmental funding. It is curious that we are getting stuck into minor funding areas whereas the bigger picture is changing quite substantially at Cabinet level, if what we read in the newspapers is true.
I wish to raise a few specific areas about which I have concerns. In page 7 of his speech, the Minister referred to the slow rate of implementation of the environmental directives which, he said, has a lot to do with the widespread consultation in which his Department is engaged. We have been waiting for the full implementation of the environmental impact assessment since 1976. We have been waiting decades for the full implementation of waste directives. With all due respect to the Minister's wish to consult widely, it should not take 30 years to consult fully in order to ensure that a directive is implemented. I would like some clear explanation as to why there is such a time lag between the issuing of directives and Ireland's implementation of them.
I note that we are spending €12.311 million on the planning tribunal this year, and that we are spending €318,000 on general planning and development research. That means that we are spending 40 times as much on the planning tribunal as is being spent on planning research. Is the Minister's heart in it when it comes to planning? He has filleted the national spatial strategy through the decentralisation programme. I do not think the Minister has any real commitment to planning, which should start at the top.
As regards sustainable development, the pattern of urban sprawl that is occurring on the Minister's watch is fundamentally unsustainable. The Minister should re-examine the amount he is spending on planning, which is miserly compared even to the expenditure on planning tribunals. The clear lesson is that the money should be spent now on good and proper planning to ensure that we will not be paying out tens of millions of euro on planning tribunals in the years to come. I would like to see a change of heart and emphasis in the planning area. At a time of unprecedented economic development, unless one gets the planning ground rules and foundations right, our children and grandchildren will be paying the price in years to come. I am not convinced that the Minister's heart is in it when it comes to planning.
I welcome the funding that is being made available for skate parks, which is an issue on which the Greens have been campaigning for many years. According to the statistics that have come up regularly over the past ten years, Ireland appears to have more golf courses than playgrounds. When we revert to this indicator in five or ten years' time, I hope we will have more playgrounds than golf courses.
I do not disagree with the Deputy on the issue of reading through the myriad of information and statistics. I have made that point over the years and I have not changed my mind since taking office. I like to see indicators of output, rather than input. If one examines output indicators one can see what one is getting in terms of value for money.
The Deputy mentioned housing and the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, will deal with that issue in more detail. I would draw the Deputy's attention to a number of facts, however. Over the last ten years, a number of local authorities have simply failed in this respect, although the financial side looks positive, as the Deputy said. One local authority in which the Deputy could be helpful is Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, which is the lowest performing local authority in terms of housing output in the country. I realise there are difficulties in that particular council area with land issues, so it would be unfair to look at the statistics for just one year. However, I am taking into account statistics over a ten-year period. If we are seriously interested in delivering housing we all have to get together to do so. We are putting in the money and the local authorities are the agencies that provide social housing. They also use Part V and the other arrangements for affordable housing. All of us in politics have a collective obligation to drive the housing agenda forward. I do not disagree with the Deputy's general point which was that if we want to get traction, output measures are needed. I will be doing that increasingly.
Central heating is a matter that will be dealt with by the Minister of State. He has leverage through a huge amount of money. I have to say, however, that there is also a lack of ambition. I was shocked when I looked down the list to see that a number of local authorities had not sought any money in this respect. We should be ambitious in this area because the Government is providing funding, but it is shocking when one finds that local authorities do not even bother asking for it.
I note the Deputy's health warning about not believing everything one reads in the newspapers. Later today I will be publishing details of the strategic infrastructure Bill. I was bemused at some of the commentary which, to say the least, was creative and misleading. If the Deputy bears with me, I will be publishing those details later today and I think he will be quite happy with them.
Ireland transposed the EIA directive in the late 1980s and was advanced in doing so. On a per capita basis, we have more EIAs than any other member state in the European Union, although it is sometimes difficult to work out why that is the case.
The Deputy is correct in saying that a huge amount of resources is going into the planning tribunal. His general point is that it is dead money and that it would be far better if we could invest it in planning research. I do not disagree with the Deputy. However, my hands are tied as regards the tribunal. It was established by the Houses of the Oireachtas and we must fund it. Like most Members, I was an enthusiast when the tribunal commenced but my enthusiasm has waned over the years.
We still want to know where the bodies are buried.
Absolutely and if we want to find out, we must pay for it. However, the Deputy has made a fair political point.
With regard to planning, however, he is a little unfair. The largest ever suite of planning guidelines has been rolled out in recent months. In addition to the one-off rural housing guidelines, the Department has worked on guidelines for wind farms, quarries and so on, areas in which specific guidance is required. However, a significant amount has been achieved in planning in recent months. For example, the ambiguity regarding whether planning laws prevented the construction of certain retail developments was addressed soon after I took up office. Others took a different view.
That sums up the difficulties.
Planning law was never intended to prevent consumers from enjoying the benefits of competition, which are available in other countries. I accept that striking the correct balance is a challenge.
The Minister is increasing car dependency through the changes.
Certain retail outlets will only be accessible to consumers with cars. However, that is the reality in every other county and domestic consumers should not be denied the rights enjoyed by consumers elsewhere. I dealt with the challenge arising in this regard in the planning guidelines and the road infrastructure and public transport requirements are outlined in them.
I wish to refer to the one-off rural housing guidelines. There has been chaos in this area. The inconsistencies in planning in rural areas were the bane of local and national public representatives and logic has been introduced in the new guidelines.
Work needs to be done and both national and local government face challenges. That was demonstrated by the lacklustre performance of a number of local authorities in terms of housing output. There is no excuse when the money is available and a specific number of starts has been sanctioned. On a year to year basis, I accept there will be slippage and it would be unfair to criticise local authorities. If, however, a local authority does not perform over ten years, it should be highlighted.
We come to subheads A.1 to A.8, which concern the administrative budget. However, there are no questions on these subheads. I call Deputy Grealish on subheads B.1 to B.4, which deal with housing.
I welcome both Ministers and compliment them on securing additional funding this year. Funding for the Department has increased significantly in recent years. Before Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000 came into force, many developers applied for planning permission on sites to avoid its provisions. However, I have been requested to attend numerous meetings with developers and Galway City Council aimed at reaching agreement on social and affordable housing projects. Will there be a significant increase in such housing in the coming years? There will be an increase in Galway and I wonder whether the Minister of State has a breakdown of figures on a county by county basis. Social and affordable housing is the way forward and I compliment the Government on it.
The provision of social affordable housing for the thousands of people priced out of the property market should be the Government's number one priority. Notwithstanding the many statements made by the Minister of State, does he not accept that his five-year plan for such housing will be totally insufficient to meet the requirements identified in the NESC report? How will his policy develop? The number of people on local authority housing lists has increased by 50%. The Minister of State has said on a number of occasions that some local authorities are not meeting their social housing targets. What additional pressure can he apply to ensure that those targets are met?
A balance must be struck in the mix of housing but what was envisaged under Part V has not transpired because developers are applying pressure to local authorities to accept affordable rather than social housing under this process. All the contracts to implement Part V are agreed behind closed doors. I do not suggest that anything irregular has taken place but why seek the protection of public servants? There is a lack of openness and county councillors, never mind Deputies or Senators, do not have access to agreements. Many local authorities do not have a Part V policy. It is the responsibility of the local director or county manager to enter into agreement. Where is the accountability and openness in respect of such agreements?
In regard to remedial work on local authority housing, some houses still have steel windows that allow wind to blow through the houses. These houses do not have central heating. What progress is being made and what co-operation is the Minister of State receiving from the local authorities under the scheme?
Deputy Durkan was informed in reply to a question relating to eligibility for local authority housing and income limitsthat approved applicants for local authority housing and tenants and tenant purchasers of local authority dwellings, and tenants for more than one year of capital loan and subsidy scheme housing, surrendering their dwellings, are exempt from the income eligibility limit requirements for house purchase loans. It appears that, at the behest of the Government, local authorities are removing people from housing lists. In the past, if one did not have the means to acquire a loan to purchase a house, one would be entitled to apply for a local authority house. It now appears that for the first time, if one is not eligible for a loan, some local authorities are deeming people eligible to rent a house of their own and taking them off the housing list. That is unacceptable. The aspiration of Irish people to own a house through a loan arrangement or a tenant purchase arrangement is something to which I always aspired and to which I hoped the Government would aspire.
Although having read the reply the situation looks somewhat more clear I look forward to clarification on these issues.
In reply to Deputy Grealish, when Part V was introduced, there were many valid planning applications. Originally it was thought they would be valid for two years but because of the danger of supply decreasing, it was extended in 2002. These applications now have a full life. This decision was necessary at the time to continue the supply. However, it delayed the full dividend from Part V. From now on, all new planning applications will have the Part V element. The dividend from Part V will increase considerably.
To be fair, some people have unrealistic targets. Part V applies to housing development on zoned land. It does not apply to one-off housing. We all know that in some counties 60% or 70% of houses might be one-off if they are rural-based. Part V applies to housing estates on zoned land in cities where there are more than four houses. Some 20% of 77,000 houses a year is approximately 15,000 houses. That is nonsense. It was never meant to be the case. Anyone who set out that target was ridiculous. In the next couple of years, Part V will result in approximately 2,000 houses a year. It resulted in 800 or 900 houses last year and by the end of the year, approximately 1,900 houses were under construction. There are plans for 3,000 or 4,000 houses. It will reach the 2,000 plus target in the next couple of years. Some of the planning applications referred to might still exist because, after receiving planning permission, one does not have to begin work for five or six years. Some people build their houses in nine months and others may take two years to do so. Whether houses come on the market depends on the pressure on the market at the time.
The dividend from Part V will be significant and helpful. As I keep explaining, there is nothing one can do to produce houses overnight. Part V is a very innovative and successful idea, which will have a major part to play in the long-term production of social and affordable houses.
Deputy Ryan spoke about a couple of issues, including the housing waiting list. A major assessment of the needs of people on the waiting list is carried out every three years. One was carried out recently but the results will not be known for some months. The figures we quote are for 2002 when approximately 48,000 families were on the waiting list. We call them families, even though 32% were single people on the last occasion and another 30% were lone parents with one child. The Deputy and I have been members of local authorities for 15 or 20 years. At that time, if one was single, one was not eligible to get on a local authority list. In many instances, the lists appear longer than they were in the past, but we are not always comparing like with like. Some years ago, one would not have got on a local authority housing list if one was single and a senior citizen. It was mainly families who got on the housing list at that time. When the last assessment was carried out, approximately 30% of people were either single or separated people. This was a significant figure and the new figures will be available during the year.
On the question of whether local authorities are meeting their targets, one could debate this issue either way, depending where one is coming from. We have had the four year multi-annual programmes where local authorities were asked to produce plans. Local authorities have drawn up the action plans, therefore, they have quantified, specified and itemised their needs over the five year period. The Department is saying there is certainty of funding, therefore, they should be able to progress with the plans.
The Deputy referred to the provisions of Part V not being met as a result of pressure from developers. I am not sure whether the pressure is coming from the developers or from local authority officials. The developers are complaining that the local authority officials are putting pressure on them. Part V is in place and arrangements should be worked out between the local authorities and the developers. I am sure both sides will push a hard bargain. Both the developers and the local authorities may or may not want the affordable ones built. Some local authorities would pretend to want social housing, but they are not great at providing it. They have different pressures on them from the public and councillors.
We talk about tribunals, openness and deals, etc. The legislation to operate Part V is in place. The Department has issued very detailed guidelines to the local authorities and these have been discussed with the developers and the home builders association and have worked out. There are many checks and balances in the local authority system and a very detailed auditing system. The minutiae of every deal need not be published in the local paper. The local authorities work by legislation and by guidelines.
Would the Minister of State say our councillors should have access to the agreement?
Many arrangements are confidential. The politicians set the policy, but the individual arrangements are made by officials. If a local authority official gets a better deal from one developer, he may want to keep that quiet. Sadly, we know that no matter to whom one gives information, it sometimes slips out. The broad thrust of what is done is known to councillors but in order to keep the pressure on and get the best deal from developers, the local authority may not want the details of a particular deal to end up on the pages of the local newspaper. Openness is a fine principle, but it does not mean that one must give the details of everything. I am not quite sure of the point being made by the Deputy.
Does the Minister of State accept that in the context of protecting everybody, the cathaoirleach of the council, at least, should have some access to the agreement or arrangements entered into to meet the requirements of Part V as part of the planning permission?
I am sure Deputy Ryan knows the details with regard to any development in his area out of which there was a 15% or 20% dividend and from which 80 units resulted. I am also sure the information is available that 41 were affordable units and 39 were social units.
That information is not available.
It ought to be available.
That information is part of the condition on each planning permission. A planning file is a public document that any member of the public or any member of a council can access, follow up and examine. It is public knowledge.
It is not part of the planning.
It is a condition on each planning permission.
It may be different in the Deputy's county. What I am talking about here is the condition that an agreement will be entered into between the local authority and the developer. However, there is nothing in writing on this agreement if anyone examines the planning permission.
It is different in Galway. In Galway the agreement is reached before the planning is granted.
I know that, but that is not the case——
It would be quite reasonable for any councillor to ask what was the final output from a particular deal with regard to the number of social and affordable units. However, a councillor does not need to know the price paid for affordable units or for social units.
No.
That information should be confidential because the manager might have arranged a special deal.
Yes.
Certainly, the information regarding how many were affordable and how many were social units should be available. I see no problem with that.
We are spending considerable money on remedial works and regeneration, approximately €150 million. The spending relates to the action plans sent in by the local authorities. The plans show how many new houses, repairs etc are needed. This spending is significant. The housing remit is not just about building houses and giving out keys. It is about improving conditions for the people who live in the houses. The central heating programme we started last summer was excellent. We gave 80% grants and the local authority put up 20%. This year local authorities are getting 100% of what they requested. They may end up not being able to spend all the money. There is no difficulty in that area.
Deputy Cuffe sought figures with regard to the programme we started last year. We have 112,000 local authority tenants in the country, or perhaps 127,000 if we include all groups. We installed central heating in just under 3,000 homes in the six months. With this year's funding we should do about 7,500. Until we started the scheme last year, some 45,000 tenants did not have central heating. We are providing 80% grants for it and the money is available if the local authorities want it. Much of it has been allocated but there could well be funding left over.
Deputy Ryan asked about supply and prices. We are concerned. Local authorities must provide enough zoned land in their action plans for their housing supply. The action plans have been completed. I hope the plans of the local authority of which the Deputy is a member work out. I heard that its development plan seems to be playing into the hands of developers by dezoning much of the land. The only way to solve the problem is to create supply. Whether selling houses or glasses, if there is a short supply, those selling can increase the price and make a killing.
I become concerned when I hear stories about councils such as Fingal County Council cutting its zoning of new land. That will return us to the position we were in some years ago where we have a shortage of zoned sites. We can only build and provide competition in the market if there are sufficient zoned sites. I ask the Deputy to talk to his colleagues on the council and urge them not to reduce the amount of zoned land available. I do not know what game is being played, but it plays into the hands of developers. They want a supply shortage.
The Government has spent seven or eight years trying to introduce innovative projects to increase and encourage supply. The only way that can be done is by zoning land, putting in money through the serviced land initiative and making the sites available. I hope Fingal County Council does not cut back because that only plays into the hands of the people the Deputy says he is against.
It works both ways. It is up to Government to provide the infrastructure, such as public transport.
We will do that.
Do it. Tell the local authorities it will be provided.
We are providing the infrastructure through the serviced land initiative.
We got a message in the local elections. I hope the Government did too.
Councillors did not get a message to raise the cost of sites further.
That is not the case.
One of the big problems with the price of houses in recent years has been the cost of land and the shortage of zoned serviced sites. Any local authorities that try to recreate that shortage are working hand in glove with developers who will make a fortune out of those misguided actions. I plead with the Deputy to talk to the councillors and try to get some sense into them in this regard.
The Deputy mentioned the Department taking people off the housing lists. We have not done so. More people, including eligible single people, than ever before are on the lists. When we publish the three-year assessment in the autumn, it will probably show there has been a further increase. We have increased the number of people on the list recently by including the 58,000 people on rent allowance. Previously, many of them would not be on local authority lists, but to tighten up in this area we have provided that those receiving rent allowance should be on local authority lists.
The Deputy is talking about the single person who is on €25,000 or €30,000 a year who might not——
I was talking about those on €18,000.
Whatever. The statutory definition is one of need, that is, whether those concerned are able to afford their present accommodation. The single person on €18,000 a year would not have been considered by any local authority 15 years ago because the local authority catered for families. The notion regarding all those other categories of people and that everybody should be on the housing lists from the day they are born is a cheap political ploy to make the waiting lists look longer than they are. There is no need to have everybody in the country on a waiting list for housing because it was always based on need.
With regard to some of the people in the Deputy's local authority area and in mine and elsewhere, one would question their need. Local authority officials will say that in many cases people have been offered three or four different houses and have refused them. The needs of approximately 13,000 families will be met this year through all the various range of schemes, such as the local authority housing under construction and those being built under the shared ownership schemes. This is a considerable increase from the situation even five years ago when the figure was 8,500 families a year being housed. The Government is making much progress. Deputy Cuffe asked for figures and statistics. The money figures of themselves can be misleading because of prices. We are meeting the needs of approximately 13,000 families.
We complain that some of the local authorities were slow to do the job. At times in the past when the Government was allocating local authority funding on an annual basis some local authorities would have argued that April was too late to be informed of the money available for the year. They could argue that over the time of different Governments there has been a stop-go attitude about funding. This has all changed. The local authorities now have the action plans. They have drawn up what they say is needed under all the different headings, such as new build, refurbishment, remedial works, etc., for all the different categories of people such as families, senior citizens and single people. They have submitted their plans to the Department and it has approved them. Under the capital envelopes and our arrangements with the Department of Finance we have certainty of funding. There is no excuse for the local authorities not to push ahead with it. There is no reason for them to measure it out and say they will deliver 500 houses in the next five years which means only 100 each year. They can front-load it if they so wish and start all 500 houses this year. If they want more funding it will be no problem. The Government wants them to move ahead.
The last four-year multi-annual programme was solely concerned with local authority housing. Some local authorities such as the Deputy's area, would be very good at providing affordable housing and not very good at providing social housing. In the last four-year multi-annual programme, Cavan was best, achieving 140% of its four-year target while Dún Laoghaire achieved under 50% which is poor by any standards even allowing for the fact that a particular scheme might not start because of problems with a builder or planning. The Deputy's local authority is exceptional in the provision of affordable housing but it would not score so well on social housing. Perhaps Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown is over-ambitious in its targets but it is not an achiever. I regret the Deputy representing that area is not in attendance this morning.
The central heating programme is a very important scheme and we were very pleased to see it commenced. The local authorities are great for spending money if the Department gives them 100% of it. They are given 80% of the funding or two thirds in the case of disabled person's grants or essential repairs grants, which is not bad by any standards. They should not be shy about getting on with the job. If local authority power means anything, the local authorities should be prepared to provide some of the funding at local level. I regard it as rubbish if they are merely an agency for spending money when they are given 100% of the funding. If the local authority sees a need or a priority it is not unreasonable to ask it to part-fund a project. It seems all the funding for the central heating scheme will be used this year but extra money will be available if required.
I suggest we should stop playing games. There are a number of local authorities which are excellent, particularly in the area of social and affordable housing. Reference was made to Cavan. If it can be done in Cavan it can be done in Dún Laoghaire. We might as well be truthful with each other. It is not fair for people to come to the committee and posture about social housing when the figures are known. The figures should not be regarded as just input cash but outputs should also be measured.
I am willing to publish the outputs of social and affordable housing, particularly in social housing which caters for the most vulnerable people. It is not good enough if a local authority cannot achieve 60% of its own target. Local councillors who are misbehaving by pulling that down are not serving anybody. In the case of Fingal, I hope Deputy Ryan will use his good offices to ensure this nonsense of trying to interfere with the number of available sites is stopped. Whatever the end objective may be — which I suggest may be positive — the end impact would be entirely negative and would drive house prices through the roof. I know that is not the Deputy's intention but it should be stopped. It is not good enough that I, as Minister, had to speak to one or two directors of housing and say that they had not even asked for money for the central heating scheme. If this continues I intend publishing the names of those local authorities because as public representatives we have a right to know which they are. Many of them have been ambitious but some have been lethargic, to use a polite term.
I welcome the Minister and the Minister of State to the meeting. I am of the opinion that the housing waiting lists figures are always inflated. The Minister referred to them briefly in his contribution. Certain people on housing lists when offered a house will take it because they need it whereas others are on the list for convenience sake. This is a fact we all acknowledge. It would be right and proper procedure to categorise housing waiting lists and the figures would be completely different if reference was only made to need.
My county introduced a window replacement programme some years ago. Limerick County Council borrowed the money and replaced every window in every house where replacement was required. When I was still a member of the county council I proposed a motion that each local authority house should have proper central heating. There was a time when local authority tenants paid £10 a week rent but this is no longer the case. We would be very quick to criticise private landlords for not having proper standards and decent accommodation for tenants. In my view there should be an obligation on each local authority to provide a decent standard of accommodation. With that in mind, Limerick County Council initiated a central heating programme.
I welcome the Government announcement last year of substantial funding being allocated to each local authority who should then provide the matching funding. It is worrying to hear the Minister referring to some county councils who have not taken up this offer. There is an obligation on members of those local authorities to provide a decent standard of accommodation for their tenants who are paying good money. Regardless of whether the heating is for elderly people or for families, it is necessary and should be provided.
On a number of occasions in this forum I have raised with previous Ministers for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the issue of social housing. Voluntary housing associations have provided houses for families in their own areas. They can provide them more efficiently, can acquire the land more cheaply and in many ways do a much more efficient job than local authorities because of local co-operation. Deputy Seán Ryan mentioned the aspiration of all of us to acquire and own our own homes. While the rental subsidy scheme provides houses for families, the tenants cannot go on to purchase their homes. It is therefore possible to have two houses side by side in one of which the tenants can spend 12 months paying rent and go on to purchase and own their home while in the house next door, provided by the voluntary housing association through the rental subsidy scheme, the tenants cannot purchase their house. I was told that this is done because we want to keep this housing stock for families and because some families move on. In my experience families do not move on and stay in those houses. In paying rent they are paying dead money. If we allowed them purchase their houses we would get a return thus allowing local voluntary groups to buy further accommodation. I cannot see why we prevent such people from purchasing their own homes, which is something to which we all aspire. It is discrimination when one family can purchase and the one next door cannot.
I apologise for being late. I have a few questions.
They should be questions on housing.
Yes, of course. I was not going to ask about nursing homes here. Although, I could perhaps ask how many, if any, nursing home owners attend the tent at the Galway races. Two years ago the Housing Finance Agency spent €750 million, which was the money available to local authorities for housing. That has reduced by more than €250 million to less than €500 million, which represents a very significant drop in the money being taken up by local authorities for housing. I telephoned the HFA, which confirmed it has clearance for whatever moneys are demanded by local authorities for housing. What will the Minister do about this matter?
The Minister referred to local authorities failing to meet their targets, which is clearly an issue. He should investigate those local authorities that are not doing their job. The capital funding available for the purchase of housing through the HFA is being under-used. Could that money be used for the purchase of social housing in the private sector? The money is lying idle due to lack of demand. It is available at a low interest rate of 3.5%.
Not all of the funding resource, which flows through the HFA, is necessarily for housing.
I understand that.
Its remit and capacity to fund——
I have asked about this matter.
The HFA is remarkably efficient considering the small number of people working there. I believe 12 people handle the entire portfolio. I appreciate the Deputy was earlier engaged in some very good work on another issue, which is one that concerns me also.
I appreciate that.
Before the Deputy joined the meeting we were talking about the ambition of local authorities.
There has been an under-spend by local authorities. I have read the HFA annual report and I telephoned the company secretary who told me that the money is available to local authorities but they are not asking for it. We need social housing. Can the Minister not direct local authorities to use that money for the purchase of houses if they are not going to build them? The money is available this year. The national assessment of housing is currently being undertaken and I understand there has been a significant increase, certainly in the County Louth area. What is the Minister doing about the matter?
The Deputy accepts that the funding available to the HFA is not exclusively for housing.
However, money is available for housing. Let us not split hairs on this matter. It can either be used for housing or it cannot.
I am not splitting hairs; I am trying to answer the question.
The Minister should answer it.
The local authorities do not necessarily go to the HFA for all their funding.
However, the money is available.
The money may be available. The voted money is not handled through the HFA. The voted money is also available. Before the Deputy joined the meeting we were dealing with this point. The Deputy is correct that the present situation is not acceptable. The Deputy will remember an exchange he and I had in the Dáil shortly after my appointment. I looked for the statistics for the outputs and not the inputs, as it is the outputs that are important.
I accept that.
I made the point in public about the local authorities that are not performing. Local authorities must be ambitious. In the past they had problems when money was switched on and off. However, they no longer have that excuse. The money is available through a multi-annual packet. They have set their own targets. Louth is a county that has done well and I believe has achieved 83% of its target. However, the figures for other counties are abysmal as we just discussed with Deputy Seán Ryan. The Deputy asked what I would do. I intend to publish the data. The local authority representatives are elected to drive these programmes.
Given the needs for social housing in a particular area, can the Minister inform the local authority to use this money to purchase houses in the absence of them building social housing?
The Minister should not need to.
While I know he should not need to, he must do so.
The process is demand-led and depends on what is the demand. Many local authorities buy houses out of the normal local authority fund. While I would rather that they built them, some local authorities do not have land banks. In general local authorities have not borrowed much for land. Some of them have land and others cannot get any in their areas. The amount drawn down last year for shared ownership has dropped. The figure the Deputy mentioned might drop still further. Up to now all affordable houses were funded by mortgages from the State. In recent months some of the financial institutions have agreed to fund affordable houses.
I am not happy. I asked a direct question.
The direct question was whether they could buy more houses.
Yes.
I would prefer if they built houses. If they buy houses they will inevitably compete with individuals buying at the lower end of the market. In some local authority areas there was some controversy about local authorities buying second-hand houses in estates that were fully developed. It is not that simple.
I understand that.
I believe my suggestion will have the same impact as the Deputy's proposal. Resources are now available from a variety of sources for local authorities and they should be ambitious. They have set the targets and are assured of the funding. They do not need to approach the HFA. If they do need to do so they should certainly use that resource. We need to drive the ambition.
Earlier we discussed central heating. Having told local authorities we would fund such matters it is disgraceful if they do not use the funding. Limerick has a very good record particularly in providing central heating. That level of ambition has to be reflected elsewhere.
The Deputy asked me what I have done. My normal way of communicating on these matters is through the association of county managers. I have made it clear at such meetings, as well as at meetings with the various directors of services, that there can sometimes be a lack of ambition. I do not want to become involved in controversy by nailing certain local authorities, but I will not accept an under-spend of the funding provided by the Department. I understand why the Deputy was not present at the part of the meeting in which it was mentioned that €43 million could have been claimed back by the Department of Finance on foot of this year's under-spend on housing. Such an under-spend is unacceptable to those of us who are ambitious to produce results.
Can I ask another question?
We have spent a great deal of time on the discussion on housing. I am conscious that Deputy Cregan's questions have not been answered.
Deputy Cregan asked if the waiting list numbers are inflated. I think they probably are. We are probably all responsible for that. If one is contacted by a 59 year old man who has been in private rented accommodation all his life and will be in need of a local authority senior citizen's flat within a few years, one is inclined to tell him to put his name on the waiting list because he will be given three points for every year he is on it. We probably encourage people who may be in need of public housing in six or seven years' time to get on the waiting list and wait. If one is happily living with one's parents, or in private rented accommodation, one might put one's name on the local authority housing waiting list in case the field across the road is developed as social housing. One can allow one's points to increase as the years go by, while waiting to be offered a house at one's ideal location. One could reduce the waiting list by confining it to people with a real housing need, for example within the next 12 months.
The Minister of State would like to reduce substantially the number of people on the housing waiting list in advance of the next general election.
All of us are increasing the number of people on such waiting lists. The Deputy said earlier that he would like everyone to sign up to a housing waiting list as soon as they reach the age of 18. There was a time when people who were in receipt of rent allowance were not entitled to be on a housing waiting list. We have directed thousands of such people to put their names on waiting lists. We are beefing up the lists. When the Deputy compared the number of people on the housing waiting list with the numbers in previous years, he might as well have been comparing apples and oranges. The figures are thrown back at us, even though they are not necessarily a true reflection of immediate need. I do not know how one can analyse it. All of us have been told by local authority officials about the cases of people who have refused offers of accommodation on three or four occasions.
Deputy Cregan asked about remedial works. We would like local authorities to do more than simply replace windows. The replacement of windows could be part of a more substantial renovation of a house. Various schemes are available. The installation of central heating systems can be done in isolation.
There used to be a specific scheme for windows.
We do not have such a scheme at present. There may have been a window replacement scheme for inner city flats, but——
The local authorities were responsible for such schemes.
The Deputy said that people cannot buy voluntary housing. I accept that it is a significant political issue. Several of my colleagues raise the matter on a regular basis. If one is living in one of the many integrated developments of local authority houses and houses developed by voluntary housing associations, one can buy out one's house if one is living in a local authority house but not if one is living in the other type of house. The voluntary housing sector is strongly opposed to the sale of its houses. I was told by a representative of the voluntary sector at a meeting last Friday that tenants in voluntary housing never ask to buy out their houses. I started to wonder——
We might be able to arrange that.
——if he would encounter a different viewpoint if he were to attend a few political clinics. Representatives of the voluntary sector must not be listening to people living in voluntary housing, or else such tenants must be making their case to politicians only. The larger and more professional voluntary housing associations are strongly opposed to the sale of voluntary housing.
They own the housing stock in question.
They own it, with the help of taxpayers' money.
If I owned it, I might be opposed to the sale of it.
Voluntary housing associations have strong views on this matter. They argue that those who decide to live in voluntary rented housing are told over and over again when they move in that they will not be able to buy out their houses. I accept that issues might arise if such people are working with people living in local authority houses, for example. I would like individual tenants to lobby their own associations. Groups like the Irish Council for Social Housing pretend that their tenants never ask to buy out their houses. It would be helpful if such associations were being lobbied from all sides and the same demands were being made at different levels.
I welcome the Minister of State's response and I agree with him. I accept fully that the larger associations do not want to sell their housing stock, which they have acquired with the assistance of taxpayers' money. I would like to speak about the smaller voluntary housing groups in rural Ireland, which may involve just five or six people who give their time voluntarily to put housing in place. Such people are saddled with maintenance and rent collection duties over many years. I sometimes worry about what will eventually happen to that housing stock. It would make far more sense for tenants to purchase and maintain their own houses. In such circumstances, the State would receive a return on its investment.
Small housing associations sometimes have to transfer their houses to local authorities because they are going out of business. Problems are more likely to arise in respect of larger and newer housing associations. If houses are surrendered to local authorities, I presume they will be sold under the terms of the normal sale scheme. Smaller voluntary housing associations usually concentrate on providing houses for elderly and disabled people. They do some fantastic work.
Absolutely.
Those involved in such associations are genuine and committed people. I sincerely hope they stay in the business and do not withdraw from the sector now that more professional organisations are getting involved in it.
I would like to speak briefly about the housing issue, which has been alluded to. I am concerned about the aggressive purchasing of houses by local authorities. Such concerns are informed by my time as a member of a local authority. I do not doubt that local authorities are competing in the open market with people who are trying to get on the housing ladder. I do not know how we can address this issue, but it has to be addressed. I have met numerous couples over the years who have been out-bidded on houses by local authorities. Is there anything we can do to solve this problem?
Local authorities should become more involved in the construction and design of houses. They should hire people to build houses, rather than buying them. I understand the pressures on the housing lists, but the purchase of houses by local authorities is creating difficulties and inflating house prices at the lower end of the market, where most people get on the housing ladder.
I would like to speak about another issue that has arisen as a consequence of the pressures on local authorities. I am disappointed by some local authorities, which seem incapable of addressing the difficulties in the social and affordable housing sector. They are failing to use the moneys made available by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
The aggressive buying of houses by local authorities is leading to problems which need to be addressed if we are serious about social integration. In some areas, the local authority targets a certain estate by purchasing five or six houses in it at the outset and acquiring every house that comes up for sale in it thereafter. The estate gradually becomes a local authority estate over a period of time. That is contrary to the fundamental principles of social integration, which demand that local authorities should buy houses in all parts of a city or a town.
People decide to move out of estates of privately owned houses when local authorities focus on such estates by systematically buying all the houses in them and turning them into local authority estates. Such actions are in opposition to the housing strategies of most local authorities, which require that a certain percentage of local authority houses should be in certain areas. Local authorities seem to be concentrating on the lower end of the housing market. They are not buying houses in more affluent areas because they are too dear. They are deflating house prices in certain estates, however, by aggressively driving the price of houses down to suit their own ends. That is unfair on people who have bought houses in such areas. The Department should limit the percentage of houses in an estate that can be purchased by local authorities. If such a cap is in place, it is not being adhered to.
The Department does not impose such a cap. I understand the point being made by the Deputy. The Department's mantra is "supply, supply, supply", but some local authorities prefer to supply houses without building them. They might have to buy houses because they do not have appropriate land on which houses can be built. I would prefer them to build houses than to purchase them. I can understand the problem and relate it to my area of responsibility. Local authorities, councillors and residents can agree certain guidelines whereby no more than 10% of housing can be provided through second-hand purchases or not more than two in 50 second-hand houses can be purchased in any year. We cannot lay the guidelines down at Department level.
I understand the pressures which obtain and accept local authorities will not or cannot buy in more middle class areas due to the higher price of houses. Quotas, however, should be agreed locally and progress should be gradual. Many of the estates in question were probably local authority in origin having become private over the years. Quotas must be strictly controlled and limited to one or two in 50 per year. Some local authorities must buy second-hand houses while others buy them as a lazy man's way of spending money. While I would prefer if they built houses, local authorities which do not have land banks have no choice.
The Department should advise local authorities of the Government's social integration aims and its ambition to reduce social exclusion. The councils are doing the reverse.
There was good news recently in the approval of funding of €21 million for the regeneration of Knocknaheeny. I thank the Minister, Deputy Roche, for this positive development. While members attend the committee to make criticisms, even on this side, we also like to highlight the positive developments being facilitated through direct funding from the Department.
Points were made by Opposition members on output. When one examines the statistics, one sees that there is variety. Deputy Kelleher was quite right in his remarks. In Cork county, including town councils but excluding the city, 667 second-hand house purchases were made in the ten-year period ending in 2003 while 1,927 houses were built. It was a very high proportion of second-hand purchases by comparison with other local authority areas. In Kerry, the proportion was 10% while the national average was between 10% and 20%. To revert to a point made by Deputy Seán Ryan, it is a matter of councillors determining policy and taking charge. In my county, a programme of controversial acquisitions by one or two town councils was stopped by councillors who insisted it was a policy which would no longer be adhered to.
The danger for the Department is that if we attempt too much micro-management, we may tip the balance the wrong way. I agree with keeping local government local and avoiding placing a dead hand on local authorities all the time. Deputy Kelleher's point was well made and, looking at the statistics from his local authority area, I can see where his concerns arise.
We move to subheads C.1 to C.7 on the environment.
While progress has been made, successive EU surveys have found Ireland to have one of the poorest records of respecting EU environmental law. The Minister will agree that the failure to implement many key EU directives sends the wrong message that the environment is not important. As we market ourselves as a clean country for tourism and food production purposes, it does nothing for our reputation that Ireland is so often in the EU dock. Is the Minister prepared to set out a clear timetable for the implementation of all outstanding EU environmental directives? Failure to do so could result in irreparable damage to the environment.
A group water scheme was announced in 1997 for Carna and Kilkieran in my constituency in Galway which is only now going to construction stage. The Minister was there last year. Last week, I contacted the Department to discuss the water scheme announced for Clarinbridge four years ago to be told there was a fundamental flaw on the documents submitted by the local authority. The matter has reverted to local authority to be re-examined in its entirety. Galway has 93 settlement centres which have been earmarked in the county development plan for growth but when one accompanies a client to discuss planning permission in these areas, one is told there is no sewerage or water infrastructure.
While a very significant investment has been made in water and sewerage programmes, is there any way to shorten the time between the announcement and construction of a scheme? In some instances, the wait is up to six years. Whenever one contacts the local authority, one is told the relevant documents have been sent to the Department. When the Department sends them back, they are passed to consultants and when the consultants pass them back, they are sent to the Department once again. A great deal of time is wasted. If the process were speeded up, the number of housing units provided would increase, especially in Galway.
When replying to Deputy Ryan, will the Minister provide the committee with information on the Office of Environmental Enforcement?
Deputy Grealish made a fair point. There seems to be a great deal of toing and froing in writing which makes life difficult and creates delays. It is especially problematic where major group schemes are involved. We have had contact with the City and County Management Association to establish what can be done to remove excessive and unnecessary bureaucracy.
When local authorities and local authority engineering staff are preparing materials to send to the Department, they should meet with the criteria. It is not good enough to receive material two or three times to find the necessary homework has still not been done. There are criteria which have to be met. I aim always to remove excessive bureaucratic overhang from the system as it is supposed to deliver. If people used e-mail and, on occasion, the phone, there would be no need for a two-month hiatus to accommodate correspondence.
In answer to Deputy Seán Ryan, I said in my initial remarks that Ireland was doing well in terms of transposition. I am not taking a shot at the Deputy. We must admit, however, that we have had serious problems with implementation. We will be subject to another adjudication in the next week which I hope will be the last we see for a long time. Correspondence between the Government and the Commission has not involved a good relationship. I do not intend to seem overly defensive as the same circumstances would apply were a Minister from another political party in office. An extraordinary degree of attention has been paid to Ireland in some areas, with which I have no problem as we should not only aspire to but implement directives. It must be said, however, that some of the cases which have been taken against us have been a little more pedantic than those taken elsewhere. If there is a judgment against us, however, we must deal with it.
I have put together in the Department a task force to examine the outstanding issues, some of which are dead as there has been no correspondence on them for four or five years. As there is no system in place to write off dead issues, we appear to have a poor record. I will seek to remove the matters from the record to leave us with a number of more defined issues to address. Approximately 20 to 30 cases should fall into that category. Through the task force, I have tried to identify those issues approaching the point at which they will come before a court or in respect of which a judgment may be made against us. We are committing resources to resolving these issues as it is not a positive scenario to have Ireland in the dock. Deputy Seán Ryan was correct to say it is not good for our image.
The approach I have adopted is beginning to pay dividends. I took a very hands-on approach to the nitrates directive to which Deputy Cuffe made reference. As it has been in place for twelve and a half years, it is time we got on with the job. We have made our submissions to Brussels on time and have had a very positive response. They have yet to sign off on the matter, however. We will have to do better in other areas and pay more attention when complaints are made.
One of the problems is that, regardless of the political persuasion of the person who occupies my desk, an odd approach has been taken to handling some of the cases which go to Europe. I read in one of my local newspapers a comment by one of the Deputy's colleagues that she had petitioned Europe because I had not taken action on dumping in Blessington when, in fact, I made a section 55 order last month under the excellent legislation one of the Deputy's colleagues placed on the Statute Book. We have a propensity to inflict self-injury. I am serious about this matter because Ireland must move up the ladder in terms of implementation.
The Deputy in question ensured the Minister moved on the issue.
I cannot allow the Deputy to defend the indefensible. The lady in question was not even aware that a section 60 order had been made last month. She argued that I should issue one when I had already done so, although I am sure it was an oversight.
The Office of Environmental Enforcement was established in 2005 and is funded using income associated with the relevant EPA licensing activity. The establishment order was made in 2003. The office fits the activity of the EPA and has a mandate to deliver enhanced environmental compliance. While it stands separate from the EPA, it is also part of it. It is evident from many cases around the country that the public is not confident that action is taken in the compliance area with sufficient energy.
The Office of Environmental Enforcement is a dedicated, distinct unit of the EPA with an enhanced environmental compliance role. It will enforce EPA licences and oversee the activities of various other statutory agencies. It has done good work and provides an extra focus, for example, on the enforcement of waste and integrated pollution control. It pays greater attention to the priority of supervising the performance of local authorities, which has been criticised, illegal dumping being a case in point. The office links up with the additional enforcement powers contained in the Protection of the Environment Act 2003. It is, in a sense, a coping stone, with local authorities having certain responsibilities and the EPA focused on licensing and general oversight, while its purpose is to police operations.
It does not have a high public profile.
I agree. I was frustrated recently to hear the chairperson of An Taisce argue that I should appoint an inspector to examine a particular case when the case in question was already the subject of an investigation by the National Bureau of Criminal Investigation. I suggested that if An Taisce was truly interested in the case and believed the local authority's operations to be deficient, it would be a good idea to take the matter to the Office of Environmental Enforcement. I was a little shocked when its chairman dismissed my suggestion.
The OEE has done good work, as was evident even when the agency was in its infancy, for example, on the issue of cross-Border crime. The Chairman is correct that it needs to build its profile but it is a small agency which only recently commenced operations. It has been allocated resources and is doing a good job. It is not good enough for someone to dismiss it without giving it a chance.
In its first annual report last year the Office of Environmental Enforcement issued a direction to local authorities which it did not name. This means the local authorities in question have refused to comply with the law. The direction was not the first letter but was issued following discussion and argument and is, therefore, a serious matter. Wicklow County Council, the Minister's local council, and Kildare County Council were two of the authorities to which the OEE wrote. Given that the public views local authorities as enforcers at local level, is it not a serious matter when local authorities do not pay attention to directions issued by the EPA in the areas of environmental control and waste management?
Why does the Minister not take a more aggressive approach to pursuing local authorities? After the agency's first report was issued I specifically asked him what action would be taken. He replied that it was a matter for the local authorities and he would not intervene. Since then, he appears to have changed his mind on foot of problems in his constituency. Should he not be more assertive and aggressive with local authorities which do not obey the EPA, particularly when we reach the point outlined in the report? Should he invite county managers to his office, clarify the matter with them and instruct them to conform to the law and the directions of the EPA?
The Deputy is correct that it is not acceptable for a local authority to ignore the EPA or OEE. In some cases they will contest a decision taken by either body. I am also concerned about the lack of ambition.
There is no ambiguity. The matter I raise is a fact, a finding against local authorities.
Yes, but I am aware, for example, that Waterford County Council is facing action by the EPA. To be fair, the issues involved relate to a legacy inherited by the council. Its performance is one of the best in the country, although technically there has been a breach, albeit an historical one. The issue in question, which could potentially go to court, is one of the most contentious of those the Deputy has in mind. I recently issued a section 60 directive which applies to the county councils, the EPA and any other agency that must show more ambition.
There is no gainsaying that the Deputy is correct. When circumstances, such as those in many counties where we have exposed illegal operations such as illegal dumping, arise and ambitious action is not taken or delays occur in progressing matters local people naturally blame their local representatives. I am getting a fair amount of blame in County Wicklow even though I am the person who highlighted illegal dumping in the first place. One must take the stripes with the office. Nevertheless, greater ambition and acute observation are necessary.
The recent direction I issued covers another issue of serious concern, one on which the Deputy did not touch, namely, our failure to prosecute offenders at a sufficiently high level. The level at which people who commit serious environmental crimes are being charged will result in the imposition of fines of €4,000 or €5,000, yet the law provides for fines of up to €15 million. I made clear in the direction that I expect local authorities to act on this matter. We will police the direction because I am not happy that matters are progressed with sufficient speed or ambition to secure sufficiently large fines.
A great deal of this type of criminality has taken place in my constituency and parts of County Louth in the Deputy's constituency due to the nature of our constituencies — illegal dumpers cross the Border in his constituency, for example. I am acutely aware of the issue and anxious that local authorities become more ambitious. When a crime is detected people will only have confidence in the system if the prosecution process is expeditious. The reason people in my constituency have lost patience is that four or five years have passed since crimes were detected and no one has gone to jail. In addition, they are being misfed information. While none of the senior parties are involved, there has been disgraceful activity by the likes of An Taisce, which has made untrue statements. In such circumstances, it is difficult to maintain public confidence in the process. Like the Deputy, I would be among the first to be critical of tardiness but when a local authority has done something positive to move the process on it is unacceptable for someone to tell a downright lie about it.
I agree with the Deputy's general point and I am anxious that once crimes are detected prosecution will follow as quickly as possible. I am considering ways to encourage this. One of the problems, however, is that each case must be sent to the DPP which must also deal with all cases involving all other criminal activities. We must identify ways to speed up the process and get cases into the higher courts.
We will now take subheads D.1 to D.5 which relate to local government.
Deputy Seán Ryan and others raised with me privately the issue of the response to Oireachtas Members from local authorities. He also adverted to it earlier in a question but I did not answer because it is more appropriate to this area. Deputy Kelleher has also spoken to me about this matter.
I expect local authorities to implement the directive they have been given, in so far as their contacts with local councillors and more importantly in this context, Oireachtas Members, are concerned. When the dual mandate ended, Oireachtas Members pointed out that they were cut off from the direct exchange of information they had previously enjoyed. A directive has been issued to management in regard to that and I expect managers to comply with it.
A number of Deputies raised this issue with me in the House. It is not good enough if the requirement that there would be at least one meeting a year is not adhered to, and that information is not made available. That would not be acceptable. Shutting out Oireachtas Members also means shutting out the constituents they represent.
To be fair, most local authorities have very good arrangements in place and most county managers are very good. However, there is a general problem. I intend to contact local authorities to obtain information on the practical implementation of the scheme. I want to know how they are applying the scheme to date. If it is necessary for supplementary guidance to be issued, I will issue it. I will also have a word, quiet and otherwise, in people's ears because I expect these directions to be adhered to, both in the spirit and in the letter. In one or two cases, they are not and that is not good enough.
I wish to raise an issue which has come to light in recent times. Comparisons have been done, mainly by the Opposition, about the amount of money being spent on non-national roads by local authorities. I am confused that some local authorities are proportionately spending less on non-national roads than they were heretofore. It appears that the more they are given, the less they are spending.
Is there some way we can highlight this matter? If we set down markers and compare local authorities, it encourages them to work that little bit harder. The Minister has referred to efficiencies in local authorities. When they act independently and comparisons are not drawn, it lets them off the hook. What reasons do local authorities give to the Department for spending proportionately less money on non-national roads when the local government fund has been increased substantially and on what is the money being spent?
I spoke to the Minister about this matter previously. I am aware of incidents in my constituency where developers are buying land so as to engineer a situation where other landowners are land-locked which allows them to dictate the price of the land as they control access. Perhaps the Department could enter into a scheme with local authorities to provide funding to build roads. This money could be clawed back through development contributions. What is happening is wrong. It is driving down the price of land for some landowners and developers are dictating the price. I hope the Minister can find a solution to this matter in the future that will prevent this from occurring.
I welcome the significant amount of money that is being spent on roads. I also commend the local improvement schemes which have been very effective in Galway. However, in Galway, the local authority is carrying out work to roads on which houses are built. The local improvement scheme was initially set up to service areas where farm owners had land but where there were no houses. Many farmers are aggrieved that the original aim of the scheme has been ignored. Will the Minister inform me if this year's scheme has been announced yet and if there is an increase in funding?
I welcome the Minister, Deputy Roche, and the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern. I am keenly interested in the local improvement scheme. Has money been allocated for this scheme? I urge the Minister to make that allocation available earlier in the year. In the past we were notified of the local improvement scheme around February each year, which was preferable given the nature of the roads being addressed by the scheme. This is one of the most valuable road schemes in rural areas. These roads are often constructed on bad ground and they are often wet. If the work is carried out earlier in the year, it tends to be a better job, whereas the opposite is the case if we wait until the autumn. If local authorities have not yet been notified the work will fall to be done in the autumn. Has the money been allocated and when will we be notified of it? I appeal to the Minister to consider allocating this money earlier in the year as the work must be carried out early in the year.
I also wish to raise with the Minister — I am pleased he is present — the issue of one-off housing. We were led to believe by the former Minister, Deputy Cullen, that planning requirements would be eased for people who have sites on land owned by their parents. He stated that new guidelines would be introduced. The Minister, Deputy Roche, also referred to the introduction of new planning guidelines in rural areas. People in my part of the country thought the Minister would solve the problem but nothing happened.
That was before the election.
I will be fair and reasonable. When I say to the Minister that nothing happened I can confirm that it is the truth. The only way something will happen is if the Minister will sign a document that the county manager will change the county development plan because under the present plan the same kind of planning permissions would be granted. The Minister must stand up and be the man who will allow people build on their own farms and put an end to people having to pay €50,000 or €70,000 for a site, which they do not have because they are trying to borrow the money to build a house. Sites are on offer from parents and other family members but people are not being allowed to build on them.
I am sick and tired of hearing about new guidelines being introduced and that the planners are directed to help people who want to build their own houses. This is all meaningless until the Minister tells county managers he is the boss and that county development plans should be changed so that people can get planning permission to build houses in rural areas. If the Minister did this he would go down in the pages of history as a famous man.
I made statutory guidelines last month telling local authorities how I expect them to apply the rules with regard to one-off housing in rural areas, especially in the type of case to which Deputy Healy-Rae referred, where somebody wants to build on the family farm. The former Minister, Deputy Cullen, introduced draft guidelines in 2004. From what I hear from elected representatives, they were observed in some cases but not in others.
The guidelines have a statutory standing and were sent to the local authorities. I understand they were circulated to all the Dáil Deputies last month. They have been widely welcomed. The Irish Rural Dwellers' Association, for example, has made very positive statements about them. That none of the other organisations has made negative statements on them means I am getting the balance right. Provided one can provide for one's septic tank and provided there is no road danger, it is clear that there would be presumptions in favour of securing planning permission.
Deputy Healy-Rae made a point on judgment that was correct. The Minister cannot and would be wrong to interfere in individual cases. I am specifically prohibited from doing so. The Minister's role is to set out guidelines. One must ask how the guidelines are applied. There are gross inconsistencies, not just across the country but within individual councils. Planners are making decisions that are completely at variance with one another. In this regard, I know of a case outside my constituency, which was brought to my attention by a Deputy. Planning permission was refused on one side of the road on the basis that the development involved wood-framed housing. We do not make such distinctions, notwithstanding the fact that we are sometimes accused of doing so. On the other side of the road, planning permission was granted for five houses of an identical structure.
One cannot explain this inconsistency to the public and this is what has undermined and corroded public confidence in the planning process. People will make all kinds of negative assumptions as to why permission was granted on one side of the road and not on the other. There is no balance. The point I am making in a roundabout way is that the senior planning person in every council is the manager. It is up to the manager to ensure there is consistency. I have said this before and have made it clear.
I want there to be more courtesy in the planning system. People expect it and also expect efficiency because seeking planning permission is stressful. Efficiency is being improved but not to the point where I can say I am happy. Above all, I want there to be consistency.
If one looks at the guidelines, one will note that I have distinguished between areas where urban-generated pressures arise and areas where there has been depopulation. There should be a proactive effort to bring people into the countryside to make it vibrant. I do not subscribe to the elitist view of some that the countryside should be stripped of people and become a place to be visited and admired at weekends. The countryside is only viable if people live there. Achieving this is the point of the statutory guidelines.
Perhaps we could consider the application of the guidelines in the not-too-distant future because I accept that there are inconsistencies causing difficulties. I cannot micro-manage individual cases. The guidelines are as specific as they can be. I have introduced new criteria which Deputy Healy-Rae should find of particular interest in respect of Kerry. They pertain to the giving of special consideration to those who emigrated and who are now returning. They are simply being precluded from obtaining planning permission, which is not fair.
I welcome the Minister's announcement with open arms. This is the forum at which to tell him the honest truth. The Minister's guidelines are not being implemented. The reasons the managers are giving for not doing so is that the county development plans were in place before the guidelines were introduced. They were not changed on foot of the guidelines. I appeal to the Minster to pursue this matter further with the county managers and the chief planners. The former Minister, Deputy Cullen, tried something similar to what the Minister is doing and it finished up in a bottle of smoke. The current Minister's guidelines will end up thus unless he and his officials can follow them up and ensure they are implemented.
People are travelling from one end of Kerry as far as Tipperary for stone. This would make front-line television coverage. Irrespective of whatever else we have in Kerry, we have more stone than any county in Ireland. We also have plenty of bog and rushes. Kerrymen are travelling as far as Tipperary because, despite their greatest efforts, individuals have failed to obtain planning permission for quarries. They have done everything humanly possible to obtain it and have carried out every kind of environmental impact study. In the heart of Kerry there are only one or two quarries and at least 20 applications have been made for planning permission for quarries. Instead of opening more quarries in Kerry, we are closing down and impeding the couple we have.
This is a scandal and a shame in that Kerry has so much stone it could export it to the world, yet it is not quarrying enough for its own roads. I appeal to the Minister and his officials to consider this matter and make inquiries. Millions of euro are being spent on building more roads into Killarney but these roads are in disrepair within a year because of the huge loads of stone being imported into the county. This is wrong and should not be happening.
My understanding — the Minister will clarify this — is that if the rural housing guidelines differ from those contained in the existing development plans, there must be a variation in the development plan. Ultimately, there is no use pointing one's finger at the Minister or the county manager. On the detail of the development plan, as contained in the written statement or a new policy, it is the local councillors who take a decision to vary the development plan and incorporate whatever elements of the guidelines are applicable to their area. This represents the policy and the planners and the county manager must adhere to it. I have already made recommendations to the county manager in my area.
There has been a difficulty in the context of finalising the current development plan. In September or October the county manager will embark on changing and varying it to take on board any proposals for change. These are matters for the councils.
Deputy Seán Ryan is right. However, to be fair to the councils, the guidelines have been available for only five or six weeks. It will take time for them to adjust. The requirement is that the guidelines, which are now statutory and not desiderata, be written into the county development plans. I presume this will not make matters any more difficult for any council in respect of one-off rural housing.
We can engage with county managers and directors of planning services. We are meeting the directors of planning on a regional basis to ensure they all understand the hymn-sheet that has been circulated. We are being very helpful so as to ensure everyone will sing from that same hymn-sheet. I hope they will do so in unison. The Deputy is correct that the directives must be understood and implemented. I have heard one or two very hairy responses from some Deputies and councillors as I travelled around the country. Deputies and councillors have told me that individual planners are saying they will not abide by them. I have news for them, they will abide by them and that is it. They are the rules.
Barrow pits are complicated because at one time a person could literally open a pit without planning permission. That caused problems, not least dumping in pits. There should be a balance because it should not be necessary to drag stone from one end of the country to the other and destroy the very roads that have been rebuilt. We issued guidelines on quarries which will hopefully make for a more realistic assessment of individual cases. We must monitor this matter.
Deputy Grealish made a serious point, namely, that there is planning blackmail. People are making objections, approaching developers and saying that if they are given money, they will withdraw their objections. I am grateful to the Deputy for bringing this matter to my attention and I have indicated to those in my Department my deep concern about it. If the planning system is abused by people who use it to extort money, it is not acceptable. There have been suggestions this is being done in an organised fashion.
In the case of landlocked development, the Water Services Bill introduces attempts to prevent unreasonable charges being imposed on water services being brought through properties. In light of the point made, we will consider this serious issue. If someone wants to build a house and another person in the area objects but says that he or she will resile from the objection for money, it is extortion and it is unacceptable.
I am not sure how to deal with it because we have an open planning system. Sadly, because it is open, it is subject to abuse and there are groups and organisations that have undoubtedly abused that openness for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes they have a misguided view of what constitutes good environmental practice but in other cases because they have an imperious attitude, particularly to rural one-off housing. The most serious allegation that has come my way since I became Minister is of people abusing the planning system to extort money from people who want to develop. It is difficult enough to build a house or business when levies and other costs must be met but if people are effectively imposing an illegal tax, which is what this is, it is a serious matter. We will look at it to address it through the planning code.
I am not sure how to go about this because I do not want to damage the most open planning system in Europe. It is a good planning system and I do not want to see it abused in a small number of cases. There are plenty of smart alecs and if there is a quick buck to be made, they will make it. There are bona fide objections to developments and people's interests should be defended but where there is abuse of an open planning system, it is unacceptable. I am not sure how we will address the problem but we are aware of it.
I thank the Minister. I hope we will see legislation introduced to stop this behaviour, which is extortion. I am aware of three cases where a person received €200,000 to withdraw an objection to a major planning application. He was the only objector and he sought money and, unfortunately, obtained it. I am aware of cases where developers sold land, kept a ransom strip and got huge amounts of money to let other developers come out through this section.
I am confident the Revenue Commissioners are aware of the windfall profits individuals have made because they submitted applications and then withdrew them. What is happening is wrong. I am not sure how we will address the problem but I am conscious of it.
We have an open planning system but the committee has been informed of cases where cement factories have funded a community group to object to an application by other cement factories. Quarries have funded residents' groups to object to other quarries 20 miles away because they are protecting their commercial interests. It was not envisaged that the openness of the planning system would permit such behaviour. There is planning blackmail and companies are using the planning process to delay competition for commercial reasons. I do not know how to deal with that but it is a total abuse of the planning system.
I am allocating €12.5 million to the local improvement scheme for roads. The Deputy is correct that it is too late for this year so it will come out much earlier next year.
In 1994, State grants to non-national roads in County Wicklow amounted to €3.234 million with €2 million allocated by the local council. In 2003, €9.17 million was made available with €3.7 million in funding from local resources, a proportionate decrease. In Cork, €14 million was allocated in 1994, with local expenditure of €12.3 million. In 2005, the allocation is €41 million with a local allocation of €17.8 million. I have said to a number of councils that this is playing the old soldier. In the 1980s and 1990s, there was not as much money around and councils were not getting as much money in grant supports or levies. However, it is not acceptable for the local authorities to diminish the proportion of their own resources. I expect them to improve their record. It is infuriating, in one or two cases where I have allocated record money to local authorities, to hear them say that they cannot do something because there has been a cutback. They have not said that it is them doing the cutting back. It is unacceptable. A handful of local authorities have increased the proportion but the majority have decreased it. Deputy Kelleher is correct, this is not good enough at a time when they are getting record allocations under other headings.
That is one of the drawbacks of the abolition of the dual mandate. Public representatives could previously bring this information from the national Parliament to the local authorities. More tables and comparisons should be published because local councillors do not have that information anymore. There should be a way to feed it back in order that local authority members can ask the county manager about the situation. They are unaware of the facts and figures at present.
If any member, irrespective of party, is interested in getting a full briefing on his or her local authority, I will provide it. I have compiled information on some authorities that I have visited and can make that briefing available straightaway to members. I do not have one yet for Fingal but if Deputy Seán Ryan is interested I will have a comprehensive briefing prepared for him.
The Department has done this excellently for previous Ministers and Ministers consume the information. I agree, however, with the Deputy's general point, that all Deputies, whether in a Government party or not, should have them. If any member is interested in a particular case I will put the briefing together and give it to him or her. The members of the committee must bear with me, however, as this will take some time.
What is the percentage increase for the LES on last year?
It is a modest increase because most of the money has been put into non-national roads. There are different levels of ambition for this scheme. Some councils, including the Deputy's, make good use of it. Donegal makes great use of it. Other councils make poor use of it. The LES is a good scheme and provides value for money because people contribute to it. The increase is modest this year.
When will it be announced?
I will announce it within weeks.
It is vital that it be announced as soon as possible.
I am not in a position to give precise details because it is with the Minister of State in my Department, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe. We spoke about it last week and he is anxious to release it soon.
We will take the next three subheads together: E.1 to E.4, inclusive, F.1 to F.12, inclusive, and G. They deal with heritage, other services and appropriations-in-aid.
In the context of heritage one difficulty concerns thatched cottages. These are part of our heritage and we are trying to retain the ones that exist in Fingal. It is becoming more costly, however, to maintain them. There is a need to increase the grant for this work.
Under subhead F.2, the library project, my constituency has waited several years for the provision of new libraries in Balbriggan, Skerries and Rush. These have been at the top of an agenda submitted to the Department. When will the Minister announce the next range of grants which hopefully will include those three areas?
The urban and village renewal schemes have been very successful. Does the Minister propose to continue those, with some increase? What are the future plans for those schemes?
I thank the Minister for the announcement he made during the week on heritage grants. In my town, Claregalway, €17,000, was allocated to do up an old forge owned by a man whose family had a long history in the parish. There was great excitement in the town about that.
It was from the heritage tax. It was great value.
Yes, it was only €17,000 but it is a great scheme for our heritage. I am pleased the Minister sanctioned that grant and I thank him for it.
There is a vote in the Dáil but we might be able to conclude our business before attending there.
There is a three year rolling scheme for libraries in which a large sum of money has been invested. I cannot give the Deputy the specific details on the libraries for Balbriggan, Rush and Skerries but will respond to him later in writing.
There is a modest scheme for the thatching grant amounting to €700,000 for this year. The grant payable is two-thirds of the approved cost, subject to a maximum of €3,810. Part of the problem is the difficulty with insurance and such issues. It is a pity because I like thatch, coming as I do from Wexford and having connections with Kilmore Quay.
That concludes the committee's consideration of the Revised Estimates for Vote 25 — Environment, Heritage and Local Government for the year ended 31 December 2005.
I thank the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche and the Minister of State at the Department, Deputy Noel Ahern, and their officials for attending today's meeting of the select committee.