Priority Questions.
1 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the number of houses started and completed arising from the commitments made under Sustaining Progress with the social partners that 10,000 extra houses will be built during the lifetime of the agreement (details supplied). [22672/04]
View answer2 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the number of social and affordable houses built to date under Part V of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 2000; if he has satisfied himself at the numbers built to date; if he has plans for measures to ensure that more houses are built under this provision; the number of houses started and completed to date under the commitment included in the Sustaining Progress agreement to construct 10,000 affordable houses; and if he has satisfied himself with the progress being made with regard to this commitment. [22811/04]
View answer
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
The affordable housing initiative under Sustaining Progress and the Part V mechanism are major elements of the Government strategy for the provision of social and affordable housing and are expected to deliver substantial output over the coming years. In addition to longer established programmes, which are operating this year with total Exchequer and non-Exchequer funding of €1.8 billion, this represents a significant and growing investment in social and affordable housing.
To date, under Part V agreements with developers, a total of 315 social and affordable housing units were acquired by local authorities up to the end of June 2004. Part V continues to gather momentum. A total of 2,500 social and affordable units are now planned or proposed. It is clear that the Part V measure is now bearing fruit and that it will contribute significantly to the provision of social and affordable housing.
Under the affordable housing initiative, substantial progress continues to be made. Part V affordable units are an important contribution to the initiative. Furthermore, over 50 projects on State and local authority lands are planned. It is projected that these projects, together with some 2,100 affordable units coming under Part V, will deliver a total of approximately 8,900 units to the initiative. My Department is currently engaged with a number of other Departments and State agencies with a view to securing further land to reach the agreed target of 10,000 units.
Construction has commenced on the Finglas Road site which will yield 160 housing units, 80 of which will be delivered next year. A number of other projects has been advertised for expressions of interest, including the St. Bricin's military hospital site which was advertised as part of the O'Devaney Gardens redevelopment and will eventually supply 200 housing units. Following a shortlisting process, it is understood the request for proposals for the St. Bricin's site will be issued next month.
The Jamestown Road and Infirmary Road projects were advertised last week and will yield a combined total of 465 housing units. All projects are being progressed as a priority with activities being paralleled as necessary with a view to early delivery of units.
I assure the House that the necessary structures have been put in place at central and local level to oversee and expedite projects with a view to early delivery of housing units. It is not possible, however, to dispense with mandatory planning and procurement procedures which necessarily take some time to complete before construction commences.
My Department will continue to work with the parties to the pay agreement to expedite effective implementation of the initiative. There is a strong commitment in Government to deliver on this initiative and the substantial progress made to date emphasises this commitment. I am satisfied that both measures are an effective response to housing needs, particularly for first-time buyers, and will result in an increased supply of social and affordable housing.
I would like the Minister of State to deal with my question which relates specifically to the commitment made by the Government with the social partners under Sustaining Progress. I do not want him to use the three card trick system and lump the Part V development in with the commitments made. The commitment under Sustaining Progress was for 10,000 extra houses. After the mid-term review of the agreement, how many houses have been completed to date and how many will be completed by end 2004? Will the Minister of State project the more caring attitude of Fianna Fáil by giving us guarantees that not only will he meet the commitments made under Sustaining Progress, but also address the issue of 50,000 families on local authority waiting lists throughout the country, many of whom are waiting up to eight years for housing? Can I have specific answers to my specific questions on the promises made to the social partners under Sustaining Progress?
I combined both questions together in my reply. The Deputy is probably trying to zone the matter down to the State-owned sites. No houses have been built on those yet. The first announcement on them was in the summer of last year. As we all know, any developer in the private sector will tell us that from the time they buy or acquire possession of a site to the time the first house is built is about five years. The 10,000 houses promised included the 8,900 sites which have been identified from the 50-odd patches of Government land. They also include what is coming from Part V. Therefore, 315 units have already been provided under Part V and a considerable number, 2,500, are proposed. Some 1,056 units are in progress and 1,400 are proposed.
Not one house has been built under Sustaining Progress.
Some 315 of the Part V ones have been built——
An extra 10,000 houses were promised.
If the Deputy seeks clarification he can ask the social partners——
I am asking the Minister of State, who is responsible——
Allow the Minister of State to reply without intervention.
If the Deputy does not take my word for it, Sustaining Progress includes, and always did, the Part V project.
No, it did not.
It did not.
Since the Deputy put the question to me, let me tell him——
The word "extra" was involved.
Allow the Minister of State to continue. He is in possession.
——that the 10,000 includes the sites the Government gave up——
The social partners have been——
Deputy Allen should wait until he is called upon.
——and Part V. However, on the matter of the 50-odd sites offered by the Government for the programme, the first announcement was in the summer of last year. No physical work has commenced on those yet. I mentioned that two of them, Infirmary Road and Jamestown Road, sought expressions of interest in the newspapers last week. That is how it is being done. There will be much progress from now on and much work is going on behind the scenes. In the real world it takes at least five years from the time people buy a site to the time the first house is produced. We hope to beat that.
In the real world people would build a house in five years if they were using a teaspoon rather than a JCB. The Minister of State used the term "momentum" with regard to the affordable housing programme. Would he describe it as "good momentum" that in four years since Part V came in, a total of 315 houses have been provided? Would he describe it as "good momentum" that the promise of 10,000 affordable houses, which was made to the social partners in Sustaining Progress, has today turned out to be a promise of only 8,900 houses, of which none has been built and on which no work has been started? Some 10,000 affordable houses were promised under Sustaining Progress and the Minister of State says 2,000 affordable houses are promised or planned under Part V, a total of 12,000 houses. How many of them will be constructed in the lifetime of the Government?
I have replied to those questions. A total of 315 have been built to date under Part V.
That is a disgrace. They could be built in a few months.
A total of 1,056 are under construction——
In Wicklow.
——and 1,438 are at different stages of planning. Three affordable housing schemes are in operation.
We know all that. How many will be built in the lifetime of the Government?
No houses have been produced under what the Deputy regards as the Sustaining Progress initiative on Government-owned land. It takes time to get such schemes up and running. Last year 2,600 units were constructed under the shared ownership scheme.
The Minister of State should stick to the question.
I want to outline the complete picture.
How many houses will be built before the Government leaves office?
A total of 2,600 were built last year.
That is not true. A total of 315 have been built in four years.
I hope the number can be increased this year so that between 2,500 and 3,000 affordable houses will be built per year.
We can expect, therefore, that the maximum number of houses that will be built if the Government runs its full term is between 5,000 and 7,000. Is that correct?
No.
That is approximately half the number the Government told the social partners it would produce in the lifetime of Sustaining Progress, which expires in less than 18 months.
Last year 2,600 affordable houses were built. We expect that number to increase to 3,000 per year. The 10,000 houses promised under Sustaining Progress will be built. A substantial number of houses will be not be completed on Government-owned land until 2006 or 2007 and it is expected that approximately 3,000 a year will be built on these sites. I do not know when the Government will leave office and perhaps not all of the 10,000 houses will be built by then but they will be under way and that is important.
Under Part V, builders and developers have secured many planning permissions and they are working on many sites. The value of these developments will not be achieved on day one. They still have a stockpile of planning applications.
One could expect more than 315 houses to be built in four years.
No, one would not. The Deputy must realise how the system works.
The problem is the system does not work. Planning permission must be achieved before developments can commence and developers seek extra permissions before doing so.
These developments will have significant value in terms of their contribution to social and affordable housing but they will not click into place overnight.
The Minister of State does not know how many houses have been built or how many will be built.
I have replied to the questions.
3 Mr. Morgan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he remains committed to one of the key housing priorities contained in the national development plan, namely increasing social housing output to meet rising needs. [22908/04]
View answerFunding for housing under the national development plan has to date exceeded the projected figures set in 2000. Total expenditure on housing from January 2000 to the end of 2003 at just under €5.32 billion was 10% ahead of the national development plan estimates set in 2000. Despite significant progress in output, it has not been possible to achieve a number of the physical output targets due to higher than anticipated construction costs.
The Government's decision to introduce five-year multi-annual capital investment programmes provides an important opportunity to ensure a structured basis for the planning and delivery of all social and affordable housing programmes. Consequently, to maximise the benefits of this multi-annual approach, local authorities have been requested to prepare five-year social and affordable housing action plans. These action plans are being assessed by my Department in consultation with local authorities and will be agreed by end of 2004.
The Government has been responding to the increased level of social housing need by expanding social and affordable housing output significantly. Last year the highest output under the range of social housing measures for more than 15 years was delivered. It is estimated that total social housing output last year, taking account of new local authority housing, vacancies arising in existing houses and output under other social housing measures, met the needs of approximately 13,600 households compared with just over 8,500 households in 2000.
The focus of the Government's spending on housing is on responding to the needs of low income groups and those with social and special housing needs through a broad range of targeted initiatives. It is anticipated that, through these measures, the needs of more than 13,000 households will again be met in 2004.
The Minister of State only answered part of my question. He must have thought he was still dealing with the media in so far as he replied to a question that he felt I should have asked. I asked about increasing social housing input to meet greater need. Is social housing stock in serious decline, particularly as a result of local authority tenants buying their houses? How will social housing need be met? The deputy city manager of Dublin City Council has proclaimed that he would like to get away from social housing provision altogether.
Given that the Minister of State is not addressing this issue, why does he refuse to meet Opposition party spokespersons on housing to discuss it? I have sought a meeting with him but I have not been offered such an opportunity. Do we have a say on this issue? Does he not believe that what we say counts for anything? We are not looking to him to come into the House to read out reams of statistics. That will not house the 48,000 families on local authority waiting lists.
What will the Minister of State do to increase social housing output to meet increased demand? A promise was made in this regard in the national development plan but it has not been kept. Waffling on about statistics means nothing. The lack of provision of social housing under Part V has been mentioned. Social housing is only being provided in token numbers. What will happen? What is the position of the Minister of State on meeting Opposition party spokespersons to discuss this issue?
Local authority housing stock is not in decline. It has increased to approximately 105,000 units but many local authority tenants have been buying their houses under the sale scheme for years and the rate of construction has not met the demand under the scheme. However, I fully support the scheme.
Those houses are not being replaced.
If Sinn Féin is opposed to the sales scheme, it should say so loud and clear.
I am in favour of the scheme but the houses should be replaced.
The Department's thinking relates to building units but it is also very much about building sustainable communities. The Department's deeply held view is that tenants should aspire to buying their own homes because it is a significant move in putting down roots. We do not wish to return to schemes that were run in the 1980s.
A submission by Dublin City Council has been received by my Department but it has not reached my desk. It was made by the members, a number of which represent the Deputy's party, not the manager. I am a little surprised that the Deputy and councillors from various parties, including my own, have engaged in letter writing and media interviews about this issue. I wonder whether this initiative emanates from certain people working for the council or the city council itself.
Will the Minister of State meet with us?
This is coming from certain people in the council or part of the city council.
I have asked the Minister of State for a meeting, but he did not agree.
Maybe Deputy Morgan should speak to some of his councillors.
Maybe the Minister of State should speak to me.
4 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the reason for the delays in introducing legislation promised in 2003 to enable major infrastructural projects to be fast-tracked through the planning process; and if incinerators will be included in the type of projects to be defined in the legislation. [22673/04]
View answerThe Department has been examining the development consent legislation to ensure we have the best possible system for the timely and cost effective delivery of infrastructure. There is a wide consensus that Ireland should have a regulatory system for major infrastructural projects which delivers infrastructure in the right place at the earliest possible time and on budget while mitigating its effects on the environment and people. Such projects should also comply with all relevant national and international legal requirements. Having examined the problems which have arisen in this area, we consider that legislation is desirable to address issues arising in the approval process.
Due to the complexity of the issues involved and the need to consult widely among my colleagues, the preparation of draft legislative proposals has taken some time. The legislation is now, however, at a very advanced stage. In advance of the Government making a decision on these proposals, it would be inappropriate to elaborate on their detail including details of the types of national infrastructure which may be included in the proposed legislation. In general terms, it is intended to reduce the time required for obtaining development consent for necessary major public projects and to co-ordinate and streamline the different procedures involved while respecting the requirements of environmental and heritage protection and the need for adequate public consultation.
This fast-track legislation which was promised over a year ago appears to have hit the slow lane. It is commonly known that the delays have been due to major differences between Ministers with Deputy Cullen in favour of including incineration projects. I congratulate Deputy Roche on his appointment as Minister, which perhaps makes it a little premature to ask him his personal opinion on whether incineration should be included in fast-track legislation. What is the Minister's overall view of incineration as part of waste management policy?
I thank Deputy Allen for his good wishes. As every Member of the House is aware, the waste framework directive as amended establishes the basic principle of dealing with waste in an environmentally friendly and sustainable way. To the degree that is possible, there is a waste hierarchy of reduction, reuse, recycling and recovery of which we are all aware. The use of modern, clean thermal facilities with heat energy recovery constitutes an important part of any sustainable waste management policy. Landfill, which we still use to a predominant extent, should and will be used only for residual waste. This extensive policy is supported in the programme for Government and very much accords with my views. After all, I live in and represent a county which has featured more than most in the context of the dreadful waste disposal problems we have.
I am not prepared to see the garden of Ireland despoiled further. A coherent policy must be introduced and a willingness to deal with the problems demonstrated. Deputy Allen does some disservice to the legislation in this very complex area. We are all aware of the complications which have arisen and we are aware of the need for the legislation to which the Deputy referred. The initial proposals for this legislation were announced in July 2003. It is a difficult process and to establish the correct balance takes time, but we are working on the legislation and we will produce it.
I do not know what the Minister meant when he said I was doing the legislation a disservice by asking relevant questions. Surely, that is my job. The Minister raised the issue of illegal dumping in the garden of Ireland. Is he prepared to ensure the local authority will take all necessary steps in the courts to deal with some of the significant players who have been involved in illegal dumping? Among them are some very big names which I will not mention. The Minister has made many statements about illegal dumping in Wicklow and said the full rigours of the law should be used against major companies. As he is now the man in charge, will the Minister put his words into action?
Deputy Allen is correct. I have taken a great interest in this issue and been to the forefront, particularly in my county, in highlighting the problem and requiring local authorities to take action. That is widely accepted. I was not alone but was one of a handful of public representatives involved.
Deputy Allen asked whether the large as well as the small players should be prosecuted. It is my belief that nobody is above or beneath the law. Its full rigours must be visited upon those who have done so much environmental damage. It is simply unacceptable that the burden of dealing with their past behaviour should fall on taxpayers. To answer the Deputy's question, I will be as active as before in promoting this position in County Wicklow and elsewhere. Where there has been transgression, I will insist the existing legal base is used with effect by local authorities to prosecute such action as is necessary.
Deputy Allen asked specifically about incidents in Wicklow. I have been to the fore in encouraging a position in which local authorities prosecute irrespective of status or size. I pay tribute to Deputies Cullen and Noel Dempsey and to those who have not been in office but have been as concerned about the matter as I have. I assure Deputy Allen that the energy I put into the issue as a mere councillor will be reflected in my efforts as Minister. As recently as today, I have made it clear that I expect action to be taken in the areas outlined.
While the Minister can say he expects action to be taken, the major weakness of local authorities is that they lack the resources for enforcement. Will the Minister ensure not only that legal action is taken irrespective of the size of the groups involved, but also that local authorities are provided with the resources to beef up their enforcement sections? Across the country, the weakness is that there is a lack of personnel and resources to enforce the planning laws.
While I hesitate to disagree with Deputy Allen, I must disagree with him on this matter. Over the not too distant past, there has been a failure of willingness rather than of resources to deal with this issue. I draw the Deputy's attention to public representatives from my party and others who were indicating concerns for up to five years before action was taken. That is not good enough. As was highlighted in an RTE programme, where members of the public or political members of local authorities indicate concerns, there should be active pursuit of those involved in illegality.
Certainly, there has been no indication that the problem is one of resources. The Deputy will understand that it takes time to put together a case which will hold up in the courts. While we all accept that evidential requirements are very strong, there is full encouragement from my office to all local authorities in this regard. If local authorities feel there is a particular resource issue, I would like to hear from them. In the past, the problem has not been in this area.
We shall see.
5 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he has received the report of the NESC on housing and building land; when it is expected that the report will be published; if he has completed his consideration of the results of the research he commissioned from a company (details supplied) into the ownership and control of building land in certain development areas, particularly Dublin, to determine whether current practices are retarding the overall delivery of building land or impeding long term market stability; when the results of the research will be published; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22973/04]
View answerMy Department continues to examine possible measures to moderate land costs for housing and other essential public infrastructure with a view in particular to identifying policy initiatives capable of early implementation to deliver an increased supply of affordable housing. This touches on the issues debated in the House earlier.
As part of this process, my Department is considering in detail recommendations contained in the ninth progress report of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution on the subject of property rights. My Department is also considering the report on ownership and control of building land which was commissioned from Goodbody economic consultants. As Members of the House will know, the National Economic and Social Council has conducted a major study on housing and land policy and its report, which is expected to be finalised shortly, will also be very relevant in this regard. As already indicated, it is intended to publish the Goodbody report in conjunction with the NESC report.
Given the positive work the NESC has done, we should await the publication of its report with great interest. Certainly, I do. Past reports on housing produced by the NESC have been models in terms of the writing and the logic which underpinned them.
I join my colleague, Deputy Allen, in congratulating Deputy Roche on his appointment as Minister. I wish him well in office.
The Minister will be aware that the Goodbody report, which was commissioned by his predecessor rather than the NESC, has been in his Department since last December.
While I appreciate he has had less than 24 hours to consider its contents, his Department has had nine or ten months to do so. Why is the report not being published? Will the Minister give the House a commitment that he will publish it? Can he shed any light on why the NESC report is taking so long? An article in a newspaper some weeks ago purported to contain a version — I do not know what validity attached to that version of the report — of what was included in the NESC report, including a recommendation that State assistance be provided to first-time buyers by way of deposits on houses and on certain measures related to multiple home ownership and so on. Is a row in the NESC between certain interests delaying publication of the report? Is the Minister prepared to ask the NESC to publish the working documents under consideration by it?
I am not in a position to speculate on whether there have been disagreements within the NESC and if that explains the delay in publishing the report. There are diverse views within the NESC. The Deputy will be aware from the procedures to which the NESC operates that papers will be circulated. It was always my understanding that the NESC report was due in the autumn and in that regard it is not that overdue. I believe it is worth waiting for given that past reports on this area by the NESC, in its previous guises, have been worthwhile. I am not in a position to comment on whether the press reports are a preview of what will be contained in the final report as it is not yet available to me.
The Deputy is correct in saying the Goodbody report was completed last year. I think it was completed in December 2003 though I stand to be corrected on that. However, that was but one input into what is a multifaceted approach to studying the particular problem. Deputy Gilmore can be assured it will be published with the NESC report. When we have both reports, they can be considered in totality.
Why can it not be published separately? The Goodbody report dealt with a specific dimension of this problem — the ownership of development land in the Dublin area. The report of the all-party committee on building land is in the public domain. What is the secrecy surrounding the Goodbody report? It was never intended that the report would go to the NESC although I am sure it is interested in the report and would receive it when published. Sending the Goodbody report to the NESC is a delaying tactic and an excuse for not publishing it. I appreciate this is the Minister's first day at the Department. He is a fresh pair of hands. Given that we do not know when the NESC report will be published, will he consider publishing the Goodbody report as soon as he has had an opportunity of studying it? I do not see any reason that report should not be in the public domain.
The Deputy has made a reasonable suggestion. I do not believe there is an obvious intent to obfuscate the report nor do I believe there is much point in taking an incrementalist approach in this regard. I will take the Deputy's point on board should there be any undue delay in publishing the NESC report.
