Priority Questions.
1 Mr. O’Dowd asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his plans to change the retail planning guidelines; if he intends to allow for the building of a store (details supplied) in Ballymun or elsewhere; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32816/04]
View answerThe retail planning guidelines prescribe a maximum gross retail floor space of 6,000 sq. m. for large-scale single retail warehouse development. This aspect of the guidelines has been under review for some time, and account is being taken of the need to ensure proper planning and sustainable development while also supporting effective competition in this sector of retailing in the context of ongoing developments in retail formats.
The retail sector is an important part of a modern and dynamic economy. Our rapidly growing economy is such that the demand for retail developments of various forms is growing substantially. It was never the intention of the retail planning guidelines to restrict competition or reduce the retail options available to consumers. In bringing the review of the guidelines to a conclusion, these issues, as well as all the relevant planning issues that concern this type of development generally, will be considered. I intend to make an announcement on the outcome of the review within the next few weeks.
There is no question of the guidelines being changed to cater for a specific operator or case. Planning matters that may arise will be dealt with in the normal manner through the planning system. On individual applications, it is a matter for the relevant planning authority and, where appropriate, An Bord Pleanála, to consider all relevant planning issues in the course of determining any such applications in accordance with the relevant statutory requirements.
Does the Minister agree that while consumers would welcome IKEA's coming to Ballymun or another location, they have serious concerns? The members of the Oireachtas Committee on Enterprise and Small Business, chaired by my colleague, and other Members of the Oireachtas are concerned about certain conditions that might apply to the location of the store in Ballymun. Serious problems arise in regard to the M50, other access routes and public transport but, nevertheless, IKEA's coming to Ballymun would be welcomed greatly, not least because of the 500 jobs that would be created. How will the Minister account for all the issues that have been raised by Members of the Oireachtas while at the same time proceeding with the principle he has enunciated?
I am aware that consumers would very much welcome greater choice. The Deputy's views on IKEA are correct and they were corroborated today on a programme broadcast by RTE. I am aware that there are concerns regarding this matter, some of which are exaggerated. Problems associated with traffic, for example, will have to be remediated. I will table amendments for consideration that will address such issues. If we approach the matter properly and have the type of calm debate we had yesterday at the meeting of the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government, the various circles involved can be squared.
There has been widescale speculation on whether the store will locate in this State. If it locates in another part of this island, we will have lost an opportunity. I compliment Deputy O'Dowd, who discussed this matter at full length yesterday at the meeting of the joint committee, and I am aware of his concerns over the rights of consumers and people in general in Ballymun. He made his views very clear and they happen to coincide with mine.
How will the Minister surmount the problem of changing the guidelines? He stated he cannot change them for just one company and therefore he is in a difficult position. Having read the press releases early in the week, I noted that there were obviously problems within Cabinet regarding this issue, just as there are problems in the Oireachtas. How can we be sure the Minister always receives the best independent advice on this matter? Will he confirm that the advice he receives is always truly independent? Does he believe he should appoint persons in the business community, such as representatives from Goodbody's, to re-examine this issue and take on board the needs and rights of the consumer primarily and also the needs of the different shopkeepers, especially those in small towns who fear they may lose many jobs because of developments such as that proposed? Can the Minister adjust the guidelines to do what the consumer wants and at the same time protect jobs in smaller towns and the regions?
I am sorry to interrupt——
This is priority question time and the Deputy is not allowed to interrupt.
As a Member, am I not allowed to come in?
Not on priority questions.
At what stage may I contribute?
At no stage.
The Deputy is an esteemed Chairman of the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business and it is difficult to put him down because he does a great job there.
My door is always open to my colleague and my ear is ever open to what he has to say or whisper into it. Deputy O'Dowd is correct, the essential issue here——
Is it Castlepollard?
He is certainly more correct than Deputy Cuffe. We debated this matter yesterday and he did not acquit himself very well.
Is that because he disagreed with the Minister?
Did Deputy Gormley hear the debate yesterday?
I heard the Minister this morning.
The Deputy did not hear the debate yesterday. The hypocrisy of the Green Party in this is startling because it eulogised Dundrum yesterday.
The Minister needs a new phrase.
Where are the 200,000 extra cars to go?
Let us move on from hypocrisy.
I focus specifically on the relevant points made by Deputy O'Dowd. He said that the essential point is to ensure that any amendment to the retail guidelines is cast in such a way that it does not cause the negative impact to which he has referred or unforeseen knock-on effects.
I am very strongly of the view that the advice from the Department is independent. Deputies O'Dowd, Gilmore and I had an exchange on this yesterday, a calmer one than comes from the benches behind them, and we took the view that whatever is done has to be——
I disagreed with the Minister.
I know the Deputy disagreed with me and he made a very fine series of points, but it was part of a focused debate which is the type of debate we should have. The issue is to draw up the guidelines in a way that does not entail the consequence about which Deputy Gilmore was concerned. We must face this problem on an all-island basis.
Is the Minister satisfied that all the advisers or special advisers in every category in his Department have been fully independent in their advice to him and to his predecessor?
Yes, I am, and I do not involve special advisers in my decisions on this.
We all meet our own men.
Deputy Kenny has known me for a long time and he is right.
2 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he intends to amend the legislation to provide for a national waiver system for those on low incomes who are unable to pay service charges without undue hardship, especially in view of the fact that one local authority is reported to have received legal advice that it is not entitled to provide a waiver scheme where such services have been privatised; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32876/04]
View answerThe determination of the waste management charges is statutorily a matter for the relevant local authorities in cases where they are the service providers. Where, as may commonly occur, a private operator is the service provider, the operator determines the charges. Similarly, in regard to waiver schemes for waste charges, it is the responsibility of the local authorities concerned to decide on the nature and extent of any such scheme in the case of services it provides. Generally, waiver schemes do not operate in respect of privately supplied collection schemes.
Limerick City Council has received legal advice indicating that, in the circumstances obtaining in its area for the provision of domestic waste services, it may not be empowered to provide a waiver scheme. It is for the council to address this matter in the context of local circumstances and the possible measures available to it, of which there are several, under the Waste Management Acts. Given the possibility of alternative approaches under existing legislation and differing arrangements across local authorities, I do not consider it appropriate for amending legislation to prescribe a uniform approach to the design of waiver systems by individual local authorities.
The issue of waste charges and people or households on low incomes has been raised in the context of the social partnership. Arising from this, discussions have taken place between my Department and the Department of Social and Family Affairs with a view to identifying relevant issues and how these might be addressed.
Does the Minister think it is fair, when waste charges range from between €300 to approximately €500 per annum, that somebody receiving social welfare must pay between two and three weeks of his or her social welfare payment either to a local authority where there is no waiver scheme or to a private waste collector, which does not have a waiver scheme, to have the refuse collected? If he agrees that it is not fair what will he do about it? Some private collectors have no waivers, some have a waiver scheme funded by the local authority, which Limerick City Council has been told it may not continue. Some local authorities are contemplating dropping the waiver schemes they had. No other section of society would tolerate having to pay such a proportion of its income for refuse collection. These people cannot afford it.
I accept there is an emerging issue here whereby those on low incomes can or cannot avail of waiver systems in local authority service areas, as against households in privately serviced areas which cannot avail of the schemes. The social partners have brought this to my attention and it is part of the special initiative on waste management under sustaining progress. My Department is examining the matter with the Department of Social and Family Affairs with a view to examining the optimal and most effective arrangements to address the situation. I cannot be more forthcoming than that because those consultations and considerations are ongoing and have not reached a conclusion.
When will the Minister be in a position to bring proposals to the House on this? His predecessor instructed all local authorities and service providers to move to a pay by weight system from 1 January. If someone has not paid waste charges his or her bin will not be collected. It will be placed on the apparatus at the back of the truck, be brought up half way, stop, and be dropped. This cannot wait for interminable reports from the Ministers and prolonged consultation with the social partners.
In the first week in January the bins of some pensioners and people on social welfare will not be tipped into the lorry because they have not paid their waste charges, or have not been granted a waiver. Will the Minister return urgently to the House with proposals on this before people on low incomes who cannot afford to pay these charges are arm-twisted into paying something they cannot afford or have their bin left behind, or be embarrassed in front of their neighbours, simply because they happen to be on low incomes?
The concept of waste charges is not entirely new and the most equitable way of charging and of meeting several principles is by charging according to use. The latest waste policy statement Taking Stock and Moving Forward refers specifically to this. A wide scale review of the matter is under way. I cannot tell Deputy Gilmore when the examination will be completed but I am aware of the urgency of the issue.
3 Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if, in regard to the proposed M3 motorway through the Tara-Skryne area, he has declared that he is seeking archaeological advice before making an informed decision on the matter; if he will seek the advice of independent experts who have an intimate knowledge of the archaeology and history of this area; and if he grants permission for this development through the Tara landscape, if he will, in consideration of the exceptional sensitivity of this landscape, insist that an independent archaeological authority oversees this work to ensure standards of best archaeological practice shall be observed at all times. [32931/04]
View answerAn Bord Pleanála, which has an independent statutory mandate, is responsible under the Roads Act 1993 for the approval of motorway schemes following an assessment of the environmental impact of the proposal. In the case of the M3 motorway, the process involved a detailed environmental impact assessment, in which archaeological considerations and other factors were extensively addressed, and a public oral hearing. Following this process, the motorway scheme, including the route of the proposed M3, was approved by An Bord Pleanála in August 2003. It is worth reminding ourselves of those facts, which are often overlooked in the debate. Under the National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004, once a motorway scheme has been approved, any associated archaeological works, for example, excavations, are to be carried out in accordance with the directions that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government may issue following consultation with the National Museum of Ireland. That procedure is designed to ensure appropriate standards apply to the carrying out of archaeological work in connection with approved road developments.
In the case of the M3 motorway, an application for the carrying out of a programme of archaeological works and mitigation measures regarding a portion of the route has been made by the roads authority to my Department and it is currently being considered. In determining the matter, I will receive expert advice from the archaeological staff in my Department. In accordance with the Act, I will also consult the director of the National Museum of Ireland before directions are issued.
My Department has responsibility for the regulation of archaeological works and the maintenance of standards. All works carried out after directions given under the 2004 Act will be monitored by my Department to ensure they are carried out to the proper standards. Given that arrangement, I do not consider it necessary or desirable to establish a separate archaeological authority to oversee such works. Determination on the matters referred to above will be made as soon as possible.
In approximately one month, the Minister will have to decide whether a motorway will slice through the archaeologically rich landscape of the Tara Skryne valley. Will the Minister will seek independent archaeological advice on the issue? I suggest to him that the archaeologists and academics attached to the discovery programme set up by the former Taoiseach Charlie Haughey over ten years ago is the most appropriate group, given the vast amount of knowledge they have accumulated regarding the rich archaeology of that part of Meath. Will the Minister consult the discovery programme, given its wealth of knowledge?
Perhaps I might point out to the Minister that there was an environmental impact statement for the route, which covered ten separate issues. However, the National Roads Authority went away and examined 18 different issues in arriving at the route that it selected. Among those 18 issues were traffic, the impact on road users and the impact on minor roads. In other words, there was a bias towards roads in those issues. Since this road may well be funded by a public private partnership, it is the most economic option to look for the quickest route between Navan and Dublin. Unfortunately, Tara lies directly on the desired line between those two points. Was Tara condemned from the outset simply by being close to the line between Navan and Dublin? I reiterate that the Minister must seek independent advice, and not simply from his own Department, since the archaeologists in Dúchas are now very much under his wing.
Please come to a question.
I hope, as a gesture of goodwill, the Minister will seek the advice of those who have been examining Tara in detail for over ten years.
I am aware of the concerns of the Deputy and others. I also thank the Deputy for conducting the debate in a calmer fashion than some. The NRA, in developing road proposals, must take account of archaeology as well as other relevant factors, such as the engineering impact on homes, severance of farms, the natural environment, cost and so forth. I am not saying that Deputy Cuffe does not know this, but that seems to have been true of many people involved in the debate. The route that has been chosen is significantly further from the Hill of Tara than the existing N3 national primary road.
Following the approval by An Bord Pleanála, archaeological test trenches were sunk along the route of the proposed motorway. I do not believe the Deputy meant to imply the archaeologists attached to my Department would modify their views accordingly. They will give an objective view on the issue, which I will consider. I too will examine it objectively. Some 38 sites have been identified along the 15 km route. That number is not at all out of line with other schemes. There are more than 120,000 known monuments and places of record on the island, and the development of a scheme the size of the M3 will inevitably result in discoveries.
I am conscious of the significance of this, and Deputy Cuffe is correct that the issue is not so much one of the archaeology in the ground but the general landscape. If one considers the legislation, one sees that my role in this is narrow, focusing on the archaeology of the scheme and issues relating to the mitigation of any works carried out. The route has already been decided. It has been through the planning process, and it is very much outside the power of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to give directions on that. However, it is within my power to examine the archaeology, though I must be careful because I am operating in a quasi-judicial way, as the Deputy knows. I intend doing that in this and another case.
Does the Minister accept there is a view in the Department and among the archaeologists employed by the National Roads Authority that backs up the NRA in its decisions? I am worried that there is also such a view in Fianna Fáil. One might almost term it a Fianna Fáil-NRA view that believes in putting a road on the shortest route between two points rather than considering the other options. There is concern at the lack of geophysical imaging in the NRA report. Is the Minister concerned at that? The lack of such imaging is a little like going to a hospital and having a doctor poke one in the stomach instead of getting an X-ray.
There is a time limit on this question. We must proceed with the next question.
Will the Minister consider progressing the reinstatement of the Navan rail link? That was recommended ten years ago in the final report of the Dublin transportation initiative.
We must move to the next question. We have gone far over time on this. I ask the Minister to deal with the next question.
Will the Minister examine those other issues?
Much of the latter part of the contribution was outside my remit and that of the question. I have made the point that good archaeologists are involved in this. There is a relatively limited role for me, but I will play it to the best of my ability.
Question No. 5.
Is it not Question No. 4?
I noticed that Deputy O'Dowd turned rather pale there.
I do not think so at all. I am not wearing make-up like the Minister.
There was no sleight of hand.
4 Mr. O’Dowd asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he will list all companies which were awarded contracts to carry out public relations work concerning the national spatial strategy since its inception; the period they were employed for; if more than one tender was sought in each case prior to the awarding of contracts; the reasons for the non-renewal of those contracts if applicable; the amount paid to those companies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32930/04]
View answerThe Government determined that the national spatial strategy should be informed by extensive consultations with organisations, groups and members of the public throughout the country. In June 2000, my Department accordingly invited 16 firms to tender for a consultancy contract to assist in devising and implementing the NSS communications campaign, including a range of marketing and advertising initiatives; to promote awareness and interest in the NSS; to disseminate information and identify and engage the target audience for the consultation process; and to support that process through organising consultation forums at regional level at various stages during the strategy's preparation.
In response to my Department's request for tenders, five were received, and three companies which submitted tenders were interviewed. The tender submitted by Drury Communications was selected on the basis that it best met the relevant selection criteria as set out in the request for tenders. On an hourly and monthly basis that tender was also the lowest.
A steering group, which included the person then appointed as the Department's communications co-ordinator, was established by the Department to oversee the work of the consultants. The consultants were required to work closely with and report regularly to the Department and to liaise on an ongoing basis with the then communications co-ordinator.
The contract with Drury Communications, originally of nine months' duration, contained an option for its extension for the period up to and including 31 December 2001, provided that the contractor's performance was satisfactory in all respects. The contract was extended for that period and subsequently, by agreement, on several occasions covering the period up to the end of December 2002, shortly after the NSS was published. The total amount paid to Drury Communications for the contract covering a period of two and half years was €383,556.85.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
During the run-up to the finalisation and launch of the NSS, it was decided that the communications campaign should be intensified considerably. Additional work was initiated on the presentation aspects of the strategy, media briefings, publicity and other briefing material. A communications consultant, who had been appointed in July 2002 under a more general contract to assist the Minister and the Department on strategic communications matters, participated actively in that work and attended related team meetings. That consultancy input was provided under the general terms of the contract involved and was not specifically procured regarding the NSS.
Deputy Allen tabled a question on 10 October 2002 on the number of consultants engaged on the national spatial strategy, the costs to date and so on. Leech Communications does not appear in the list given in the reply to that question. Why was that information given at that time when the information the Minister has given us now directly contradicts or adds to that information? Drury Communications had worked on this contract for more than two years and had met the interdepartmental steering committee dealing with the national spatial strategy. That is the only firm mentioned in the Department's minutes of 2 October 2002. Will the Minister confirm that is the position? Will he also confirm that the question of rolling out the spatial strategy was dealt with at that meeting and there was no mention of the new company to which the Minister referred?
The question focuses specifically on the contract awarded to Drury Communications. The other issues are outside the ambit of the question, but I will deal with them because it is important to do so. The issue of contracts with Leech Communications is outside the scope of the question. However, notwithstanding that, it is not unusual for a consultant co-ordinator to be involved in a Department. The issues and the amounts involved in this consultant's payment have been made a matter of record. The consultant in question has carried out good work for the Department. There has been no question about her professionalism. That is important to record. I met the consultant in question twice. I record that I was impressed by her professionalism, capacity and, in particular, her ability to render complex issues more easily accessible. The public service has many qualities, but having the best communications skills is not necessarily among its top qualities.
With regard to work carried out by the consultant in question — I know the Deputy would wish me to record this — she played a role in the national spatial strategy in addition to that played by Drury Communications, as I outlined in the reply. Leech Communications also provided support in a general sense on advice on procurement of creative media consultants, for example, in the case of the race and waste against campaign and on the roll-out of events. The company was also involved in issues relating to the Irish Presidency and in particular to the Environment Council of the Irish Presidency. I will not refer to other issues on the list, which is significant, as the Deputy might want to intervene. Ms Leech also provided support in a number of other campaigns, the details of which I can make available to the Deputy if he so wishes.
Why did the Department or the then Minister not list Leech Communications in the reply to the parliamentary question to which I referred? Will the Minister publish the documentation in regard to everything he has said to ensure there is transparency surrounding this matter? When the Minister, Deputy Cullen, appeared on an RTE programme this week, he specifically said that he needed a communications specialist given the scale of the challenge of the spatial strategy and the need to roll out the strategy. Given that Drury Communications was already employed doing that job, what sense did it make to bring in somebody new who knew nothing about the spatial strategy? Drury Communications had two years' experience of dealing with it, yet it was not asked to do this particular work. Given that Leech Communications was being paid €300,000 per year, would it not have been preferable for the then Minister to have appointed special political advisers as opposed to consultants? If he felt he had an issue in regard to his role as opposed to the Department's role, why did he not appoint political advisers who would have been far cheaper on the Government payroll and would have given better value to the taxpayer? He could have appointed six special advisers at €50,000 per annum. Why did he not do that?
The suggestion that €300,000 per year was paid is an exaggeration. I believe the Deputy had inadvertently made that suggestion.
No, it would have been far cheaper for the then Minister to have appointed one or five special advisers than to do what he did.
I want to give the Deputy accurate advice.
I accept that.
The total contract payments were €303,202 from July 2002 to date, which is significantly lower than the amount the Deputy mentioned. In addition to work on the spatial strategy, work was carried out on the race against waste campaign and there was a range of issues relating to steering that campaign and communications relating to it. Work was done in connection with the Environment Council.
Why does that consultant's name not appear on the list?
I put this information on record because the Deputy asked about it. There was advice on procurement, advertising, electronic voting and other issues. If the Deputy asks a question, I will try to give him the advice he seeks. If he does not want it, that is fine, but he should not ask the question.
5 Mr. Morgan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if his Department has initiated an investigation into the reason local authorities failed to proceed with all council house starts which were approved by his Department since 1993; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32826/04]
View answer
The Government has provided significant additional resources for housing in recent years. Record levels of funding are being allocated to local authorities for their social and affordable housing programmes for next year, with about €1.3 billion available from Exchequer resources for capital and current spending.
Ensuring that we achieve maximum output for these resources and best value for money is a prime concern. Independent evaluation of the housing programmes at the mid-stage of the national development plan highlighted the fact that spending was 9% ahead of target and this was having a positive impact on addressing social inclusion. However, output has been behind that which has been forecast. Part of the reason for that is attributable to the rising costs of sites and construction inflation. Mobilisation of construction programmes by local authorities has proceeded at different speeds.
The important task is to ensure that best practice is highlighted and replicated. We need to focus the local government system on achieving the best performance possible on housing issues. This relates not only to providing the required quantum of housing, but achieving this on a timely basis with appropriate quality.
One of the key issues arising from past performance is the need for certainty around funding and the value of a multi-annual approach. The €6 billion available for housing in the coming five-year period provides the certainty required. In association with this funding, my Department has initiated the development by local authorities of new five-year action plans for social and affordable housing to ensure a systematic and integrated approach to the effective use of these resources. I consider that with both funding and plans in place, real benefits will be seen in terms of the output and quality of social housing provision over the coming years.
Does the Minister of State agree that at a time of a major social housing crisis throughout the State, the lack of delivery in terms of housing provision is causing misery for approximately 48,000 families? The houses promised are not being delivered. Does the Minister of State agree that apparently nobody is doing anything about this? Does he also agree that one local authority in the Dublin area delivered 52% of housing starts approved by the Department in the past ten years? I do not need to tell him about the housing crisis in this city.
Who is to blame for this lack of delivery? Where is the blockage preventing these houses being built? If it is the case that local authorities are simply not building the houses, why is that the case? What are the obstacles to their doing so? It is not good enough for the Minister of State or the Minister, as he said last week, to point the finger at local authorities for not delivering these houses. What is the Minister of State specifically doing to ensure that houses approved by the Department will be delivered by local authorities? What is blocking 50% of house approvals proceeding in some cases?
Housing is one of the key responsibilities of local government. Funding is provided by the Department. It is of concern that approvals given have not in all cases been acted upon. Historically — the figures to which the Deputy refers cover a ten-year period — the local authority programme was managed on a yearly basis by allocating both starts and funding. Under the programme local authorities got funding on an annual basis in January or February. However, in recent years we have realised that the two most important ways of helping local authorities to do their job properly is by ensuring funding and adopting a multi-annual approach. They now know well in advance what their allocation will be. We completed one four-year multi-annual programme at the end of 2003 and we have started another. In the past, funding from year to year was not secure. Under the new system ongoing capital envelopes are secure. That means that over the next five years €6,000 million is in place. That will help local authorities.
Price inflation and problems with builders and planning can occur anywhere. Under the four-year programme local authorities have advance notice regarding funding. That is why it is more helpful. Local authorities were allocated funding to carry out their plans. However, performance has been patchy. The best county achieved 130% of the plan while the worst achieved only 50%. Even in recent times I remember Members of this House who were also members of local authorities giving the Minister grief in the House because their authority had only achieved 50% of its plan. I often suggested that they should complain to the local authority. The Department can help by giving certainty of funding and compiling a long-term action plan covering four or five years into the future. It is up to the local authorities to deliver, and the Department is doing all it can to help them to do that.
I am pleased to hear the Minister say this is of concern. It is a matter of grave concern to a very considerable number of people outside this House. Unfortunately, the Minister did not say where the blockage is occurring. I accept that the multi-annual budget is of help. However, the Minister's senior colleague is blaming councillors for the hold-up. Does the Minister of State agree with the Minister on that?
Multi-annual budgeting has been in operation for the past four years. Does that mean the problems of the past ten years happened during the first six years of that period and were rectified in the past four years? Where are the problems occurring?
The information given out recently was intended to help councillors so that they would know the ranking of their council and be able to compare their position with that of other councils. Under the four-year multi-annual programme, Cavan was at the top of the list at 145% while other councils were at 50%. Problems involving inflation, contractors, prices and so on can arise at any time. Some local authorities have more ambitious plans and some authorities are more realistic. Some of the problems occur at local authority level. We are helping them to manage their affairs better. How one plans, sets down strategies and manages is of key importance. The Department is playing its part by providing long-term programmes and certainty of funding.
