Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht -
Thursday, 5 Feb 2015

Chapter 7 - Matters Arising from Audit of Vote 25 - Environment, Community and Local Government in Relation to Water Services

Mr. John McCarthy(Secretary General, Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government) called and examined.

Today we will examine two chapters from the Comptroller and Auditor General's annual report, chapter 6, the land aggregation scheme, and chapter 7, matters arising from audit of Vote 25 - Environment, Community and Local Government in relation to water services. The committee has scheduled another meeting with the Department in June to discuss the wider Vote issues. Before I begin the meeting I ask members, witnesses and those in the Visitors Gallery to turn off their mobile telephones as they interfere with the sound quality and transmission of the meeting.

I advise witnesses that they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give to this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given, and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against a Member of either House, a person outside the House, or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Members are reminded of the provisions within Standing Order 163 that a committee should also refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government, or a Minister of the Government, or the merits of the objectives of such policies.

I welcome Mr. John McCarthy, Secretary General of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. Could I ask him to please introduce his officials?

Mr. John McCarthy

This morning I am accompanied by to my right, Ms Bairbre Nic Aongusa, assistant secretary in the housing division and Ms Lisa Clifford, also from the housing division; to my left is Ms Maria Graham, assistant secretary in the water division, Barry Ryan from water services and sitting behind is Mr. Maurice Coughlan, the finance officer.

We also have Mr. Heffernan from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. I invite the Comptroller and Auditor General to make his opening statement.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

In the earlier years of the last decade, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government supported a policy of acquisition by local authorities of land banks for the provision of social and affordable housing. The land acquired to create the land banks was purchased with loans from the Housing Finance Agency, HFA, generally provided for a term of seven years. The intention was that the loans and the accrued interest would be repaid by the local authorities from capital grants paid by the Department from its social housing investment programme, when housing on the land was brought into use. In total, the HFA advanced €821 million to local authorities for such land purchases.

Because of the reduction in the amount of capital funding available for development of social housing, some local authorities ran into difficulty in meeting their commitments to repay the loans to the agency when the loan term ran out. The land aggregation scheme was established by the Department in 2010 to help alleviate the financial burden of the loans on local authorities. Initially, the scheme provided for the Department to make funds available to the relevant local authority to redeem in full the maturing loans, including the accrued interest. In return, the local authorities were required to transfer the residential development land related to the redeemed loans to a special purpose body called the Housing and Sustainable Communities Agency, which is referred to as the Housing Agency.

Under revised arrangements for the scheme introduced in June 2012, maturing loans could be converted to equivalent annuity loans provided by the HFA. Under that arrangement, local authorities make annuity payments to the HFA and, on condition that the related lands have transferred to the Housing Agency, may recoup the payments from the Department. The scheme closed on 11 December 2013. No submissions were accepted after that date, and applications made but not approved by that date were not accepted into the land aggregation scheme.

The Department asked local authorities to identify land and loans that might be suitable for inclusion in the scheme. They identified 259 sites covering 775 ha with related loans and interest amounting to €500 million. The Department approved applications for 47 sites, with an aggregated area of 173 ha, under the original terms of the scheme. The Department paid grants totalling €111 million to redeem the 47 loans. The original purchase cost of the associated land is estimated at around €86.6 million. The accrued interest element on the redeemed loans is estimated at around €24.5 million or 28% of the original purchase cost.

A further 25 sites were approved for inclusion in the scheme under the revised conditions, and prior to the scheme closing in 2013. Twenty five year annuity loans with a combined value of €52.15 million, including €12 million in accrued interest, were approved to refinance the matured loans. If all of the 25 approved sites are transferred to the Housing Agency, the annual commitment to be met by the Department is estimated at around €2.68 million per year. The annuity payments will continue until 2038.

The examination found that local authorities retained parts of many of the sites associated with loans approved for the scheme. However, there was no formal procedure in place to adjust the value of the loan accepted into the scheme where the entire original site purchased was not transferred. The Department considered each case on an individual basis, and the general practice was that up to 100% of the outstanding loan could transfer to the scheme where more than 75% of the site area related to that loan was transferred to the scheme. The Department did not consider whether any of the area retained by the local authority was of greater or lesser value per hectare than the area accepted into the scheme.

Under the original arrangements for the scheme, land did not have to be transferred before the grant issued to redeem the loan. The revised scheme required the land transfer to have taken place before the Department made any annuity payments. At June 2014, we found that the transfer had been completed for 41, or 56%, of the approved transfers. The Accounting Officer will be able to provide an update on progress since then. The examination also noted that land was not valued prior to or after its transfer to the Housing Agency.

The original HFA loans were intended for land that was suitable for residential development. Despite that, the examination found that local authorities had proposed 25 sites, with associated HFA loans to the value of €37 million, for inclusion in the scheme that were rejected by the Department because they were, or had become, unsuitable for residential development.

The total value of housing land acquisition loans drawn down from the HFA in the period from 1999 is €821 million. By end December 2013, the total amount of loans outstanding was €507 million. The profile of the maturity of the outstanding loans is shown in the figure now on screen. The darker bars on the right of the graph represent original land purchase loans that have matured and have been converted into long-term annuity loans. At end December 2013, these amounted to €226 million, including loans annuitised under the land aggregation scheme.

The annexes to chapter 6 were included to provide relevant information to readers about the individual loans and the related sites. I must draw the committee’s attention to Annex D, and point out that the caption is not correct. It should read ‘Amount borrowed from HFA for residential site purchases since 1999, and outstanding balances at 31 December 2013, by local authority’. The data are correct, and the incorrect caption has no effect on any findings in the report. I am arranging for a revised annex to be submitted to the library to correct the record.

Chapter 7 deals with a couple of issues that arose in the course of audit of Vote 25. The first part of the chapter deals with capital commitments under the Vote in relation to water services projects. As the committee is aware, Irish Water took on responsibility for water services from the local authorities with effect from 1 January 2014. It also took over all the assets and liabilities related to the authorities' water supply and discharge business. The legal transfer of contractual obligations to Irish Water from the local authorities was effected on 21 February 2014 and 25 April 2014 under orders made by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government.

Prior to the establishment of Irish Water, the Department provided funding to water services authorities for the provision of major water and wastewater schemes to meet key environmental and economic objectives. Department expenditure under the water services programme was €241 million in 2013, and the total cost of the programme from 2007 to 2013 was €2.9 billion.

In the 2012 appropriation account for the Vote, the Department recorded that it had outstanding capital commitments to local authorities to provide a total of €340 million in respect of local authority water services projects. The disclosure of such commitments is required under the standard accounting policies for appropriation accounts. The Department did not include any capital commitments that existed as at end December 2013 in regard to the water services investment programme in the Department’s appropriation account for 2013 on the basis that they became the responsibility of Irish Water in 2014.

The second part of the chapter deals with EU penalties in regard to control of septic tanks. In December 2004, the EU Commission notified Ireland of its conclusion that Ireland had infringed its obligation to fully and correctly transpose the requirements of the 1975 waste management directive, which aims to protect human health and the environment against harmful effects caused by the collection, transport, treatment, storage and disposal of waste. The infringement related to the management of domestic waste disposal through septic tanks and similar systems. The Commission requested that Ireland rectify that infringement by February 2005. A subsequent European Court judgment in October 2009 found that with the exception of County Cavan, Ireland had failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive in regard to such systems. Further legal proceedings resulted in the imposition of penalties that eventually amounted to €2.648 million. This was borne on the Vote in 2013.

Members will be aware that legislation to comply with the directive, the Water Services (Amendment) Act, was passed by the Oireachtas in February 2012. The Act requires the registration of all septic tanks and the development of a risk-based national inspection plan for septic tanks by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. Following a public consultation process in October 2012, the agency developed an inspection plan that required a minimum of 1,000 septic tank inspections to be carried out across all local authorities in the 12 months commencing July 2013.

At 31 July 2014, the number of systems registered on the domestic wastewater treatment system register was 450,620. Based on census 2011 information, which recorded almost 500,000 septic tanks and wastewater systems in Ireland, this suggests a registration compliance rate of over 90%.

The results of the first round of risk-based inspections under the EPA’s inspection plan revealed that over half of the tanks examined failed the inspection. While all failures represent a potential risk to human health or to the environment, care must be taken in interpreting the results of the initial inspections as the inspection plan was based on prioritising higher risk areas. In order to establish an estimate of the overall level of compliance across the State, inspection of a random sample of systems would need to be undertaken.

I thank Mr. McCarthy. I call Mr. John McCarthy to make his opening statement.

Mr. John McCarthy

I am pleased to be here this morning to assist the committee in its examination of chapters in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s annual report for 2013 concerning the land aggregation scheme and certain matters in regard to water services.

Chapter 6 of the report concerns the land aggregation scheme. The Comptroller, in reviewing the administration of the scheme, notes that it was established to support local authorities by alleviating the financial burden in servicing land loans that had been taken out from the Housing Finance Agency for the purpose of acquiring land for social and affordable housing developments. It is also noted that some of the sites accepted into the scheme have seen their value decrease significantly from the original purchase price.

The scheme was introduced in 2010 in a difficult economic landscape as part of revised arrangements for the funding of land for social housing purposes. The primary purpose of the scheme was to support the unwinding of the book of land loans taken out by local authorities to purchase land for the public housing investment programme. Sizeable amounts of land for housing had been purchased by local authorities through borrowings, which would then be recouped when the land was developed for housing purposes. However, the substantial contraction in Exchequer funding available for the traditional local authority house building programme resulted in a significant slowing in the pace at which housing projects could be funded. Yet, borrowings for land loans were maturing and in order to alleviate the financial burden that would have arisen for local authorities in dealing with these loans, it was decided that funding should be set aside to address what would otherwise have been an unsustainable position.

Under the scheme, local authorities could, subject to approval from the Department, transfer residential lands on which there were outstanding loans from the Housing Finance Agency to the Housing Agency when the loans fell due for redemption. In addition, there had to be no short to medium term plans for the development of the land in question. Applications to the value of some €163 million in loans were accepted into the scheme. The figure of €163 million includes €111 million in respect of loans which were, under the first phase of the scheme, fully redeemed by local authorities with funding recouped from the Department. The remaining €52 million accepted into the scheme under its second phase are in the form of annuity loans, for which local authorities are making repayments to the Housing Finance Agency. Local authorities may recoup those capital and interest repayments from the Department on condition that related lands have transferred to the Housing Agency.

At the time the Comptroller was carrying out his review of the scheme, 41 sites accepted into the scheme had transferred to the Housing Agency. As of 15 January last, this figure had increased to 49 sites. Of these 49 sites, 36 were dealt with under the first iteration of the scheme and have had their associated loans redeemed in full. Of the 24 sites still to transfer, 11 are in the final stages of that process. I have personally written to the relevant local authorities and the Housing Agency requesting that the remaining sites be transferred as expeditiously as possible.

In 2013, as a consequence of continuing pressure on Exchequer resources at that time, and following a review of the scheme carried out in consultation with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, it became evident that further expenditure on the land aggregation scheme, in terms of accepting new applications into the scheme, was not sustainable. Accordingly, in December 2013, local authorities were notified of the ending of the scheme.

Following this, local authorities have been advised to consult with the Housing Finance Agency directly on the management of loans relating to lands not accepted into the land aggregation scheme. I understand the Housing Finance Agency has made arrangements directly with some local authorities to extend interest-only arrangements to land acquisition loans, on maturity, for a further five years, after which they will revert to normal-course annuities.

As the committee is aware, water sector reform has been an area of intense activity in the Department over the past two years. The first part of Chapter 7 of the Comptroller’s report gives a summary of some aspects of implementation of the reform programme.

Since 1 January 2014, Irish Water has had statutory responsibility for all aspects of water services planning, delivery and operation at national, regional and local levels, including responsibility for the delivery of capital infrastructure. The progression of water services capital projects is now a matter for Irish Water.

Up until the transfer of responsibility for water services to Irish Water at the beginning of 2014, local authorities were responsible for the delivery of water services capital infrastructure and funding was provided by the Department under the water services investment programme. The final programme administered by the Department ran from 2010 to the end of 2013. Under that programme, a total of 294 major contracts were completed comprising 176 water supply projects, including 75 water conservation projects, and 118 wastewater projects.

On taking over responsibility for the delivery of water services, Irish Water published a capital investment plan for the period 2014 to 2016. The plan outlines the indicative investment priorities in water services infrastructure over the three-year period. It consists of a targeted programme of over 386 individual projects and a range of sub-programmes, which will deliver improvements in drinking water quality, leakage reduction, wastewater compliance, business efficiencies and customer service.

The second part of Chapter 7 relates to the European Court of Justice ruling against Ireland in October 2009 in respect of septic tanks and other on-site wastewater treatment systems. Legislation was prepared in the Department and enacted, as the Water Services (Amendment) Act 2012, to address the issues covered by the court's ruling. Under the legislation, local authorities are obliged to establish and maintain registers of domestic wastewater treatment systems in their functional areas and owners of such systems are obliged to register. Registration began in June 2012 and by the end of January some 453,088 owners had registered. This represents over 91% of the estimated total number of domestic wastewater systems in the country based on census 2011 data.

The legislation further provides for the establishment of a national inspection plan for domestic wastewater treatment systems. The first inspection plan was published by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, in February 2013 and risk-based site inspections by inspectors approved by the latter began in July 2013. Inspections are objective, evidence-based and aimed at identifying systems which are a risk to public health or the environment. Where an on-site system fails an inspection, the remediation work required will be based on factors such as the nature of the problem, the extent of risk to public health or the environment, existing site size and the hydrological and geological conditions present. The implementation of the plan is a matter for the local authorities, subject to supervision by the EPA. The first plan required that a minimum of 1,000 inspections be carried out by local authorities during the 12-month period commencing in July 2013. The EPA subsequently informed local authorities that a further 500 inspections - on a pro-rata basis - should be carried out during the period July to December 2014. Earlier this week, the EPA published a review of the first national inspection plan. In addition to detailing the findings for the first year, the review includes a public consultation process, with the agency inviting submissions regarding its proposals for the development of a new inspection plan for the three years 2015 to 2017.

As noted in the comptroller and auditor general’s report, fines totalling €2.648 million were imposed on Ireland by the ECJ arising from this case. While such an outcome is, of course, to be regretted, I am satisfied that an appropriate system of regulation in this area is now in place, closing off an issue that proved to be quite challenging to address, both in terms of the legal issues arising and the associated vigorous public debate regarding the way forward. The fines were paid by the Department in 2013 and the European Commission formally closed the case on 30 May of that year.

The matters addressed in the chapters prepared by the Comptroller relate to some of the key areas of activity within the housing and water services programmes in recent years. I and my colleagues will be happy to respond to questions on these issues that emerge in the course of the committee’s work today.

I thank Mr. McCarthy. May we publish his statement?

Mr. John McCarthy

Yes.

I congratulate Mr. McCarthy on his appointment and I welcome him and his team. In the context of land, up to 30,000 social housing units could be built on the 755 hectares to which reference has been made. How many such units have been built?

Mr. John McCarthy

None of the sites that have been taken into the scheme have been developed at this point. The Housing Agency has been tasked with developing a strategy in respect of the future use of those sites. That work is at an advanced stage and I expect that the Department should be receiving the agency's report in the next couple of months. That is the position at one level in terms of charting a way forward with regard to those specific sites. Separately, the Housing Agency is engaging with all local authorities to consider the position in respect of the land bank outside the scheme and to update the relevant information base for us. We will seek to match both of these items of information with the implementation of the new social housing strategy, which envisages a significant ramping up in terms of social housing delivery in the next six years.

To whom is the Housing Agency accountable? Is it the Comptroller and Auditor General?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I carry out the audit in respect of it.

Does it come under the Department's remit?

Mr. John McCarthy

Yes.

There is a huge demand for social housing at present and there is a massive land bank available. Perhaps Mr. John McCarthy will explain from where that land came. In light of the number of transfers to the Housing Finance Agency - some people availed of this process but others did not - and if one considers the level of indebtedness among local authorities and their inability to pay, one must ask how those authorities could possibly afford to build social housing.

Mr. John McCarthy

On the question of from where the land bank initially came, ten or 11 years ago a major report was compiled by the National Economic and Social Council, NESC, in respect of housing. One of the recommendations in that report centred around the need for local authorities to engage in active land management strategies. In effect, NESC was encouraging local authorities to try to get ahead of the market in acquiring land for what, at that point, was a very fast-expanding social housing programme. On foot of that and with the Department's encouragement, local authorities sought to identify sites that would be needed to support that programme. The issue which arose and which we sought to address in 2010 with the introduction of the scheme was that the normal part of the chain relating to the expected period within which sites would be brought into development became fractured. This was because the scale of Exchequer funding available for social housing purposes, particularly in the context of the building programme, was reduced significantly. The scheme was a response to dealing with that situation. Ultimately, it dealt with it partly but it could not deal with it fully.

The future use of the sites which local authorities still own and in respect of which they are still servicing the associated costs will be fundamentally tied in to the delivery of the social housing strategy. As the Deputy is aware, the strategy was published in November. The Department is engaging with all local authorities with a view to finalising - in the next few weeks - targets for the delivery of social housing in 2015. That process will roll on all the way to 2020. There will have to be an ongoing engagement between the Department and individual local authorities in respect of their building programmes and the identification and use of particular sites, be they sites which are in the land aggregation scheme - we would see these as a priority - or other sites which authorities own and which may match specific local housing needs.

Would Mr. John McCarthy describe the land aggregation scheme as a mini-NAMA, particularly in the context of the site valuations realised by those who were very fortunate to avail of it? Quite a number of people were excluded from the terms of the scheme. Have more up-to-date valuations been made in respect of the lands involved, especially as many of them are not even zoned for residential development.

Mr. John McCarthy

In terms of its purpose, I would describe the scheme as an effort to address what was a serious financial issue for local authorities. This issue arose from a process which was well established and understood and through which land costs would be remunerated when projects were brought forward. The problem was that the funding for bringing forward projects was not contained in the quantum that was needed.

Given what has happened in the housing and land markets, obviously the value of these sites has been significantly reduced. The Comptroller and Auditor General's report highlights a number of sites in respect of which the actual value has dropped substantially. From the point of view of the Department and local authorities, the value of a site is tied in to its potential use for housing purposes. The intention would be that the vast bulk of the sites that have been accepted into the scheme will continue to be used for social housing purposes, albeit in the medium to long term rather than the short term.

The sites were not bought for the purposes of resale. If they had been, then certainly a change in valuation would have been a significant issue.

In his opening statement Mr. McCarthy referred to the condition that there would be no plans for the sites that were transferred to the land aggregation scheme. Is that not a most unusual statement in light of the fact that there has proved to be no development on any of the sites that have been transferred? Why was that stipulation put in? One would assume it would have been the direct opposite.

Mr. John McCarthy

I suppose in the first instance we were looking at sites that were coming to the maturity of their loan. If they had the prospect of being developed in the short to medium term we would have come to another arrangement through the social housing programme. Basically, we took the view that if they were likely to come into use in the short term then we could address the financial issue through the capital funding available for the development of the sites. However, the fact that this was not possible for so many sites was the reason behind looking to the medium to long term.

What was the plan? This stipulation was in place. Who had the responsibility for developing the land aggregated sites that are now transferred? Whose responsibility is that?

Mr. John McCarthy

The sites in question have been transferred to the Housing Agency. In the first instance the agency is responsible for preparing the strategy to which I referred. That is at an advanced stage and I expect to have it from the agency shortly. Then, through the implementation of the social housing strategy, it will be a question of trying to match those sites to social housing projects in areas where there is a social housing need. That is how the sites will be dealt with.

The Housing Finance Agency had guarantees given by the State in respect of the loan of €800 million. Ultimately, who signed the guarantee for that? Was it a representative of the Department?

Mr. John McCarthy

The loans are taken out by the local authorities. When taking out those loans they would have come to the Department looking for sanction. At that point, the sanction request would have been examined, but there would have been no commitment to the development of the sites until an actual project was brought forward. The loans remain with the local authorities. Anyway, in some respects the scheme was designed to recognise a moral obligation to the local authorities for the fact that they had purchased land with the intention of developing the sites with funding provided by the Department.

What happens in the case of a default? If a local authority cannot pay, is the Department next in line? Does it have a collateral note on this?

Mr. John McCarthy

No, the arrangement in place is that it is a matter for the local authorities that continue to have land loans to engage with the Housing Finance Agency. Between them they must make whatever arrangements can be made in terms of re-financing or interest-only arrangements continuing for a given period.

Some purchased land is not suitable for development. A total of 25 sites that originally cost €37 million were rejected by the Department for inclusion in the scheme. Were they not approved by the Department originally?

Mr. John McCarthy

In the first instance we would not have been approving the lands, as such. We would have looked at the borrowing proposals from the local authority and made an initial assessment to the effect that it was broadly suitable for social housing purposes. What has happened in the intervening period is that some parts of some sites may have been used for road widening or other purposes. They may have had impacts on their potential use for housing. It is not that they will not be usable for housing, they may be, only on a lesser scale. Moreover, there have been some changes in development plans and this, in turn, means that some sites may be a more long-term prospect rather than a short-term prospect now.

In the case of the 25 sites that were not accepted into the scheme I will outline the way we would have looked at it. If a project came forward on a given site at a given time, we would have asked whether we should approve it. For example, some of the sites adverted to in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report had issues in respect of an illegal activity or illegal development. Therefore, the local authority could not have come to us seeking to build a social housing project there. We would have expected the local authority to deal with these issues before such sites could be considered suitable for inclusion in the scheme. In many cases such issues can be dealt with and the sites may ultimately be usable for housing purposes. It is simply that we were not satisfied at that point because of the possibility of taking across sites with issues attaching to them which we would have been left to resolve.

This is very much an inherited difficulty. However, at the moment there is a great demand for social housing. There is a cap for buy-to-let arrangements and so on of up to €220,000. We all have strategies but what people want is immediate action. Strategies can take a long time in terms of planning, design and rezoning. Many of these lands have been taken out of the zoning area. Has any consideration been given to a private public partnership? Let us consider the position in Sligo, where €30 million went to the housing agency for lands. Apparently, they are worth only €2 million now. Would it not make economic sense in respect of the construction sector and job creation to get activity going in those sites as against an indefinite strategy that will ultimately see few houses being built?

Mr. John McCarthy

The implementation of the social housing strategy contains an element that will see units developed through PPP arrangements. The question is whether this is suitable for the sites that we are discussing now, in other words, those that have been transferred into the scheme. Many of them are relatively small in size and may not be suitable for a public private partnership in its truest and purest sense. However, there may be other ways in which other arrangements involving partnerships between a local authority and a private builder may come to pass. Indeed, in recent days as part of the implementation of the strategy Dublin City Council has initiated a process to seek expressions of interest in respect of the development of a number of sites. I envisage similar arrangements in other local authority areas.

Let us deal with the reality at the moment in respect of the Housing Finance Agency, its land bank and the attached indebtedness. Apparently, in 2007 the Department approved the purchase of €80 million worth of land at inflated prices. Then there was a severe downturn in the market. Only two sites purchased in 2007 have been included in the scheme. Is the debt attached to the land sustainable? Has there not been a realisation that there is serious indebtedness and that the land purchased is only worth a fraction of that price at the moment? Should there not be a mechanism, for example, a haircut on the debt and a re-engagement with the council to determine practical levels of debt or simply write off some of this money?

Mr. John McCarthy

Let us consider the sites with regard to the 2007 situation. It was late 2007 when the housing and land sector started to tail away. That year certainly saw the peak of activity. The reason we do not see those 2007 sites accepted into the scheme is because the associated loans would have only been taken out around that time and, therefore, they would not have matured in the seven-year period. The scheme was focused on loans that were maturing. Therefore, they would not have been eligible for acceptance into the scheme at that point.

Ultimately the objective in respect of all the lands, whether those accepted into the scheme or still in local authority ownership, is to explore fully their potential use for the purpose initially intended and to use them for the purposes of delivering on the social housing strategy.

My final question on this chapter relates to the Housing Finance Agency and the major indebtedness in respect of the non-performing local authorities at the moment. They have a plan to build social housing. Who is going to finance it?

Mr. John McCarthy

Deputy Perry has referred to non-performing loans. Is that correct?

They are paying interest-only and not repaying the principal.

There is a question over the zoning of the lands. They are quite valueless. Would due diligence not be done on the portfolio of lands owned by a local authority to select what would be suitable and to have a plan of action, not to categorise all the land as unsuitable? I would be amazed if the Department approved the acquisition of land if it was all unsuitable for development. I have no doubt that some of it must be suitable.

Mr. John McCarthy

There is a process going on at the moment between the Housing Agency and all local authorities, to build up that fresh and up-to-date picture and to map all the sites across the local authority system that are available for social housing. The key will be to match those sites to the development of projects. If a project can go forward on a site, that provides a vehicle for addressing any outstanding loan on the site and delivering on the social housing strategy at the same time.

I see one example here, that in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown the county council purchased a 3.2 hectare site for €8.8 million in 2001. The site was transferred into the scheme and the council was able to recoup €10.25 million. What has happened with that site? We are not talking about Leitrim or parts of Sligo; this is in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown. One would imagine a site of that nature, the best part of ten acres, would be a prime site for social housing, given the demand here in Dublin for affordable housing.

Mr. John McCarthy

While there has not been any actual development on any of the sites transferred into the scheme, there is certainly an intent to develop some of the sites and a number are under examination. The site the Deputy mentioned is a case in point. Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown had previously prepared a scheme and is now actively looking at seeking tenders for expressions of interest for developing a mixed housing scheme on that site. That, along with another site in Wexford and one in Limerick, is under consideration for early development for housing purposes, even ahead of the strategy the Housing Agency is pursuing. In addition, there are two other sites in Cork where a portion of the sites is likely to be used for education purposes, for building schools, which is an eminently suitable use of the sites in terms of building sustainable communities. There is some activity on some of the sites, which will yield product in the short to medium term, and in the medium to long term, the vehicle will be the land audit that is being done and matching that with the social housing strategy.

Who is the driving agent? There are questions at the moment about how NAMA deals with certain properties, but it is being aggressive in how it disposes of and develops properties. With the uptick in the economy and affordability, who is the driving force behind all these 775 hectares? There will have to be complete due diligence, a plan of action, and so on - all those strategies and reports - but realistically, how many houses were built? Were many houses built on the 775 hectares? There have been massive changes in the property markets even since the downturn. How many social houses have been built?

Mr. John McCarthy

If one looks back over the past four or five years, one gets a good sense of the extent to which the build programme has shrunk back because of the much more limited resource base we have been dealing with. It gives a sense of why the scheme was necessary, because sites could not be brought to development. In 2009, nearly 3,200 new local authority social housing units were built nationally.

How many over-----

Mr. John McCarthy

That was taking 2009 as a point in time. That contracted significantly over the following years. I do not have full 2014 data yet, but if one takes 2013, fewer than 300 were built. We were meeting social housing need through other mechanisms, but in terms of the build programme, which is what we are focusing on here because of the extent to which land is associated with the build programme, it gives a sense of the extent to which that normal sequencing, in terms of purchase of land through to build, became fractured.

Is there a clear plan of action to deal with this? The fact that people are looking for houses shows that the construction sector needs to build. There are sites. There has been total inaction. Is Mr. McCarthy confident that within 12 months there will be a plan of action for all these dormant sites?

Mr. John McCarthy

Within a matter of months, there will be a strategy from the Housing Agency in relation to the lands accepted into the land aggregation scheme, their use and the phasing of their use. There will also be a complete audit of all lands available for housing purposes throughout the country. The Housing Agency is co-ordinating that with all the local authorities. We will have that picture very clearly. On the other side, we have a comprehensive strategy for what is to be delivered in social housing over the next six years, and the intention is that they will be matched.

There is a lot of uncertainty in Kilkenny or Sligo or wherever the land is held with local authority members, with the CEOs of the county and the whole new local authority structure. Can Mr. McCarthy not give a clear plan of action for all the sites in every county in order that he can say what is going to happen in Sligo, what is the land bank there and the plan associated with it to give an indication of the plan of action? People say there are 259 sites. Many people would like to know exactly where they are and what plan of action there is in the short or long term. Is there a plan to come out with that type of vision?

Mr. John McCarthy

All the sites will certainly be mapped. A significant quantum of public funding has been committed in the social housing strategy to support its implementation over the next six years. I would nearly turn it on its head. I would be saying to the local authorities that we have a strategy, we all know we have this quantum of land, and I would ask them to show what they can bring forward. Local authorities have a better idea of where the need is in their areas. What we are doing as part of the target-setting process-----

Can the Department contact the local authorities on that note?

Mr. John McCarthy

There is a process of engagement going on with local authorities in the moment on that.

I have one question on Irish Water. The statutory responsibilities have been transferred to Irish Water. Is that correct?

Mr. John McCarthy

That is true.

What about the responsibilities for accountability?

Mr. John McCarthy

Irish Water is accountable to the Minister under a number of headings, not least in relation to the requirement to have its annual report and its accounts audited, to present them to the Minister and have them laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Irish Water is also accountable to the Oireachtas joint committee and I understand there are plans for Irish Water to come in to the committee in the coming weeks. Irish Water is accountable in a very important way for all its expenditure to the Commission for Energy Regulation.

Is Mr. McCarthy the Accounting Officer for Irish Water?

Mr. John McCarthy

I am the Accounting Officer for Exchequer funding that passes through the Vote or through the local government fund to Irish Water.

People are confused about statutory responsibility and accountability responsibility. Statutory responsibility is one job, and we know the statutory responsibility the agency has. However, if one takes the projection up to 2016, with the subvention and all the payments from the National Pensions Reserve Fund and the loans from the capital contributions, it is €1.3 billion, which is a great deal of money, so there is a clear difference. The Comptroller and Auditor General would have done the audit on Irish Water, but when it comes to the difficulties, is Mr. McCarthy the Accounting Officer until 2016 with Irish Water?

Mr. John McCarthy

I would be the Accounting Officer for expenditure that goes to Irish Water through the local government fund or through the Vote. Irish Water is outside the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General. That issue was raised again in the course of legislation just before Christmas. The policy position that was taken by the Minister was that those arrangements should remain as is, primarily taking account of the extent to which Irish Water is accountable to the Oireachtas joint committee, but fundamentally because all of Irish Water's expenditure is subject to approval by the Commission for Energy Regulation. Of course, from an environmental point of view, Irish Water is accountable to the Environmental Protection Agency.

The agency is allowed to borrow from other sources. Who signs the State guarantee? Is it the Department that is ultimately responsible for that?

Mr. John McCarthy

There is no State guarantee for Irish Water's borrowings. There are borrowing consents, where the Minister has to give consent to borrowing, but there is no State guarantee attaching to it, other than the National Pensions Reserve Fund. An element of that was drawn down before functions actually formally transferred over to Irish Water.

What is the Comptroller and Auditor General's opinion on the €1.3 billion as regards statutory responsibility and accountability responsibility?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

I am not the auditor of Irish Water, as the Secretary General has said. It is a policy matter and I cannot really comment on it. I would say that the arrangement regarding Irish Water is the standard arrangement that is in place for all other utilities and commercial State bodies such as the ESB, Bord Gáis and so on.

The Secretary General will be closely tracking how the €1.3 billion from his Department, from the Vote Estimate, is spent.

Mr. John McCarthy

The €1.3 billion is the capital investment. Is that the figure the Deputy is talking about?

The subvention over the number of years coming from his Department.

Mr. John McCarthy

That subvention is, in effect, a resource that is being provided by the public purse to subvent the cost of producing water and providing wastewater services. Those costs themselves will have been approved initially by the Commission for Energy Regulation.

On the point made by Deputy Perry, although that may be the case with all utilities as the Comptroller and Auditor General has said, there is an opinion, which I share, that Irish Water should come under the Committee of Public Accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General. I think it is a flaw in the legislation that it was allowed to pass without being put under the control of the Comptroller and Auditor General. We will learn to regret that in future, particularly when we are accounting for the vast sums of taxpayers' money that have gone into the system.

I welcome the witnesses. There is one small issue I want to pick up on from the opening statement. There are approximately 500,000 septic tanks in the country, as a ballpark figure. There are 450,000 registered, and that is about 90% of the total. How many people would have private water supplies through their own direct wells or private group water schemes? Would it be in the same range?

Mr. John McCarthy

It would be about 20% as an approximate figure. It would be 20% of households so about 350,000.

There would be about 300,000 houses on their own private water supply-----

Mr. John McCarthy

Or through group schemes.

Or through group schemes, and about 500,000 houses have septic tanks.

Mr. John McCarthy

Yes.

That is almost one third of the houses in Ireland on septic tanks. What is the remit of Irish Water in respect of those properties?

Mr. John McCarthy

In respect of septic tanks?

Mr. John McCarthy

Irish Water does not have a remit in respect of septic tanks.

Those 500,000 houses and the 350,000 houses that are on their own schemes or private sources, many of whom will be part of the 500,000-----

Mr. John McCarthy

The group water scheme people may have a relationship with Irish Water if the group is being provided with its water from the public supply. In effect the group would be a non-domestic customer of Irish Water and the people themselves would be customers of their own individual schemes.

Mr. McCarthy must know the answer to this because he has been responsible for the water services since they were invented. How many houses in the country would be on private wells or private schemes and not getting their source from the public water supply? I am trying to establish how many are outside the system. Mr. McCarthy is saying 20% are on private or individual wells. How many of those are not getting their supply from the-----

Ms Maria Graham

About 11% of the population are on group schemes and the bulk of those are on a private source.

Somebody said 20% initially.

Ms Maria Graham

The 20% are those not connected to the Irish Water system and within that 20%, I think 11% is the figure. I can get the data for the Deputy, it is reported in the-----

Ms Graham is saying that maybe about 9% have their own individual wells.

Ms Maria Graham

Yes.

It is just because in the opening statement it was said that since 1 January 2014, Irish Water has statutory responsibility for all aspects of water services planning, delivery and operation. The 500,000 people with septic tanks are clearly excluded, as are the 300,000 people. In case an impression was given by an earlier comment, we might want to correct that.

Ms Maria Graham

Just to clarify, there may be people who have a septic tank but are connected for water and vice versa.

I understand that. In the first instance, I want to deal with Irish Water. What is the value of the assets and, separately, the liabilities transferred to Irish Water? I would not expect the witnesses to have the information here but perhaps they could forward it when they have the schedule of that. It would have been coming from the local authorities under their remit to Irish Water and they would have to release all that on a county-by-county basis. What is the overall national figure? Perhaps Mr. McCarthy could send us the schedule of the assets transferred on a county-by-county basis? How were the assets valued? Was it original construction costs two, 20 or 40 years ago?

Mr. John McCarthy

The net book value of network assets in the audited financial statements for local authorities in 2012 came to about €11.25 billion. That would include some assets that will not be transferring to Irish Water in terms of flood relief and surface drainage. In broad terms, that is the quantum of the assets that will be coming out.

And the liabilities?

Mr. John McCarthy

In terms of liabilities, there is a combination of unfunded balances and loans that are owed either to commercial institutions or to the Housing Finance Agency. Those liabilities come to about €650 million altogether.

In other words, most of the assets have been funded at time of construction and there are very little liabilities. I get the picture. What is the value of the public private partnership contracts? I understand that a couple of years ago at this committee there was an estimate of about €1 billion worth of PPP liabilities, much of it being the wastewater treatment plants for contracts running into the future. What is the estimated value of the PPP contracts? We hear every day in the Dáil how much we saved in Ringsend, for example. What would be the value?

Mr. John McCarthy

The annual budget for those design-build-operate contracts is approximately €124 million.

Is it possible some of them have 20 years to run?

Mr. John McCarthy

They would be at various stages.

The liability could be up to €2 billion. I am not talking about just the annual payment.

Mr. John McCarthy

Yes, in terms of an operating contract requirement.

This is a figure nobody seems to be able to put their finger on.

Can the committee get details of the total liability and annual operating costs? I think he will have it on a contract-by-contract basis. He will be able to list Portlaoise wastewater, for example. This is a summation of 20, 30, 40 or 50 contracts.

Ms Maria Graham

What I have is the annual amount, which is about €124 million. Obviously, that is now the responsibility of Irish Water, in transferring the names of the DBOs under the statutory instrument. What I certainly do not have is how those liabilities were reflected in local authority accounts, but it is not a payment. It was one of the ongoing operational contracts that was transferred. It would be a matter for Irish Water to look at the duration of the DBOs.

I am not interested in Irish Water. I am interested in the Department, the local authorities and the water services before they were transferred. What were the liabilities? We talk about building motorways and we know there is an annual fee for that. We also know there is a 25-year contract and a figure for the total value of the contract over its duration. It runs to about €4 billion for roads and school building projects. I am seeking that figure concerning water services. I want to know the value of the liability, not the annual operating costs, which Ms Graham has given as €124 million. I want to know the value of the total liability in those PPP contracts that local authorities were liable for before they were transferred to Irish Water.

Ms Maria Graham

I will have to get that information for the Deputy. Because they were not our liabilities, they would not have been reflected in the appropriation account from our perspective.

The appropriation account?

Ms Maria Graham

They were not liabilities of the Department, so we will have to get that figure for the Deputy.

Yes, but the Department was funding it each year, through the local government fund, to local authorities to pay for the services, so surely Ms Graham knew.

Ms Maria Graham

We did. For the first two years of the DBOs we funded them, but not for the full duration. We will get the figure for the Deputy.

Can Ms Graham give us the net book value of the assets transferred, on a local authority by local authority basis?

Ms Maria Graham

The figure that the Secretary General gave was the consolidated one.

Will Ms Graham be able to give that to us on a local authority by local authority basis?

Ms Maria Graham

We can give the Deputy the gross amount per local authority. A process was under way in 2014 whereby the ones transferring were removed from the local authority accounts, so that will obviously be transparent within the local authority accounts. The first set of assets was transferred by statutory order this month, so the movement of assets will be reflected in the 2014 accounts. Each local authority will show the minus figure coming out.

This committee does not audit local authorities.

Ms Maria Graham

What we know in broad terms is the amount identified in the 2012 annual financial statements. However, the exercise that local authorities - or some of them - will have to do, in writing the assets out, is to identify surface water drainage, rather than combined sewers. It will therefore be something less than €11 billion. We can give the Deputy what is reflected at the moment.

The statutory instruments concerning transfers were signed 12 months ago.

Ms Maria Graham

No. The statutory instruments that were signed in 2014 related to the transfer of contracts. The movement of assets-----

Under the wastewater investment programme.

Ms Maria Graham

-----by ministerial order has only started this year.

Those are the ongoing contract works.

Ms Maria Graham

Ongoing contracts which would have included the DBOs.

That gave the impression to the public that there was a transfer of assets, but it only related to the transfer of contracts that were currently in train.

Ms Maria Graham

Yes.

Can I ask Deputy Fleming to clarify something?

You are asking about the PPP contracts to design, build and operate.

Yes. That is in addition to these assets.

Is Ms Graham saying that these have been transferred already?

Ms Maria Graham

All the contracts that local authorities would have had - operational, design and build, construction or engineering consultancy - were transferred.

To what value?

Ms Maria Graham

They were transferred and it became the responsibility of Irish Water to pay those contractors, so they are part of the ongoing operational costs.

What was that figure?

That is one of the figures. The Minister signed that statutory instrument.

What was that figure?

Ms Maria Graham

I do not have a figure for that.

The Minister signed that statutory instrument last year for the transfer.

Ms Maria Graham

He did.

Can Ms Graham give us the value of what was transferred under that statutory instrument on a local authority by local authority basis?

Ms Maria Graham

We can get that.

That is only part of the transfer.

I just want to clarify this. Deputy Fleming is asking Ms Graham for the figure for what has been transferred. Is Ms Graham saying she does not have that figure today, or is she saying that figure has to be assessed?

Ms Maria Graham

That figure was within Irish Water. It is part of the operational costs of local authorities that moved to Irish Water, and part of the capital programmes that moved to Irish Water. The statutory instrument included both things. They were live contracts which moved.

Would those include the figures? Where are the figures? That is what we want to know.

Mr. John McCarthy

The committed capital expenditure on capital projects - ongoing construction projects - that transferred to Irish Water came to about €424 million.

That is not the figure Deputy Fleming is looking for.

Mr. John McCarthy

That is the capital.

Were the PPPs transferred as part of that?

Mr. John McCarthy

I am just drawing a distinction between projects under construction and projects in operation. If one takes the projects either under construction or otherwise capitally committed, the value of those in total came to €424 million. What my colleague is saying concerns operational contracts. Because the liability of those operational contracts is in the local authority accounts, we will need to pull those together to get that figure for the committee.

So the Department is telling us that it does not know the value of PPP contracts that are being transferred from local authorities to Irish Water.

Ms Maria Graham

We know that the amount on an annual basis is €124 million. The data the Deputy asked me to get, but that I do not have, is if one projects that forward in terms of the life of those DBOs.

It is written into the PPP contracts at the beginning. There is no projection. There is a figure in the PPP contract.

Ms Maria Graham

There is, but we were not responsible for the operation of the DBO contracts. The data and due diligence on this were passed from local authorities directly to Irish Water.

It was facilitated by the statutory instrument signed by the Minister.

Ms Maria Graham

The power under the Act was to transfer the liabilities from one to the other, and to transfer the assets on an ongoing basis.

Will it take Ms Graham long to get that information on the PPPs?

Ms Maria Graham

I do not imagine it should.

That is the PPP end of it. They are the current operational contracts and matters at design stage that Ms Graham said were done. The bigger issue, however, is the approximately €11 billion of fixed assets that have been out there over a period of time, in respect of which there is only €650 million, with a possible liability. We need a breakdown of that €11 billion. In other words, it is possible that we have €11 billion, or thereabouts, of assets. It is also possible that we currently have live contracts of almost another half a billion euro. In addition, we will have a figure for the value of the PPPs, aside from annual operation costs, which could be anywhere from €1 billion to €2 billion. We do not know; we will wait and see. Therefore, the probable total transfer, when they are all added up, will be in the order of €12 billion or €13 billion approximately.

Ms Maria Graham

The assets are in the assets segment, so the outstanding contracts are part of the ongoing liability.

The figure that we are talking about here - that Ms Graham does not have because it was a transfer directly from the local authorities to Irish Water - can be obtained by a phone call to Irish Water.

Ms Maria Graham

Yes.

It is as simple as that. The figure will give us the breakdown in every single local authority area.

Contract by contract.

They must be. Therefore, that figure could be given to us early next week.

It should be there. Is that transfer process completed?

Ms Maria Graham

Yes, the transfer has been done.

You will not know that anyway.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

There are 20 projects of over €20 million, but there could be smaller ones as well.

Ms Maria Graham

We reported on an ongoing basis previously on the numbers that were over €20 million.

If we could have all of the documentation relevant to what the local authorities gave to Irish Water then we would be able to analyse the figures for ourselves. Could we have the information as soon as possible?

It would be good to get information on the Department's relationship with the setting up of Irish Water. How will it tally with what I understand will be the commercial rates bill that the Department will pick up, which would be payable by any commercial semi-state organisation to local authorities in respect of assets in their area? How has the Department estimated what might be payable? Was it based on a percentage of the value of the assets? If the figure is available on a county-by-county basis on the estimate of the rates, I would like to see it. Otherwise, the Department could supply it later.

Ms Maria Graham

As Deputy Fleming has indicated, the position has changed with the passage of the Water Services Act at the end of 2014. In 2014 the rates bill Irish Water had to pay was €48 million.

How was that worked out?

Ms Maria Graham

It was a charge from local authorities in the same way that they charge any other rate payer. It was based on assets that had been valued. There was a rateable valuation and a charge was made against them.

Local authorities did not charge the rate.

Ms Maria Graham

A number of authorities did charge. Other authorities did not because they were outside boundaries.

So the Department has that list.

Ms Maria Graham

We have that list. In a number of cases a revaluation process took place, and that brought the figure up to an estimated €59 million for 2015. That is the amount. We have a list by local authority, which we can provide to the committee.

It is an issue for another day, but I put it to Ms Graham that an annual rates bill of €60 million in respect of assets of €11 billion or €12 billion is very low. Any business man in the country would cut off his right arm to get such a low rates bill in respect of assets at that level of value. It would be very interesting to compare. A simple rule of thumb is that if one has a property worth €1 million, the annual rent could be 10% of that, which is €100,000. In the Valuation Office, rates valuations tend to be very close to approximately 25% of the annual commercial rent of the property. That is the statistic nationally. We will be interested to see how the €60 million relates to a valuation of €11 billion. We will analyse that because I would have thought that, based on assets of that value, the rates bill would be approximately €250 million. I am working on the basis of what the Valuation Office does.

Ms Maria Graham

There are two aspects to that. The €11 billion is based on the local government accounting code for how assets are reflected in the local authority account. Many of the assets would not have been revalued over time and they were inserted on an historical basis. Not all of them have a value for rateable valuation purposes. That explains why some local authorities were not charging themselves rates on their own assets. When the assets move to Irish Water, from a commercial point of view, a view will be taken on what the value of those rates will be under international financial reporting standards, IFRS, rules. That may mean that the assets are closer to the process described by Deputy Fleming.

I wish to stick to this broad topic of Irish Water for my first round of questions, but if I have time I will return to the issue of land aggregation. The Department gave a subvention to Irish Water of €439 million in 2014, €399 million this year - 2015 - and €479 million next year. In addition, there are direct payments from the Central Fund. We will add it all up. Between the Department’s subvention from 2014 to 2016, the loans provided by the National Pensions Reserve Fund, and the direct contribution from the Central Fund through the Department of Finance, the transfer to Irish Water will be €2.415 billion by the end of 2016, not to mention future subventions that seem to be built into the system.

Irish Water has a service level agreement with each local authority in respect of the services provided. When the HSE comes before the committee, if it gives an agency or private organisation a contract it has a service level agreement under section 38 or section 39. It could be paying an agency €50 million to provide a service. In view of the fact that the Department is providing €399 million this year and €479 million next year straight out of the Local Government Fund, could someone describe the service level agreement that has been drawn up between the Department and Irish Water in order that everyone knows what is being provided for the investment? I wish to hear about the service level agreement. I could not contemplate for a moment that the Department would hand over such an amount of money without a full service level agreement. If the HSE was paying an agency for a service, we would tackle it, and if Irish Water was handing money over without a service level agreement there would be hell to pay. I am starting at the top. Could Mr. McCarthy talk to me about the service level agreement between the Department and Irish Water in respect of the annual subvention? What does he expect the public to get for the subvention? Is there a service level agreement in place?

Mr. John McCarthy

There is no service level agreement in place, because the way that it is structured is that under the legislation the Commission for Energy Regulation, CER, is charged with approving all Irish Water expenditure. The CER comes to a determination in relation to what is the allowed revenue for Irish Water. A proportion of that comes from the non-domestic sector. Another proportion will come from domestic charges and, in effect, the balance is the subvention by the State for the provision of water services, the cost effectiveness of which has already been determined by the CER.

Is Mr. McCarthy saying that the Commission for Energy Regulation determines the amount of the Local Government Fund subvention by the Department? I thought Mr. McCarthy was the Accounting Officer for that money, not the CER.

Mr. John McCarthy

What the Commission for Energy Regulation determines is the overall allowed revenue. The non-domestic charging regime has just been carried over as it stands from local authorities and will be reviewed. The policy decisions taken by the Government determine the extent to which the balance is to be carried between user charges and public subvention.

It is not the energy regulator who has decided the level of the subvention; it is the Department.

Mr. John McCarthy

No; the CER decides the overall allowed revenue.

Deputy Seán Fleming

I am talking about the subvention that goes from the taxpayer to Irish Water. Who decides that? I will tell Mr. McCarthy who decides it. It is decided in one of the committee meetings in the annual Estimates that are currently ongoing. There is a figure in the Revised Estimates that the Department has published for 2015 for the subvention. That has to be voted on by the House in the annual Estimates process. That is who decides. I do not wish to cut across the select committee when it is discussing the Estimate, but as Accounting Officer, could Mr. McCarthy tell us how he arrived at the figure for the subvention to Irish Water to be included in the Department’s Estimates? I am shocked to hear the money is being handed over without even a sheet of paper to say what it should cover and that there is no service level agreement in place. If representatives of the HSE were before the committee and said they had handed over €399 million to service providers in the health and disability sector without a sheet of paper or a contract, we would excoriate them. Does Mr. McCarthy understand this simple view?

Mr. John McCarthy

Absolutely.

I am applying to the Department’s handing over of a subvention the same procedures that I would apply to the Department of Health.

Mr. John McCarthy

In providing a subvention to Irish Water we are, in effect, buying the value of the children's allowance and the value of the other arrangements that are put in place to make the user charges affordable. It takes account of the charging regime and the parameters that were set for that regime.

Now the Department will be able to break down that subvention in respect of the various social subventions that are included for the common good. For example, with school transport there is a cost but it is deemed a good social thing. I have no problem if that €399 million can be broken down in due course for the different types of things mentioned. Is it possible to work out how the €399 million this year was decided, along the lines the witness just mentioned?

Ms Maria Graham

Yes.

That is great.

I have a question. If you set out in 2014 to file the different allowances that are being granted and passed on by Irish Water, how did you factor into that figure the difference between what the Government set out to do and where it actually arrived because it changed the goalposts in the process? Is there not a greater buy-out now of all of those allowances that must be granted by Irish Water? The business model for Irish Water has changed substantially from a business model that was to collect a greater amount of water charges based on metering to a lesser amount based on a set amount. How do you establish these figures? Perhaps you would factor into that the question raised by Deputy Fleming and give us an overall response.

Mr. John McCarthy

The implications of the change announced late last year were twofold. One was the implication of the rates and taking out the €59 million that would otherwise have been part of Irish Water's operational costs. The second piece, €21 million, was the additional cost to be made up by subvention through the local government fund, as distinct from coming from user charges. The user charges figure went down from €292 million to €271 million and the subvention went up by a comparable amount.

That difference is reflected in the Estimates that were published on 15 October last year by the Minister on budget day and the Revised Estimates that are now before the committee. What is the difference in the subvention in the original Estimates versus the Revised Estimates to cover the change in policy? It is on my desk upstairs and I do not have it here.

Mr. John McCarthy

Initially, the figure would have been €437 million and it is now down to €399 million. In effect, that is the combination of the two figures I mentioned, the €59 million and €21 million.

Has the subvention gone down?

Mr. John McCarthy

It is due to the fact that the €59 million is coming out. The subvention does not have to factor in €59 million to give to Irish Water to give to local authorities. The €59 million comes out of Irish Water's budget and the money will be paid directly to the local authorities concerned, through the local government fund, to ensure they are not out of pocket.

Is the witness saying that the subvention to Irish Water is down by €59 million but the contribution to the local government fund is up by €59 million in the Revised Estimates?

Mr. John McCarthy

The contribution to Irish Water is down from €437 million to €399 million net. The difference between those two figures is accounted for by the fact that Irish Water no longer has to pay the €59 million rate so it does not require the subvention for it. The balance is the €21 million to make up for the changes.

Has the Department split it up under a different subhead?

Mr. John McCarthy

The €59 million?

Mr. John McCarthy

Yes, that will come out of a separate line in the local government fund.

It will be a different subhead. I do not wish to take up too much time, but can the witness understand the concern of members of the committee that a subvention is going to an organisation without a service level agreement in place? Would he consider having something in place to protect the taxpayer? This is now a commercial semi-State company. We would not hand over €399 million to An Post without knowing what we are getting for it.

Mr. John McCarthy

There are two matters in that regard. There will be a funding letter where the subvention and the components will be set out, and through NewERA, as part of the normal process of engagement with the commercial semi-State bodies, an expectations letter will be exchanged between the Minister and Ervia-Irish Water regarding what is expected to be delivered.

I will summarise the last point on Irish Water and I will come back to aggregation after Deputy McFadden has an opportunity to speak. In 2014, the subvention from the Department was €439 million and there is a direct contribution from the Department of Finance from the Central Fund of €185 million, which is a total of €624 million, and there were loans from the National Pensions Reserve Fund of €104 million. A total of €728 million was transferred from the taxpayer to Irish Water in 2014. A sum of €250 million had gone the previous year by way of a loan. The figure for this year is the subvention of €399 million and a stray contribution from the Central Fund of €222 million, which is a total of €621 million. Now the witness tells us we must add €59 million under a different subhead, which I did not have. There are also loans this year from the National Pensions Reserve Fund of €96 million. That is a total of €717 million, excluding the €59 million. Next year, the subvention already pencilled in is €479 million and there will be a contribution from the Central Fund of €184 million, which is a total of €663 million. There will be a loan of €56 million from the local government fund in 2016, bringing the total to €719 million. From 2013 to the end of 2016, the taxpayer will have put €2.5 billion into Irish Water.

What conversations did the Department have with EUROSTAT and the Central Statistics Office, CSO, the local agent of EUROSTAT, as to whether this could be treated as off-balance sheet given that the vast majority of money that will go to Irish Water in each of those years will be taxpayers' money rather than income generated from water? Has the witness had a discussion with them? Has the conservation grant been included in that figure?

Mr. John McCarthy

The conservation grant is not in that.

Is that going through the Department?

Mr. John McCarthy

Yes.

What is the estimated cost of the conservation grant and administering that grant for this year and next year? Has Mr. McCarthy had any discussions about connection fees that Irish Water will be charging, as opposed to what was charged in the past through local authorities? Finally, in the past people could go to the Ombudsman if they had a difficulty with a local authority. Will they still have a right to go to the Ombudsman if they have a difficulty with Irish Water, even though the local authority will still be their agent?

As to that €2.5 billion, it will be closer to €3 billion when we add the cost of the conservation grant and the cost of processing it. How does the Department tell us that the €3 billion is off-balance sheet? Also, what conversations did the Department have with EUROSTAT?

Mr. John McCarthy

I will take those in sequence. A number of the items the Deputy included are capital related expenditure for investment purposes and a number of them are loans that ultimately will have to be repaid. The critical thing is the market corporation test and the EUROSTAT point of view. We had no direct conversations with EUROSTAT; that is an independent process. The CSO is the relevant statutory body here. We provide any information the CSO requires to make its submission to EUROSTAT, and that process is ongoing.

What will be looked at is the extent to which Irish Water is considered to be a market corporation, and one of the critical tests in regard to that is its sources of revenue towards its running costs. The critical test in that regard is that the amount of funding for that purpose that comes from public sources cannot be greater than 50%. From that point of view, the projections are that that test will be satisfied on the basis of the subvention levels we have spoken about. It does not take into account the €130 million, which is the provision this year for the water conservation grant, because that is not an Irish Water-related-----

Would that exclude rates as well?

Mr. John McCarthy

The rates have been factored into the figures I spoke about. The €130 million is a water conservation grant that is to be available to all households. It is not a part of the Irish Water financing model, no more than the fuel allowance that goes to some households is a part of the electricity supply companies' financial models. It is a completely separate track.

In terms of the Ombudsman, the standard practice for utility companies is that they do not come within the Ombudsman's remit but the importance of ensuring that there are dispute determination mechanisms in place is understood. In the legislation passed late last year a dispute resolution mechanism will be put in place through the Commission for Energy Regulation, having gone through internal dispute resolution procedures initially with Irish Water, which should deal with most issues, but there needs to be a separate dispute resolution mechanism, and that is provided for in the legislation.

Chairman, I will leave the Department's contribution to Irish Water for now and I will come back in on the land aggregation module.

Okay. I want to clarify a point raised about the subvention. Regarding the figure for subventions over 2014, 2015 and 2016, as outlined, what mechanism is in place to audit how that is dealt with once it is paid over? Mr. McCarthy said the Department is buying the allowances, so to speak, that are being given by Irish Water. How does it quantify that? Does it get a list of household names, addresses and PPS numbers?

Mr. John McCarthy

It would be based on the initial work undertaken by the Commission for Energy Regulation in regard to the overall allowed expenditure.

No. For 2014 the Department is going to give Irish Water €439 million, and €399 million in 2015. On what is that based? How does it quantify it? Does it get an invoice for it, and does that invoice set out in detail how the Department arrived at the figure for the subvention?

Ms Maria Graham

Obviously, because the charging only begins from 1 January, on that basis the first set of invoices will be during 2015. It will be split across the different amounts with the number of households by the level of subvention. The Commission for Energy Regulation is looking at data from Irish Water on an ongoing basis and getting reports from it. It has been asked specifically by the Minister to look at consumption information, for example, like the child's allowance, to ensure that is at the appropriate level. There will be a combination of materials available to the Department to check those invoices as we get them.

That is for 2015.

Ms Maria Graham

Yes.

So Ms Graham's guesstimate for 2014 is €439 million.

Ms Maria Graham

Essentially, 2014 was equivalent to the cost that would have arisen in local authorities. That is where that calculation had come from because no domestic charging had yet been introduced.

The Department just took that figure and paid it to Irish Water.

Ms Maria Graham

We got information on the operational costs etc. On an ongoing basis we get considerable financial information in terms of cash flow forecasts and other elements that would be required across the range of measures we-----

That subvention dropped in 2015, and it goes back up again in 2016 from €399 million to €479 million. How did the Department estimate those figures?

Ms Maria Graham

As the Secretary General said, the first step in this is that the Energy Regulator looks over the period 2015 and 2016 and asks what is the allowed revenue for Irish Water, what should the costs be and what can they ask of customers. One of the customers is Government, which is buying water on behalf of the domestic sector. That is against the production costs of Irish Water, which is a reflection of its operational costs and also the capital programme. The subvention in the year reflects the fact that the capital programme is increasing over time.

The Department arrived at these figures of €399 million and €479 million. Is that right?

Ms Maria Graham

Yes.

On what were those figures based? Were they based on information from the regulator, the local authorities-----

Ms Maria Graham

They were based on the allowed revenue the Commission for Energy Regulation, CER, had published on 30 September and working back from that, taking out what the domestic and the non-domestic income would be, and the balance is what Government is purchasing.

Is this where the Department has the letter in place with them-----

Ms Maria Graham

Yes.

-----or does that relate to the capital?

Ms Maria Graham

The letter is being finalised at the moment. It will set out the headings and the reporting that is required of Irish Water.

For the subvention.

Ms Maria Graham

For the subvention.

And the expectations letter will set out further details.

Ms Maria Graham

That is on behalf of the shareholder so that is the overall expectation of the shareholder, which is the Minister and the Minister for Finance. Other commercial semi-States have got these letters. It sets out the general policy position and expectations.

What is the legal status of both the funding letter and the expectation letter? I think I want Ms Graham to be my bank manager. That is simple enough, is it not? What is the status of both of these letters?

Ms Maria Graham

Ultimately, the company is responsible to the shareholder. There are a number of elements of that that are reflected in statute. On the status of the funding level, that is the basis on which we are giving them the funding and on which we will be accounting for the funds that are given under the funding letter.

Mr. John McCarthy

It is really a part of the statutory process of accountability provided for in the legislation between the Minister and the-----

To refer to the loans, there is a loan of €250 million in 2013 and a loan of €50 million in 2014. What is the interest rate on the loan?

Mr. John McCarthy

The interest on that loan is being rolled up. I do not have the rate. I do have the rolled up amount somewhere and I can give that to the Chairman. The interest is being rolled up to the end of the current period of that loan, which is to the end of September.

And the Department will get that loan of €300 million paid back, with interest, at the end of-----

Mr. John McCarthy

Its current term is to the end of September. The issue of how that is refinanced is for Irish Water to deal with as part of its investment.

But the Department will get its money back, with interest, at the end of-----

Mr. John McCarthy

It has gone from the National Pensions Reserve Fund, NPRF, on commercial terms, so the NPRF is the other party in that loan.

The next question in regard to central funding is the capital contribution. The Department is making capital contributions on top of all of this in 2014, 2015 and 2016 of €185 million, €222 million and €184 million. Is money to be given back to the Department? Is that redeemable in some way?

Mr. John McCarthy

When we look to the longer term, what we are endeavouring to achieve with the water reform programme is to get Irish Water to a situation where it funds capital investment from sources other than public investment.

Obviously, this will be a transitional process and at present, Irish Water is at an advanced stage in preparing a business plan for the period to 2021 that will look at its investment profile, its financing profile and, most important, its operational efficiencies. These amounts in effect are for capital investment but one would expect that over time, these amounts should scale back as Irish Water increasingly sources finance from external parties.

But this is taxpayers' money.

Mr. John McCarthy

Yes.

The Secretary General is saying he has an expectation. Does the Department not have an end date to enable the taxpayers to believe there is something definite here? The taxpayer will be getting back the €300 million of the loan, plus interest, by the end of September. Can the Secretary General tell members whether the capital contribution is redeemable? Does the Department envisage paying that contribution beyond 2016?

Mr. John McCarthy

While the expectation regarding the capital contribution will be set out more clearly in the business plan when it is finalised shortly, the expectation is the capital contribution from public finances will continue for a period after 2016 but should be on a downward curve while the borrowing from private sources should be on an upward curve.

It should be. What is the €54 million convertible loan?

Mr. John McCarthy

The €54 million convertible loan is a loan at this stage but it could be converted into a capital contribution depending as the financing strategy evolves. However, as matters stand, it is a loan but it could convert to a capital contribution.

I have never seen as many flexible headings and amounts appear in accounts. The loan could be paid back by September, the other convertible loan could become something else and the €439 million and so on from the local government fund could continue beyond 2016. The Secretary General then made reference to when the business plan will be complete. What business plan?

Mr. John McCarthy

Irish Water currently is required to prepare a business plan for the period up to 2021.

Has the Department a business plan?

Mr. John McCarthy

In respect of?

In respect of the €2.4 billion of taxpayers' money that is going into Irish Water, does the Department have an overall business plan?

Mr. John McCarthy

At this point in time, we have a fully-assessed expenditure situation, as far as Irish Water is concerned, through the regulator. The regulator has looked at all the expenditure for Irish Water to the period to the end of 2016. In early 2016, it will move into a process to look at the next regulatory period, which will be for five years up to the end of 2020. In anticipation of that, Irish Water is preparing a business plan looking forward from both a capital-----

But does the Department have a business plan because all the money is coming from the Department? Let us be straight about this. A total of €2.5 billion is going from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government to Irish Water. Is it open-ended? Is there a blank cheque for Irish Water in respect of its set-up, because that is how I perceive it? A total of €11.25 billion worth of assets is transferring to Irish Water. I do not know who did the due diligence on that €11.25 billion of assets but I think the Secretary General is saying that each local authority did it. What does that entail? Is it a building, a pipe or pump or what is it? Who quantified it? The taxpayer funded this because in the years 2007 to 2013, €2.9 billion was spent in some way on these assets, while €241 million was spent in 2013 in respect of water services investment alone. All of the aforementioned €11.25 billion represents taxpayers' money and they bought these assets. If I am wrong, the Secretary General should tell me but this is how I perceive it. On top of that, there is a further €2.5 billion in respect of the funding from 2014 to 2016, inclusive. This comprises €13.75 billion worth of assets being transferred directly into a company. Thereafter, as I understand it, the corporate knowledge, which is worth something in commercial terms, also will be transferred into this company. How much did the Department factor into that built-up knowledge of all these water systems when the assets are transferred? Is it included in the €11.25 billion, is it simply not quantified at present or will it be quantified? When all those assets are transferred into this company, for the pleasure of doing all of that on behalf of the taxpayers, they will then be charged for the water. This is even before one gets to how Irish Water will refund the refurbishment or the renewal of all the assets it is getting. At the last discussion this committee had in public on this issue - I believe Ms Graham told us this but she should correct me if I am wrong - members were told the taxpayers also would be expected to contribute something towards the billions of euro it will take to bring all the assets, that is, the water infrastructure, pipes, services and so on, up to scratch. Is this a fact?

Mr. John McCarthy

The decisions that have been made by the Government at this stage cover the period to the end of 2016. They cover the operating subvention and the capital contributions. Other elements within the figures to which the Chairman has referred are financing mechanisms or borrowings by Irish Water that will be repaid. The reality is that we are moving from an historically significantly underfunded water services system and the first step in the transition from that underfunded system to one that can be sustainable and can provide the type of infrastructure we need in an efficient and customer-friendly way is for the period to 2016 and to have an independent assessment through the Commission for Energy Regulation, CER, to establish what it costs to actually run the system properly and what should be the appropriate level of capital investment. The CER has gone through both of those exercises and, if one likes, they are the parameters within which Irish Water will work for the period to the end of 2016. There will be a further regulatory period for five years from 2017 to 2021 and that will set the parameters, both operationally and capital expenditure-wise, for that period and the business plan Irish Water is preparing fits in as a preparatory step for this regulatory period.

The question I asked was whether the transfer across of knowledge from local authorities was considered.

Mr. John McCarthy

The transfer of knowledge from local authorities is being dealt with through the fact that this knowledge continues to be available to the system through the service level agreements Irish Water has with local authorities. Consequently, that knowledge continues to be there as part of the operating environment at a practical level.

The second question was on the possibility that the taxpayer may be obliged to contribute to the upgrading of all this infrastructure at some stage because that was said at the last Committee of Public Accounts hearing.

Mr. John McCarthy

To go back to what I was saying earlier, if one looks at the funding of future capital investment, we are seeing - for the period to 2016 and most likely for a number of years afterwards - continued public investment but on a declining basis with private investment coming in to substitute for it. Consequently, there will be a declining amount of public investment.

Will that be a declining amount from billions or will it be a declining amount from millions?

Mr. John McCarthy

There are two elements to it. One is the operating cost element and the other is the capital contribution.

No, I refer to the capital. This whole venture was put into place because it was to be off-balance sheet and the only way to raise money to put into the infrastructure and provision of water services.

Is it the Department's plan or does it envisage that this new company will raise all the money on the markets, or is it the Secretary General's expectation that the Department will have to continue to finance that capital input from taxpayers' money?

Mr. John McCarthy

The clear expectation is that we will get to the point where Irish Water will be able to finance-----

While getting to that point, does the Secretary General think that the Department will be funding some of this infrastructure out of taxpayers' money? I am asking a straight question, to which, as Vincent Browne would say, a "Yes" or "No" answer will do.

Mr. John McCarthy

I appreciate that, Chairman, but unfortunately I have to explain it to you in terms of the system that is in place. What has been determined at this stage, through the Commission for Energy Regulation assessment, is that it will be for the period to the end of 2016. All I can say definitely at this stage is that there is a capital contribution going in for 2015 and 2016, and thereafter it will be subject to another review by the Commission for Energy Regulation. I expect that as part of that process there will be a need for a continuing public investment for a period of time, declining while Irish Water's establishment is completed and it can raise money on the markets.

There will be an investment by the taxpayer.

Mr. John McCarthy

For a period.

For a period after 2016 in the upgrading of the infrastructure-----

Mr. John McCarthy

There will, but-----

-----but that has not been quantified yet.

Mr. John McCarthy

-----the crucial issue not to forget in this is that it will be a contribution towards what will be a much larger capital programme.

If the capital programme for it is, say, €7 billion, and I have heard that figure mentioned, the taxpayer might pay half of it, €3.5 billion, or something like that.

Mr. John McCarthy

On the overall capital programme for 2017 to 2022, we would be talking about somewhere between €5 billion and €6 billion. I would certainly not be envisaging that the public element of that would be a majority and it will decline over time.

I know. It will decline at the rate of 50% and will then decline into nothing.

Mr. John McCarthy

I am speaking in the realm of hypothesis-----

Is there not a business plan?

Mr. John McCarthy

There is a very clear business plan for the period to 2016 within what has been set by the regulator.

If the Secretary General was to go into a credit union or a bank and tell them he had a business plan up to 2016 and ask them for a loan, they would not give him one, yet we are giving away taxpayers' money to a huge entity that has so far gobbled up money in terms of consultants' reports and payments about which there are huge questions in terms of its efficiency. Today, as we look to 2016 and beyond, there is no definite certainty as to where we are going with this. All the talk about the CER, NewERA and everything else does not clarify the matter sufficiently enough for the taxpayer to understand where we are going or to what is being committed. I call Deputy McFadden.

I thank the Secretary General and his colleagues for coming in and giving of their time. To turn to the land purchase that was not suitable for development, we were told that it has been dealt with but I am not 100% clear about it. Some 25 sites that originally cost in or around €37 million were rejected by the Department for inclusion in the scheme because they were deemed to be unsuitable. It is stated that the reasons for that were that some of the lands were not zoned residential, some of them were landlocked etc. This beggars belief. Why did the Department approve the original purchase of these sites if it was so obvious that they were not suitable for inclusion? Why would anybody approve the purchase of a site that was not zoned for residential use or that was landlocked? That seems mad in my book.

If we move on to 2007, it was obvious to everybody that we were hitting into very hard times and the price of land and so on was dropping, yet the greatest expenditure on land was in 2007 when the Department approved the purchase of land for more than €80 million, despite the fact that the market had turned so dramatically. Why would the Department purchase so much land at an inflated rate during a severe downturn in the market? What has happened since to those sites? What has happened to the 25 sites that were not included in the scheme because they were not suitable or they were not rezoned?

Mr. John McCarthy

In regard to the 25 sites and land purchase generally, there is always a balance to be struck in terms of local authorities and when they choose to buy particular pieces of land. To get a site at a good price, they may take a five to ten-year time horizon and even though it may not be zoned now, they may see, given the way a particular location is developing, that it is likely to come in for zoning as part of a future development plan. They may choose to try to get in at a low price and be ahead of the market. That was part of the urgings that were being put in place.

In some instances after the market changed substantially in 2008, there would have been a review of development plans in some local authority areas where there would have been overzonings. The sites might have been zoned initially but have now been unzoned, but that does not mean they will not come back into potential for development again, primarily for housing purposes or perhaps for some other public purpose. In terms of these particular sites, they remain in the ownership of the local authorities and it will be up to the local authorities to make a determination as to the appropriate use for them. Some of the issues around access may well have arisen after sites were purchased because pieces of sites can be given away for a bit of road widening or other issues that may impact on the potential use of the site. There is a range of individual factors that can arise. I do not think it is a case that all of these sites will never be usable. It is an issue of resolving whatever are the particular problems associated with the sites and also probably an issue of timing in terms of when zonings may arise.

It is the responsibility of Mr. McCarthy's Department to make sure these issues are examined. For example, he said that some of the land may have been zoned at one time and is now dezoned. As far as I am aware, that would only have happened in 2014 when the directive came from the then Minister. At the time of the process of the county development plans in 2014, there was land dezoned but prior to that I do not believe that was the case.

Mr. John McCarthy

In some local authorities, as part of development plan review processes, there would have been instances of that.

Okay, but in a county development plan I presume an executive and a council would look at the land they have and it seems idiotic that one would landlock a piece of land one had such that one could not use it in a county development plan. Surely that is something the watchdog, the Department, should be doing, namely, watching that to stop that happening and rendering land like this unusable for the period. Spending €37 million on 25 sites is crazy when we think about the number of people looking for housing in different areas of the country and the amount of housing that could have been provided for that €37 million. I suggest the Department should be watching what is happening with the different councils' county development plans to ensure that such land is not left unusable in the short or long term.

Mr. John McCarthy

As part of a development plan process, local authorities, when it comes to examining the issue of dezoning, have to adopt a consistent approach, and if they are taking a particular view that a particular area needs to be dezoned, they cannot show different treatment to one of their own sites versus a private site.

I appreciate that.

Mr. John McCarthy

It can be a bit difficult to deal with in individual cases, but the ownership of these sites rests with the local authorities. The obligations associated with the sites rests with them also so there is an incentive to the local authorities to look at the sites as part of the land audit now taking place and establish if there are uses that can be made of those from which they can recoup their investment.

Has the Department a say over what the different local authorities do? Has it any watchdog powers regarding what they do with this land, what land they zone or what land they buy and subsequently cannot use?

Mr. John McCarthy

The initial decision either to buy land or not is a decision of the local authority. We have to give a borrowing consent to the local authority once it has been approved by the elected members in the first instance. We look at the borrowing versus the site and look to be happy it will not involve an exorbitant cost per housing because that is what we look down the road towards but, ultimately, if a local authority made a decision to give land away for another purpose, then it would have to take the financial consequences associated with that.

What is the national collection rate of commercial water charges by local authorities?

Mr. John McCarthy

In the year concerned, it was around 80%. The percentages sometimes quoted can be lower because the base figures used includes the accumulated arrears but-----

To which year is Mr. McCarthy referring?

Mr. John McCarthy

The year 2012 is the last for which audited figures are available. The 2013 ones are almost finalised.

Has Mr. McCarthy any idea about 2013? Is it the same or lower?

Mr. John McCarthy

I do not have data on it. The last of the audits are just finalised and, therefore, the Local Government Audit Service is pulling them all together.

Is it standard not to have figures for 2013 until mid-2015?:

Mr. John McCarthy

The end of February is when the LGAS pulls all the data together and presents what is called the director of audits activity report. He is on target to deliver that again by the end of February. All the city and county audits are completed at this stage, as are the borough councils. A few of the former town councils are still in progress but the intention is that they should all be wrapped up very shortly.

If that happened with some of the audits we are responsible for, we would be on the case. We pursue different Government agencies, third level institutions, VECs and so on and we have made a concerted effort to get updated audit reports from all these agencies. If they started reporting that they did not have the 2013 audits, as we bypass the first quarter of 2015, it would be unacceptable.

Mr. John McCarthy

The audit work for the city and county councils, with one exception due to some tragic circumstances, was completed in 2014, but the process of pulling it all together into the overall national picture, which we use from a management point of view in terms of looking at the overall financial state of the local government system, is completed by the following February.

Is it not worse that for 2015 the Department does not have the up-to-date management figures to oversee a budget of between €3 billion and €4 billion? That just is not good enough. How much treated water was lost? Has that figure reduced or increased in recent years?

Mr. John McCarthy

On the basis of the most recent analysis, it is the range of 45% to 49%.

That is worse than the figures we read previously. What is the cost of that loss?

Mr. John McCarthy

When one looks at the overall quantum of water, approximately 1.7 million litres of drinking water is treated on a daily basis-----

We are losing half of that.

Mr. John McCarthy

Yes, I would need to do a calculation to work out the associated cost but approximately half of that is lost. That is attributable to under investment in a significant way.

What is the cost per unit?

Mr. John McCarthy

I do not have a cost per unit in front of me but I can get that for the Chairman.

What is the production cost per unit? Is it per litre?

Ms Maria Graham

The energy regulator is redoing the water charges band, which would have the gross cost per water per unit for domestic-----

Historically, what figure would the Department have used for that? It was assessed previously either by the Comptroller and Auditor General or the Department.

Ms Maria Graham

The costs that would have been explicit would have been in the non-domestic sector and they varied considerably from local authority to local authority. One of the issues in looking at it is a considerable number of costs are fixed. The marginal cost of the additional production of water is different. One would not simply say that by fixing all the leaks, the cost would be reduced by half because some of the costs are fixed and they are a high proportion of the ongoing operational cost. However, there is a huge dividend to be found in fixing leaks both on the public side and customer leakages, which is providing to be significant as the meters go in.

Will Ms Graham forward to the committee her best figure for the loss of half of the 1.7 million litres at some stage?

Ms Maria Graham

Yes.

I have a number of questions about land for housing and so on. There was an issue with a site in County Leitrim. It was the subject of a report on "Prime Time". What was the result of that?

Mr. John McCarthy

The issue with that goes back to 2010. The particular site was included in the projects approved in principle under the voluntary housing programme and, subsequently, it was decided not to proceed with the project. In the meantime, the voluntary body concerned had purchased the land in good faith and, therefore, it was decided to recoup the cost of the land to the voluntary body concerned. I have asked our internal audit unit to look at how we handled that particular case and to come back with any recommendations on changes in our procedures that may be required because of the issues that were raised in respect of that. I expect I will get that report within the next three to four weeks.

What was the cost to the Department?

Mr. John McCarthy

It was just over €500,000.

Am I right that the site was to be made available for social housing?

Mr. John McCarthy

Correct.

Did the Department give €500,000 to the group that was developing it?

Mr. John McCarthy

Yes.

When giving the money to the group, did the Department conduct an analysis of the requirement for social housing in that area or the condition of the site? Does it normally examine those aspects of an application before it determines that it is worth giving a voluntary body such money? Was there a site visit?

Mr. John McCarthy

In the ordinary course of events, this situation would not arise and that is part of the reason I have asked the internal audit unit to review it and come back to me with a report.

Mr. John McCarthy

In regard to the approach that was taken, from the information available to me, I think the assessment was based on the fact that the site was purchased in good faith when the project had been included in the programme. Part of the reason for it not proceeding in the short term was that it emerged that there was an insufficient demand in the area. There is a requirement that the site be held for future social housing development, and as part of the social housing strategy and its implementation in Leitrim, we will be looking to see what scope there may be to develop the site as part of that programme.

Is it not a fact that the site was not suitable? Was that not one of the reasons?

Mr. John McCarthy

The primary reason was that the demand for social housing in the area would not have justified it. I understand the site itself is not the easiest site to deal with, but the primary reason was that there was a issue around the lack of social housing demand.

Let us be honest about it. Anybody looking at it would know it was an unsuitable site. Did the Department actually inspect the site?

Mr. John McCarthy

I cannot answer that question at the moment but I expect to have an answer in the report when it comes back from the internal audit.

The half a million euro-----

Mr. John McCarthy

As part of the process to get approval in principle, in the first instance, an assessment would have been made to see whether the site was suitable for the development of a project. That would have been undertaken before-----

Where is the half a million euro now? It is gone.

Mr. John McCarthy

It has been paid over to the voluntary body concerned.

What is the value of the site now?

Mr. John McCarthy

There is no up-to-date valuation of the site.

Why is that?

Mr. John McCarthy

Certainly a valuation can be found. Going back to the land aggregation scheme, the valuation or the public value of sites such as this site and sites in the land aggregation scheme are not so much their resale value but their value as an asset that is available for public housing.

What concerns me about this site is that it was purchased and supported by the Department and it took a television programme to highlight it. Now we are asking the internal auditors to look at it. Again, to my mind, it shows a weakness within the Department and within that audit unit that these things happen. I that the Department does not get everything right - none of us does - but half a million euro of taxpayers' money is a substantial amount. I would love to see the report that is being carried out on the issue with up-to-date valuations and so on.

Mr. John McCarthy

I share the Chairman's concern about any issue that may arise with regard to the use of public money. As he said, none of us can say that we will always get everything right. As this would have been an unusual type of project, that is part of the reason I have asked for this report to be done.

Who owns the site?

Mr. John McCarthy

The voluntary body concerned is the Sue Ryder Foundation.

Does it still own the site?

Mr. John McCarthy

I understand it does.

So the Secretary General gave money to the Sue Ryder Foundation and it purchased the site. Is that the way it works?

Mr. John McCarthy

It had actually purchased the site because it anticipated that the project would proceed. It had got to the approved in principle stage, and when it was decided that the project would not proceed and the cost was not recovered as part of a project, that was where the issue arose. The value of the site was paid over to the foundation, but with a guarantee on the future use of the site for social housing purposes.

With regard to the audit of what went on, can the witnesses tell us - or can we ask somebody from an engineering perspective and a planning perspective - if the site is suitable for housing?

Mr. John McCarthy

Yes, absolutely.

The type of housing that was being provided there was away from any centre. From what I saw on the television programme, one would need climbing equipment to get into it. What about the voluntary housing project at Moore Abbey, Monasterevin?

Mr. John McCarthy

It is not a project with which I am familiar offhand, but if-----

Has the Department had any application from an organisation in regard to the Moore Abbey voluntary housing association?

Mr. John McCarthy

I cannot say offhand. There would be a lot of interaction between local authorities and individual bodies that might be going on under the surface. If the Chairman can give me the details I will certainly check it out.

The name of the project is Moore Abbey, Monasterevin.

Mr. John McCarthy

In Dublin?

I asked a parliamentary question on it recently. I will get the reference for Mr. McCarthy.

The other issue in which I am interested is the transfer of funding for voluntary housing associations or bodies. What happens when NAMA decides it has an interest in terms of filling the gap? In Kilkenny we have 3,500 people on the housing list and 41 units are to be become available, and NAMA has those units. Does NAMA negotiate with the Department and does the Department give the money to a housing agency, or does the housing agency negotiate with NAMA and then it goes to the Department for the funding?

Mr. John McCarthy

With the permission of the Chairman, I might ask my colleague, Ms Lisa Clifford, to respond in regard to the detail of the process, but before she does I want to say that an issue that can arise in regard to NAMA properties is that they are associated with loans within the NAMA remit but they may have receivership going on as well. Of the overall number of units that would initially have been identified by NAMA as possibly being suitable for social housing, about a fifth of those were ultimately sold or let by receivers in private transactions. That can arise as a problem in some cases, but perhaps Ms Lisa Clifford will outline the process in terms of NAMA engagement.

Ms Lisa Clifford

In relation to NAMA, we have a steering group in place between NAMA, the housing agency and the Department which goes through the portfolio of NAMA properties as they arise. As the Secretary General said, NAMA own the loans on these properties, as opposed to the properties themselves, so they often have to talk to receivers who may be in place or developers who still own those properties. As the properties are identified, the first step is that the housing agency contacts the local authorities in question to see whether there is a demand for the properties. If so, it enters into the process of identifying, where appropriate, if there is a purchase under the leasing scheme and an approved housing body that might be interested or able to purchase those units. There are a number of different ways that those units can come out of NAMA: the local authority, if it has funding available, might be able to purchase them itself, an approved housing body might be able to purchase them through the capital assistance scheme, or they can come through the leasing scheme, going through the NAMA special purpose vehicle, SPV, under which the approved housing body leases them from NAMA's SPV or purchases them using the capital advance leasing facility. There are a number of different strands as to how it can come through. The steering group identifies what is the best way of doing those. If a voluntary body has already expressed interest in those properties, outside of the NAMA process, we tend to go to it first. If not, there is an objective selection process whereby we would have a panel of approved housing bodies that would have expressed interest in certain counties, and if an approved housing body is not already involved in that project, the project would be sent out to the panel of approved housing bodies for them to come back to express interest in it.

Is it possible to get a note on that issue with a local spin to it?

Ms Lisa Clifford

In relation to Kilkenny specifically?

The Weir-----

Ms Lisa Clifford

The Weir View.

As soon as possible, please.

I have a few quick questions. In regard to the sites, I did not see in the documentation the extent of the land bank of Dublin City Council. Does the Secretary General have any figures on that?

Mr. John McCarthy

I do not have up-to-date figures for Dublin City Council at this stage, but a process is under way at present whereby the Housing Agency is co-ordinating with all local authorities to build that picture nationally. It has a number of significant sites. The Deputy may, in the past few days, have seen an advertisement seeking expressions of interest with a view to the development of three sites for mixed housing purposes. Once that audit process that is being co-ordinated by the Housing Agency is complete, we will publish that information, which will give us a clear and up-to-date picture.

Will the putting together of that broad picture include the sites that NAMA has available to it?

Mr. John McCarthy

That particular exercise will focus only on the lands that the local authorities own, but we have other data sets through which we can map, and there may be other sites in public ownership, either on the State's property register through the OPW or with NAMA. We can explore any opportunities for site assembly and delivery of greater projects.

I spoke earlier about the possibility of public private partnerships. We have had a sad record of public private partnerships in Dublin City Council, including a 16-acre site in O'Devaney Gardens, a site in Dominick Street, a site in Seán MacDermott Street and Croke Villas. The entire major housing development envisaged over the past ten years was to done through public private partnerships, but nothing was delivered. I do not expect we will be going down that road again, will we?

Mr. John McCarthy

If we look back to Herberton, the former Fatima Mansions, it was probably the only one-----

That is the only one.

Mr. John McCarthy

-----that got to fruition. The others, including O'Devaney Gardens, were at a point of possibly moving on when the world around us changed dramatically in 2008.

Perhaps too many of them were put in the one basket.

Mr. John McCarthy

I was going to come to that point, which the Deputy has made well. That form of public private partnership was fundamentally based on the private partner getting a return from the market housing element, and that is ultimately why they failed - because the market corrected so massively at that point in time. There is provision in the social housing strategy for a public private partnership element in the delivery, but the crucial element is that we need to explore carefully the different forms that public private partnerships can take because, as the Deputy said, that experience led to a number of projects all crashing at the same time, because they were all dependent on a particular type of approach. We may need to look at aspects from the most basic of arrangements all the way through to more fully fledged public private partnerships under a design-build-finance-operate model and possible damage in that respect.

The fallout from this is that so much engagement was made by the community on the public side but the entire failure came from the private side. The community was engaged with the local authority in planning, meetings and so on for years upon years. All of that was delivered, but nothing was delivered by the private sector. A closer scrutiny of any public private partnership would be very welcome.

NAMA will be investing at least €1 billion in the Docklands strategic development zone, SDZ. We saw what happened in Canary Wharf in London, which is quite dead after 5 p.m. when the offices close. Is there a social regeneration element to this scheme that would ensure that the local community is not neglected and that the massive investment in office blocks and residential development that is envisaged will be brought to bear on the development? NAMA will be investing about €1 billion, and it is expected that another €1 billion will be invested in it. We are talking about the last chance of regeneration for that area.

Mr. John McCarthy

A critical element of the vitality of an area such as this is the extent to which it is planned to be a mixed development area rather than, as the Deputy said, solely an office development area.

NAMA has an economic remit-----

Mr. John McCarthy

Absolutely.

-----to get back the money that was entrusted to it.

Mr. John McCarthy

I do not have a figure for the number of residential units in the Docklands STZ-----

Mr. John McCarthy

-----but it is substantial. It is a critical part of maintaining life in the area through the day and evening rather than only during office hours, after which people exit the area. Ultimately, the development in the STZ is determined by the STZ planning scheme, and certainly that is framed on the basis of a mixed development with a very large quantum of residential development, as the Deputy outlined. My understanding is that there is already quite an amount of pre-planning engagement with Dublin City Council with a view to bringing forward development proposals of a mixed variety that will see something beyond purely office and commercial development in line with what the planning scheme sets out to achieve.

It is much broader in terms of education, heritage and so on in that area.

Mr. John McCarthy

Indeed.

To what degree is the Department amenable to input that could be included to expand NAMA's rather strict remit of not so much social regeneration but economic regeneration? The NAMA legislation is quite restrictive.

Mr. John McCarthy

Yes. NAMA has a particular mandate and remit in accordance with its legislation. On the broader community and socioeconomic development factors in the Docklands, a reasonable amount of progress has been made in those areas through initiatives made by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority, which is now being wound up.

The Docklands authority did not deliver on promises it made.

Mr. John McCarthy

Indeed.

This will be the last opportunity to deliver in terms of having a vibrant community in that area.

Mr. John McCarthy

One of the matters that the Minister and the Government will have to decide in the context of approving the wind-up legislation, which I expect will happen in the next four to six weeks, will be on issues around the final financial dividend that will emerge from that project and the scope-----

The social regeneration element.

Mr. John McCarthy

It is that piece in particular that I mean.

So the Secretary General is amenable to that.

Mr. John McCarthy

There is provision under the wind-up legislation for a measure - I cannot remember the title given to it, but it is a vehicle - through which the local community and other interests can be involved in the future regeneration of the area. The issue that the Minister will need to consider is how that can be supported financially.

We have a particular problem currently in the voluntary housing sector, of which I am sure the Secretary General and the Minister are very well aware. I refer to the issue of Fr. Scully House, which is a voluntary housing development of 99 units. The Department invested €17 million in its construction and it has been lying idle effectively since July of last year at a time when we have a housing crisis. How will the Department protect that investment by our taxpayers? Can we have a situation in the voluntary housing sector as we move forward whereby it can do pretty much do what it likes? If it is not happy with the rent, can it prevent people from being housed? It is a perverse situation that applies. Do we need to ensure that there is Government appointee or departmental appointees on the board of the voluntary housing sector?

Mr. John McCarthy

I agree 100% with the Deputy about the undesirable situation regarding a significant redevelopment that was funded.

It is located almost on the corner of Mountjoy Square and is slap bang in the middle of the city. There are 99 units that need to be put to good housing use.

They are needed more than ever before.

Mr. John McCarthy

The Minister is seized of this issue. In the House this week the Minister of State, Deputy Coffey, indicated that if this matter is not resolved quickly all of the available options will be taken, or certainly will be explored, in order to bring it to a conclusion, because we cannot stand over a situation with that quantum of money, having provided a valuable and badly needed asset and it not being utilised. There is absolute commitment. There are ongoing negotiations. There was due to be a further meeting yesterday between the parties to try to resolve it but I have not got an update on the matter. It is something we are keeping a very close eye on.

There is a more general issue that the Deputy raised in regard to the voluntary housing sector. We need to put in place a statutory system for regulation of the approved housing body sector. There is a commitment in the Government's legislation programme to do that. Under the social housing strategy it is also committed to that, by quarter 2 of 2016, we will establish a statutorily based regulator in order to provided that more robust arrangement for the approved housing body sector.

Can the Department bring that forward?

Mr. John McCarthy

We have a very extensive legislative programme of seven Bills, including the docklands one that we mentioned earlier, that need to be published between now and June. It is very much on our radar and if there is anything we can do to bring it forward we certainly will.

Can the Department, offhand, appoint directors to the board of a voluntary housing agency?

Mr. John McCarthy

Technically there is probably no reason not to. From a policy and procedural point of view, I am not sure I would be entirely happy with doing so. There is a triangular relationship between the Department, the local authority and the voluntary body. We have had situations in the past with departmental people on boards of certain kinds. There can be fuzziness in terms of relationships, reports and responsibilities. Purely, as an initial reaction, my sense would be to have a statutory regulation system that would ensure we have a quality sector without, if we can avoid it, getting into the space of having multiple responsibilities.

I thank the Secretary General.

The Secretary General said to the Chairman, when we were finishing up on the last occasion, that the local government fund subvention was €439 million last year, €399 million this year and €479 million in 2016. The Secretary General was unable to go beyond that point and said there would be a new plan in place. As he knows well, his Department and every Department published their expenditure ceilings for 2015 to 2017 on budget day, 15 October. Expenditure ceilings were announced in that document for every Department, including the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. It is not possible that the expenditure ceiling figure for 2017 was put into the document without some work having been done in each of the Departments to make up the figure. It is clear there is an estimate in the Department and it has been published as the 2017 figure. The Secretary General felt we did not have an estimate and said we have figures up to 2017. Those figures for 2017 must exist because if they were not then the process was a work of fiction. I am not saying that it was.

The Secretary General gave the impression he had a plan in place. That led the Chairman to respond by saying no organisation could go anywhere with a plan that lasts until the end of next year when one is talking about hundreds of millions of euro. It struck me during that conversation that the Department has a plan in place for beyond that point but the Secretary General did not allude to it. To help us at this stage even though it is a bit late, please tell us what figure he has pencilled in

- I know it can change - for the subvention to Irish Water in 2017. It is in the expenditure ceilings and was published by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform on budget day in the middle of last October.

Mr. John McCarthy

The expenditure ceilings that the Deputy has referred to are the voted expenditure ceilings.

I asked about the local government fund.

Mr. John McCarthy

The local government fund is outside the Vote. I do not think the local government fund or the Irish Water element of that would be reflected in those expenditure ceilings.

We have in clear determinations for Irish Water from CER for the period to the end of 2016. We have some indications from CER on how it will take forward the following five-year period in terms of the further efficiencies it will expect Irish Water to deliver. In order to prepare for that we have a business planning process going on in Irish Water, which should be finalised shortly, which will take the profile out to 2021. As part of that exercise that will involve issues around investment and the sourcing of investment. It will involve issues around, based on certain assumptions, the ongoing subvention that will have to be provided. That is why I mentioned that the business plan is an important piece for charting out the period beyond 2016, even ahead of CER doing the statutory assessment of expenditure process.

I need the Comptroller and Auditor General's help with this issue. The Secretary General said the local government fund is not part of the voted expenditure. I think that is what he said. Does it come from the Central Fund?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

No. A lot of the money in the local government fund comes from motor tax.

Are we using the money earned from motor tax to pay for Irish Water?

That is what we have been doing.

Sorry, my mistake.

It is not the Deputy's mistake. He is correct.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The Accounting Officer can give more detail on the matter.

The Chairman can ask about the fact that motor tax money is now going to go to Irish Water.

The Deputy can hear it from the horse's mouth - from the Accounting Officer.

Mr. John McCarthy

The local government fund is a construct that started in 1999 at a time when motor tax was paid into the fund. It was largely going to be used for the roads programme which was part of our Department at that stage, going back however many years ago that was. It has since evolved into a broader fund into which both motor tax and local property tax proceeds now go. The local property tax proceeds are recycled back to local authorities and the motor tax proceeds dimension is used to fund a range of things, including the subvention to Irish Water and including a payment back to the Exchequer.

Even though I am around here a while I had missed that bit in the past year and a half. I have never heard anyone say it to me in the street that motor tax would go into Irish Water. The Comptroller and Auditor General had clarified the matter.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

That is my mistake. I had forgotten that local property tax also goes into the local government fund.

Deputy Fleming is a bit stunned about the following. In our constituency clinics, and generally through county council meetings, we would receive criticism about the fact that so much water tax is paid in a particular county and collected. Now a lot of motor tax, instead of fixing the many problems that are on our county roads and so on, is going into the mix, along with property tax.

Mr. John McCarthy

When one looks back historically, a significant proportion of the motor tax proceeds that went into the local government fund would have funded the general purpose grant allocations to local authorities, a big chunk of which would have been used to fund water services stuff. It is an historical construct that, perhaps, has outlived its time.

The many thousands of people who walked the streets of Ireland to protest against water charges will not be impressed with the Secretary General's explanation, even though I clearly understand.

I am a bit surprised. It is a funny outcome.

It is not included in the Vote or the local government fund. The committee engaged in quite an extensive debate on the ceilings relating to voted expenditure for the 2015 to 2017 period. Will Mr. Heffernan indicate what else is not included in the context of those expenditure ceilings? We know the position with regard to the Central Fund but what other funds are not included under voted expenditure?

Mr. Tom Heffernan

The expenditure ceilings basically relate to planned expenditure on voted supply services. Within the ceilings there will be a number of different expenditures. Obviously, the composition of that expenditure may change over the period of the medium term. The ceilings themselves are also subject to review at budget time in light of the performance of the economy and the public finances.

My question relates to the expenditure ceilings that were published. I have been informed that the local government fund is not contemplated within those ceilings. What other major funds via which the State expends money are not included within the expenditure ceilings? Most people would have presumed that voted expenditure would include the total amounts expended by Departments. I understand that the Central Fund, which is used to deal with interest on the national debt and make payments to the EU, falls outside the voted expenditure process. Is it Mr. Heffernan's understanding that the local government fund was not part of the expenditure ceilings that were published?

Mr. Tom Heffernan

The local government fund is not part of the voted supply services.

What other funds are not included?

Mr. Tom Heffernan

The moneys paid into the fund are the local property tax and motor tax. The moneys expended out of it are used to pay for road services, under the transport Vote, and they also pay for services within local government, including the subvention to Irish Water.

Mr. Heffernan has explained the position with regard to the local government fund. What other funds to which members of the public contribute by way of taxation are not included in the expenditure ceiling report that people had understood to deal with all Government expenditure with the exception of that relating to the Central Fund?

Mr. Tom Heffernan

There would be a number of other funds attaching to Votes but I am not familiar with the details relating to them. One example is the Social Insurance Fund, which is separate. Details of the funds would be included in the published Estimates volume.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The national training fund and the Vote relating to it are part of the ceiling relating to the Department of Education and Skills.

So it did come under the expenditure ceiling?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

It did come under the ceiling.

Is it possible for a report to be sent to the committee on the funds involved and the number of millions or billions per annum which were not included under the expenditure ceilings?

Mr. Tom Heffernan

We can certainly explain the relationship of the funds to the ceiling.

Yes, the different funds. We are inquiring about one or two funds at this meeting but there could be more which are not included.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

This was a point I raised in respect of the Department of Education and Skills and the national training fund last year in that there were movements between the subheads and the fund. I was struck by the possibility that the expenditure limit that is set on the Estimate might be circumvented or charges could alternatively be charged to a fund. What I would like to see is a clear distinction between the charges that are appropriate to the Vote and those that are appropriate to the fund. I would also like it to be the case that things would not be moved from one year to the next.

Earlier when I asked-----

I apologise for intervening but that local government fund comprises motor tax payments-----

Mr. John McCarthy

And local property tax receipts.

Motor tax payments amount to €1 billion. Is that correct?

Mr. John McCarthy

Just over €1 billion.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

That was in 2013.

So motor tax payments amounting to just over €1 billion were paid into the local government fund in 2013. Also in 2013, some €23 million was also paid into the fund in respect of household charge arrears.

Mr. John McCarthy

Yes.

I presume the position was probably similar in 2014, with perhaps even more money being paid into the account as a result of the payment from the Minister for Finance.

Mr. John McCarthy

In 2014 the amount relating to household charge arrears would have washed through and the local property tax would have kicked in.

How much was paid into the fund from local property tax?

Mr. John McCarthy

The figure in the initial Estimate was approximately-----

Was it €318 million?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

That amount related to 2013 and it was paid directly into the Central Fund of the Exchequer. From 2014 on, the Minister for Finance will be paying an amount equivalent to that collected in local property tax into the local government fund.

How much did he pay into the fund in 2014?

Mr. John McCarthy

The amount in 2014 was €476 million.

So the total amount paid into the local government fund last year was €1.476 billion. Out of that comes the €439 million for the subvention. Is that correct?

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Yes.

That money in the fund comprises that collected through motor tax and the local property tax.

Mr. John McCarthy

Yes. The local property tax in 2015 will be sort of recycled independently to local authorities individually. So the other items are, in effect, funded by motor tax receipts proceeds.

The note before me states that the resources of the local government fund are used mainly to provide local authorities with funding for their day-to-day activities and for the upkeep of regional and local roads.

Mr. John McCarthy

That would have been the case in 2013.

So the shift in 2014 involved the taking of €439 million to pay the subvention to Irish Water, which is incredible.

Am I correct in stating that approximately €1.5 billion was paid into the local government fund last year and that some €1 billion - two thirds - of that came from motor tax?

Mr. John McCarthy

Approximately €1.1 billion.

So it is fair to say that two thirds of the €439 million paid to Irish Water came from motor tax receipts, something which I originally did not realise.

Mr. John McCarthy

Which would formerly have been part of the general purpose grant paid to local authorities as part of their funding of-----

I am sure Mr. John McCarthy can understand how people are going to feel about this. There is a valid case to be made with regard to the fact that we already pay for water services through taxation. Now, we are going to have to pay for them by means of paying water rates and Mr. John McCarthy has just stated that we will also be paying for them by means of motor tax.

In the meantime, county councils are being starved of the money necessary to fund works to fill potholes on rural roads.

So three sources of funding are now being used to pay for Irish Water: money from the Central Fund, which is obtained by means of taxation, is used; two thirds of the €439 million subvention - approximately €250 million - is being paid out of motor tax receipts; and a smaller amount is going to be paid by people via water rates. People already have a problem with paying on the double - via taxation and water rates - for water services. If they discover that they are paying on the treble as a result of the fact that their motor tax is also going to be used to pay for Irish Water, they will-----

Mr. John McCarthy

The operating subvention to Irish Water comes out of taxation. If the Deputy will pardon the pun, the vehicle used for this is the local government fund. So the-----

Would it not be better to use money from the Department's Vote for this purpose, as opposed taking it from the motor tax paid into the local government fund?

Does Mr. McCarthy see the situation we are in now? People will be surprised to know that, on top of everything else, up to €300 million of their motor tax has gone to Irish Water.

Mr. John McCarthy

There is one amount coming out of taxation. It is matched in an account here. It comes out of the account into which motor tax goes. If motor tax was going to the Exchequer, the amount would come out as a payment through the Vote at that stage. However, it is still one payment. Then there are user charges, be it through the domestic and non-domestic sectors. Those are the other two components of the overall revenue.

It is getting more bizarre as time goes on. That is all I can say. I have two other quick questions. Mr. McCarthy stated earlier that the whole purpose of this was to get it off balance sheet and that the procedure dealing with EUROSTAT and the CSO was a separate procedure. What does this mean? Who spoke to the CSO on behalf of Mr. McCarthy's Department, which was outsourcing Irish Water? Did Mr. McCarthy's Department do it? Did the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform do it? Did the CSO come into it? Surely Mr. McCarthy's Department has not done it unilaterally without discussions? Tell us what happened and what were the discussions on satisfying the CSO and EUROSTAT. It surely was not done on the blind.

Mr. John McCarthy

No. Absolutely not. I did not to intend to say it - it does not matter whether I did or not - but the market corporation test and CSO-EUROSTAT are not separate processes.

It is the one process.

Mr. John McCarthy

The CSO and EUROSTAT determine the MCT issue. The CSO is the national accounting body for Ireland and has to make a range of returns which feed into the national accounts and various other things such as the excessive deficit procedure etc. The way the EUROSTAT process works is that the CSO needs to have enough information to allow it to make a submission to EUROSTAT. Currently, we are engaging with the CSO and providing it with the information it needs in order that it can make its submission and EUROSTAT will make its determination.

It cannot do that until the value of the assets is sorted out.

Mr. John McCarthy

Ms Graham is leading this issue, but the CSO's core issue, from the market corporation test point of view, is around the approved costs from the CER and the revenue streams and where they come from - from the domestic, the non-domestic and the public subvention.

When does Mr. McCarthy expect to have a view from the CSO on this?

Ms Maria Graham

To clarify, in terms of the CSO, it is looking at revenues and costs. In terms of the assets, it is important to state that there is no financial transaction associated with the assets. They are just physically moving from one part of the State asset to another part of the State. In terms of the CSO and the national accounts, this is the way they are reflected. There is no financial transaction. Irish Water is not buying the assets from local authorities. It is simply that assets which are owned by local government, which is part of Government, are moving to a commercial semi-State which is owned by Government. In terms of the value of that national asset, the CSO maintains the value within the national accounts. Revaluations occur in the norm. I am quite certain of this. This is important. Because there is no financial transaction, it does not impinge on what is being looked at from that point of view. The valuation of the assets is more from the accounting point in the local government accounts and the accounting perspective from Irish Water.

The conservation grant has been mentioned a few times. Can I have a quick rundown on who gets the conservation grant? Will householders who have their own septic tank and private water supply and do not have to pay anything to Irish Water get the conservation grant?

Mr. John McCarthy

Under the legislation the first hurdle which must be passed is that a household has to make a valid response to the Irish Water registration process. This can include both customers and non-customers, because households have to declare if they are not a customer or if they are a part-customer, depending on whether they have a water or wastewater service. This is the first requirement. The Act also provides for the making of regulations which will determine any other eligibility issues. These regulations will have to be made in the coming months and will involve the specifying of a date by which that response to Irish Water will have to have been made, in order that the process involving the Department of Social Protection can move on in terms of making the payment in September.

Will people who will not be customers of Irish Water and will not have a bill from Irish Water get the full €100 grant?

Mr. John McCarthy

A valid response to Irish Water stating, "No, I am not a customer of Irish Water", will satisfy that requirement to get the grant.

Given the financial mystery tour on which we have been in relation to the funding of Irish Water, where the money comes from and how it is accounted for and all the rest of it, and the comments made by the Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, Mr. Watt, that there could be a role for the Committee on Public Accounts on the general accountability of this money - he wrote and stated something to this effect and that he saw merit in it - will Mr. Heffernan ask Mr. Watt to look at this and to develop it further in light of the conversation we have had this morning on the various moneys and funds going into Irish Water? If Mr. Watt sees merit in it, there might be a point in having the section within Mr. Heffernan's Department looking at this to determine how best we might bring forward a plan which would give this committee an input into it.

I have a request of Mr. Heffernan and Mr. McCarthy on the Tipperary Hostel. I will not go into it now. We had a discussion on this before and we had a reply from the Minister which I felt was unhelpful, in resolving any matter. Will Mr. Heffernan's Department and Mr. McCarthy share the background to this issue, given that it is still not resolved, and come forward with a plan to protect the work already done at this particular location, the cost of which has been to the tune of €6 million or more, and determine how best that investment is going to be protected and the project completed? It is an issue. It is taxpayers' money. If the Departments which have invested in this, through taxpayers' money, came together, we might find an overall resolution to it. It is not good enough to leave this project there. I ask that this will happen.

Mr. John McCarthy

I will get an update on it. From memory, one of the issues on this previously was that there were some Garda investigations which were ongoing and needed to be completed, and that the local authority chief executive was to review the situation at that stage. I take the Chairman's point on protecting taxpayers' money. I do not have the figures in front of me. Very little, if any, money for that project has come through the Vote. From memory, the vast bulk of it was on a FÁS scheme. I am open to correction.

Mr. McCarthy is right. The local authority was involved in some way as well.

Mr. John McCarthy

In a very small way. They rented the property out.

Will someone untangle the mess on this spend rather than leaving it parked there? This is all I am asking. With respect, the Garda investigation can go on, but someone has to stop the deterioration of the property to the extent that there will be further losses to the taxpayer. Surely this is not a big ask of Mr. Heffernan's Department. His Department looks over the other Departments. His Department should look at how much money was spent, how it was spent and determine how best it can protect what was spent, in the interest of the taxpayer and the project itself which would be beneficial locally. Please do not allow the system to turn its back on what has been spent and to allow it to fester and rot. This is all I am asking. I do not want any discussion on it unless the witnesses wish to say something themselves. However, I ask that this will happen.

Mr. Tom Heffernan

On the specific project, we can talk to the Secretary General in the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government.

It is about being helpful in this instance. There are also others involved.

Mr. Tom Heffernan

On the wider issue of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and Irish Water, our Secretary General wrote to the committee stating that Irish Water was set up as a commercial public company.

For this reason it is outside the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General and is subject to the normal regulatory controls, in this instance the Commission for Energy Regulation, CER. Where the Secretary General referenced oversight by this committee, he was acknowledging that substantial amounts of public money went into Irish Water during the establishment phase and accepting that it would not be unreasonable for the committee to examine those issues on an informal basis. That was essentially the-----

I am asking that he would look at formalising that informal basis. I cannot do so as Chairman of the committee because I am told it is outside the remit and it is in legislation. Mr. Watt sees the merit of it. I think most people looking at this debate this morning would see the merit of it. I am simply asking somebody in the system of management of public funds in this country to take the suggestion made by Mr. Watt and at least develop it to the point where it is found unworkable or where a certain input can be made, establish what this is and let us work on it. Quite frankly, from what we have heard here this morning, and it is not Mr. Heffernan's fault because it is all in the legislation and how the office does its business, it is difficult to understand and support how all of this taxpayers' money from various pots gets into Irish Water. All I am asking is whether Mr. Heffernan will ask.

Mr. Tom Heffernan

Certainly-----

When one is on a radio programme, whether local or national, something that unnerves one a little is when the presenter says "by the way a text message has just come in". We are like a radio or television programme because people text in. This fellow says they are not potholes any more, they are water reservoirs, brilliant. He was speaking about the road tax. If Mr. Heffernan would not mind doing this, it would be helpful. This is not to trivialise the issue as it is serious.

Is it agreed to dispose of chapter 6 - Land Aggregation Scheme, and chapter 7 - matters arising from audit of Vote 25 Environment, Community and Local Government in relation to water services?

No way. We are waiting for information to come and I would like to see the colour of the information. Then we can sign off in a minute at a future date.

That is agreed.

The witnesses withdrew.
The committee adjourned at 2.55 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 12 February 2015.
Barr
Roinn