With the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's indulgence, before we proceed, I would like some clarity relating to a question I put down on climate change which, I was surprised to learn, was ruled out of order.
Priority Questions.
I am not sure I can give that clarity off the top of my head. I am sure if the Deputy were to have a discussion with the Ceann Comhairle's office, it could give him all the clarity he requires.
I did but I was not entirely satisfied. I cannot understand how a question on meeting our objectives on climate change in the programme for Government can be ruled out of order.
I will talk to the Ceann Comhairle's office and ensure the Deputy receives a communication on it.
Waste Management.
Phil Hogan
Ceist:13 Deputy Phil Hogan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he has instructed local authorities to revisit their local waste strategies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8137/08]
I will sort out the matter on the question referred to by Deputy Hogan.
The programme for Government includes a commitment to a review of waste management planning. The procurement process for such a review is under way. While respecting the statutory position of local authorities under the Waste Management Acts to make and review waste management plans, the review will inform the implementation of other commitments on waste management in the programme, particularly on how best to promote alternative technologies such as mechanical and biological treatment, MBT.
The detailed implementation of waste policy will remain a matter for local authorities, consistent with their waste management plans, and private sector initiatives, regulated by the independent statutory waste licensing and physical planning processes.
I have not instructed the local authorities to revisit their local waste management strategies in the context of their waste management plans as it would be premature to issue such an instruction pending the conclusion of the review.
The review will chart a new way forward. I intend that it be completed and acted upon in months, not years, because time is not on our side. We need to accelerate dramatically the move away from landfill, to examine all technologies that can contribute to this and regulate the sector in a manner which supports optimal environmental performance at minimum cost.
The review will not just be about technology. Its terms of reference are deliberately broad so as to promote a fundamental review of the legal, institutional and financial approach taken to waste management.
If the review were to indicate the need for significant legislative changes, I would bring the necessary proposals to the Government. Inaction is not an option and the approach reflected in the current crop of waste management plans, while facilitating some progress, is simply not going far enough fast enough.
I am interested that the Minister indicated his review is a new way forward. Since Deputy Gormley became Minister, there have been many new ways forward. Indaver Ireland's incinerator capacity for its proposed County Meath plant was 150,000 tonnes. It was recently given permission to increase this capacity to 250,000 tonnes. The proposed Poolbeg incinerator will have a capacity of 600,000 tonnes. An American firm has lodged a planning application for an incinerator in south Dublin with a 365,000 tonnes capacity. The system for thermal treatment of waste has already reached over-capacity.
Will the Minister request local authorities under the relevant section of the Waste Management Acts to review their waste management strategies? We do not need eight incinerators at regional level, a view the Minister shares. Whether we like it, decisions will be made on the capacity for thermal treatment or incineration. Why is the Minister talking about a new way forward considering the figures available to us?
I have given the preliminary figures on this to the Deputy and have made them known outside the House. These preliminary figures are based on waste of 3.2 million tonnes arising nationally. This can be reduced by 1.7 million tonnes through a recycling rate of 50%. I am confident we can reach such a recycling rate, if not beyond that, particularly in Dublin. Some 800,000 tonnes of this can be landfilled without exceeding our landfill directive targets. I believe the remainder can be further reduced by MBT. By 2016, it could stand at 400,000 tonnes.
I am confident these figures stand up. However, when making any judgments we must get it scientifically and economically right. That is why this review is of such importance.
I agree many of these planning applications have gone in but many pre-date my entry into Government. The Fine Gael Party, perhaps — I say "perhaps" because it is difficult to decide when reading its manifesto — has changed its position on incineration. Its track record——
We know the Minister has changed his position.
Fine Gael sure has changed its position. On reading its manifesto——
I would like to allow a brief supplementary question.
I have seen how Fine Gael voted in the past on the 1996 Act. It voted for the 1998 waste plan for Dublin. The Dublin assistant city manager recently stated that this gave him the legal imprimatur to go ahead with a 600,000 tonnes incinerator in Dublin city. Fine Gael needs to get its own line straightened on this.
The Minister has changed his mind on many matters in the past eight months, one of which is incineration. He has powers to review waste management. He relied on public statements by himself rather than Government policy to instruct An Bord Pleanála and others to make decisions. That is not the way to do business in government, as the Minister now knows. He has been hoodwinked on various matters, which is not surprising.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, may I ask a final and brief supplementary?
I wish the Deputy would do so.
What is the position regarding the amount of tonnage that will be required for MBT? Can we have certainty on the figures? When will the review be published? Will it be in July or will it be another bank holiday weekend job? Will we have to wait until all these planning applications in the system are approved and the Minister can wring his hands again before we know the answer?
I made my views known. If the Deputy looks at the planning Acts, they state the Government's policy. I stated my policy clearly.
I will meet the Environmental Protection Agency next Monday to discuss MBT. There are several complex issues surrounding MBT such as the moisture content of actual residual product and at what stage it can be regarded as landfill material or inert. I am confident we can complete the review in a matter of months, not years. I hope interim reports will emerge from the review so we can act as quickly as possible but with regard for scientific evidence and economic realities.
Waste Disposal.
Joanna Tuffy
Ceist:14 Deputy Joanna Tuffy asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the position regarding the need for a national waste charge scheme, particularly in view of the 2005 review carried out for the Environmental Protection Agency with the assistance of his Department on domestic collection charges that found that almost half of local authorities have no waiver scheme in place for low-income families and pensioners who are thereby discriminated against; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8050/08]
The review referred to is the nationwide review of pay-by-use domestic waste collection charges in Ireland, prepared for the EPA by the Department of Geography, Trinity College, Dublin.
Waste management services have traditionally been provided at local level, with individual arrangements being locally determined and tailored to local circumstances. The present legal framework, as determined by the Oireachtas, reflects this.
In accordance with section 52 of the Protection of the Environment Act 2003, the determination of waste management charges and any associated waiver scheme are matters for the relevant local authority, where it acts as the service provider. Similarly, where a private operator provides the collection service, it is a matter for that operator to determine charges.
I recognise that significant regulatory issues have emerged as waste management services have rapidly evolved in recent years. These issues, which are the subject of formal public consultation, include the need to ensure that necessary public service criteria in the provision of services in particular areas or for specific households are properly reflected.
The existing regulatory framework requires modernisation. The identification of the changes necessary will be greatly assisted by the current OECD review of the public service, which includes a specific case study on waste management. This will be implemented in the context of the overall review of national waste management policy provided for in the programme for Government and now being initiated. In addition, the revised approach to the collection of household waste being taken by the Dublin local authorities will further inform the selection of the necessary measures to underpin sustainable waste collection services and infrastructure provision, whether delivered by the private or public sector. In this context the appropriate policy responses will be developed and elaborated.
I considered the figures in the report to which I referred and also did a survey to find out the variations in waste disposal charges around the country. There are major variations in the cost of waste charges, which raises issues of fairness.
My local council, South Dublin County Council, charges €8 per bin lift, and that is the only charge. There is no flat charge. Other councils have a yearly flat charge as well as charging per lift. For example, in the Offaly County Council area, where there is no waiver scheme, one can be charged between €360 and €384 per annum, depending on the size of the bin, plus €5 per lift. That is considerably more expensive than in South Dublin. According to the 2006 report — charges may have increased since that time — Galway County Council, which also has no waiver scheme, has yearly charges of between €320 and €373.
Does the Deputy have a question?
This does lead to a question. Galway County Council also charges between €4 and €6 per bin lift. In the Galway City Council area, there is a flat rate of €159 per year plus a charge per lift, but there is a waiver scheme. The average yearly charge is approximately €250, but for people on low incomes and pensions the entire cost is covered by Galway City Council.
The time for the Deputy's supplementary question is well gone.
When the Minister was in Opposition he said he was in favour of a national waiver scheme.
That is correct.
Former Deputy Dan Boyle also called for one. What is the Minister going to do about this now? It is greatly unfair that charges are so high in some counties and so low in others, while some counties have waivers and others do not.
The Deputy has highlighted inconsistencies among local authorities. I am aware of inconsistencies across the board, in planning, waste management and a range of other areas. We are introducing efficiency criteria and considering how to obtain greater efficiencies and consistency in all areas. The most recent legal advice suggests that in an area serviced by the private sector the local authority may not provide a waiver or subsidy in respect of services it does not directly provide. However, the local authority does have discretion either to re-enter the collection service as a direct provider or to procure competitively a service provider to collect waste on its behalf. There is an example in Limerick city of how this power has been used to arrange for collection of household waste from certain customers judged unable to meet the cost of a commercially provided service.
The difficulty is that, as the Deputy may know, there is to be a major court case in Dublin which will affect the future of these services. I have met officials from SIPTU in this regard. Dublin is a cauldron of operators in that each week new private operators seem to appear. This needs to be sorted out and it will be shortly in the context of the court case. I also made reference to the OECD report which will be issued shortly. This will also inform our decision on how to proceed.
The reports mentioned by the Minister are a separate issue. There are local authorities, such as Limerick City Council, that provide a waiver scheme even though the service is totally privatised. The Minister should make sure this is copied everywhere. When the Minister was in Opposition he demanded a waiver scheme operated through the social welfare system which would involve a special waste allowance. He can achieve this now. There are people on pensions of €200 — which is their sole income — who must pay a waste charge equivalent to three weeks worth of pension payments. These are elderly people who cannot afford to buy a coat or pay for fuel. This is not something that can be put on the long finger with things that are not related to it. A review in Dublin has nothing to do with the fact that some people in Galway must pay hundreds of euro per year in waste charges they cannot afford.
Waste charges and waivers are recurring issues that have been raised in the context of social partnership. My Department has engaged with the Department of Social and Family Affairs to explore all of the issues involved. These discussions, unfortunately, did not identify a role for the social welfare system in providing income support for waste charges. However, there were further discussions with the County and City Managers' Association and I have asked the relevant local authorities to engage with commercial waste collectors with a view to agreeing on a schedule of payments — that is, a phased pay-as-you-go system — which would be preferable to a periodic lump sum payment. This will make use of a waste collection service for residual waste and will make it a more manageable option for households. That is where the discussions are going at the moment.
Planning Regulations.
Phil Hogan
Ceist:15 Deputy Phil Hogan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he has instructed local authorities on the way to spend the revenue raised from Part V building levies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8274/08]
The vast bulk of the delivery to date under Part V of the Planning and Development Acts 2000-2006 has been in the form of completed homes, land and individual sites. Financial settlements account for only a small share of the delivery and any such moneys received by a planning authority must be used as capital for its functions under Part V or for its functions with regard to the provision of housing under the Housing Acts.
My Department has issued comprehensive guidelines to local authorities on the operation of Part V, including advice on the use of Part V funds. Generally, I favour prioritisation of the funds for the provision of additional social and affordable housing units. Since January 2007, local authorities no longer require the prior sanction of my Department for the expenditure of Part V moneys in certain cases. This delegated sanction set out a number of purposes for which the funds could be utilised, including the purchase of completed turnkey units, acquisition of sites, supplementation of an authority's housing land bank, procuring of additional accommodation units for the rental accommodation scheme and improvements in the general affordability of Part V units.
While I do not propose to remove the discretion available to authorities in the use of such funds, I am determined to ensure that the funds are put to productive use as soon as possible after they have been received. In that regard, my Department has recently advised local authorities that where they have unused Part V funds, these will be taken into account when allocations to authorities for the main social housing programmes are being finalised following a round of meetings with housing authorities which are currently under way. Thereafter, I will continue to keep the issue under review.
The Minister indicated previously that there were between €70 million and €80 million of unspent Part V moneys among local authorities. I am glad the Minister has issued guidelines to local authorities on how to spend this money. The Minister has partly answered my question, but I ask him to clarify one point. The Minister intends to subtract Part V moneys brought in by local authorities from their capital allocations. The net outcome is that they will not be better off but there will be a line ball situation in terms of their Estimates for 2009 and beyond. Is that what the Minister is saying?
At present, local authorities have €78 million in Part V funds, plus €11.4 million in withering levies, which allow an additional five years on planning applications. This is a once-off payment. Thus, the total is about €90 million, of which about €11.2 million had been spent up to the end of 2006. My understanding is that a fair amount of money was spent in 2007. Unfortunately I do not have the final figures for 2007 but I will make the Deputy aware of these.
The Deputy is quite right in his interpretation. Local authorities must either use the funds or have them assimilated into the social housing allocation. While I do not want to lay down a hard and fast rule, if local authorities have unspent money arising from Part V, they must make plans to spend the money for social and affordable housing and present plans to the Department. If the Department is satisfied, the local authority will receive its normal allocation as per the Estimates. I am giving a timely warning that unless local authorities use the money it will be assimilated into the overall package.
Private Rented Accommodation.
Ciaran Lynch
Ceist:16 Deputy Ciarán Lynch asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the housing standards that apply to accommodation in the private rented sector and the local authority rented sector; the body that sets the standards; the body that enforces them; the applicable legislation; when it was introduced; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8051/08]
Standards for rental accommodation are prescribed in the Housing (Standards for Rented Houses) Regulations 1993, made under section 18 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1992. The regulations specify requirements for matters such as structural repair, absence of damp and rot, sanitary facilities, heating, ventilation, natural light and safety of electrical and gas supply. All landlords have a legal obligation to ensure that their rented properties comply with these regulations. Failure to do so is an offence subject, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding €3,000 or a term of six months in prison, or both, and €250 for each day of a continuing offence. Responsibility for enforcing the regulations rests with the relevant local authority, supported by a dedicated stream of funding allocated by my Department.
The regulations are currently being reviewed with a view to updating them as part of an action programme to promote improvement in standards of rental accommodation. I expect to be in a position to publish a draft of the revised regulations for consultation at the end of March 2008.
I thank the Minister of State for his response, which acknowledges that this was last reviewed in 1992. Is he aware that in 2004, 15 county councils and one city council recorded that zero inspections were carried out despite his reference to dedicated funding? Surely information is being returned to his Department that no inspections are being carried out by local authorities on this matter.
What is the indication of the standards set in the area? The legislation and the enforcement are two separate matters. We can legislate until the cows come home but we need enforcement. There is no enforcement at local level. The only enforcement is when a tenant in private or public rented dwellings makes a complaint. We do not have a driven service, we have a crisis-driven service, where those in bad accommodation approach local authorities to get something done. This is not acceptable for the maintenance of standards in the private or the public rental sector. Will we see a change in this operation in the legislation that the Minister of State suggests he will bring before the House?
Obviously the situation was less than great——
It was far from great.
——until the Private Residential Tenancies Board, PRTB, was set up. In 2006 the number of inspections increased by 44%——
It was at a very low baseline.
——and stood at 2,000. Last year it improved to 9,825 and, while the final figures are not available for 2008, I expect at least an increase of 33% — I can say that with confidence. Local authorities were not acting as they might in this sector. As part of Towards 2016, it was agreed to upgrade the standards in private rented accommodation. Since the PRTB was set up, €7 million has been provided to carry out inspections and recompense local authorities with regard to maintaining standards in private rented accommodation. This year €3 million was granted, with €1.5 million spent on inspections of existing premises. I made a further €1.5 available provided the local authorities met targets in respect of inspections. I have every reason to believe the number of inspections carried out is increasing substantially. It increased by 44% last year and will increase by at least 33% this year.
The Minister of State refers to a 33% increase. In some local authorities, if one inspection was carried out it would represent an increase of 100%. There is dedicated funding and the buck stops at the desk of the Minister of State. Rather than observing these figures he should be phoning county and city managers and inquiring what is happening when funding is provided but is not spent. Those responsible for enforcement are in some cases land holders. Local authorities are inspecting themselves. Will the Minister of State establish an independent body in this regard? Will health and safety matters be considered rather than an inspection of sinks and toilet bowls? The implementation of standards shows a serious shortfall in the quality of standards and strongly indicates that inspections are not being carried out. That is the core of what the Minister of State will bring before the House. It is not just a matter of legislation, there is a mountain of legislation but we need enforcement.
I am not sure Deputy Lynch was listening to me. I am giving the local authorities €1.5 million to ensure they carry out inspections.
The Department has given a fortune but local authorities are not carrying out inspections. There has been no activity.
There has been a significant increase in the number of inspections. Some 80% of the inspections have found that houses are up to regulation standard. I will introduce new standards at the end of March. I will publish the standards so that people can make submissions on that and other ideas and suggestions they may have.
Some 700,000 new units have been built in the past ten years so much of the private rented accommodation coming on the market is of top quality. That is not to say that some developments are not up to standard. Local authorities should be sensible and strategic and should target older developments that are not up to standard. Transferring 32,000 people from the community welfare rent allowance scheme on to the rental accommodation scheme means that local authorities examine each property that comes within the system.
The Minister of State is aware that it is not possible to make the transfer from the rental allowance scheme to the rental accommodation scheme because the standards are not up to scratch.
Where the standard is up to scratch there is no problem. Where a property is not up to scratch, it must be reported to the PRTB, which will make sure that the landlord is registered and that the accommodation is brought up to standard. The fines are clearly set out, up to €3,000 or six months in prison, and €250 per day after that.