Vol. 652 No. 2
77 Deputy Joe Carey asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his views on the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security Meeting of 28 February 2008; if emissions trading sector organisations will have no role in the 3% reduction target; if other sectors will have to decrease their emissions beyond 3% to meet Government targets; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14324/08]
I refer to the reply to Question No. 76 on today's Order Paper.
I was very pleased with the constructive first meeting which I had with the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security. The committee is a welcome addition to our national parliamentary structure, one which clearly reflects the importance the Oireachtas attaches to the climate change agenda. I look forward to further engagements with the committee on national, EU and wider international aspects of that agenda.
Progress towards achieving the Government's domestic 3% average annual reduction commitment may be measured with reference to net national greenhouse gas emissions. While this includes emissions from installations in the EU emissions trading scheme, the control of emissions within that scheme is primarily a matter for the scheme participants. The trading scheme allows participating installations to emit in excess of their allocation provided they purchase additional allowances in respect of any excess emissions. Alternatively, an installation may choose to reduce its emissions to the level of its allocated allowances. In this regard, the scheme provides the flexibility for installations to meet their obligations in the most cost-effective manner available to them.
I do not want to continue further because it is a repeat of what I said earlier. It is a cut and paste job so rather than wasting the Deputy's time I will allow him to ask a question.
Is it a cut and paste job from the time of Deputy Dick Roche or from the Minister's time in office?
We were a little confused by the Minister's previous comments on whether the emissions trading sector was included in the 3% target. The Minister has been very frank in stating that it is part of the 3% reduction. That makes a significant difference from the calculations and statements made by the Minister and to the genuineness of his commitment on this matter. We will revert to the matter.
Will the Minister engage with industry in the near future in a more co-operative way in terms of the big companies included in the emissions trading sector in order to make a meaningful contribution to meeting the Government target?
We have already engaged with industry. There was an energy forum in the Shelbourne Hotel, which was very well attended. It was packed out. That shows the level of engagement that is there.
They could be frightened.
They were far from frightened when they examined the financial incentives that exist. The Taoiseach said to me on the day that they may not be interested in the environment but they were interested in the tax incentives. They were there in droves. I do not care what is motivating people as long as they make a contribution to cutting our greenhouse gas emissions. We will use every opportunity to engage fully with those who are part of the emissions trading scheme and those outside it so that in both sectors we can make a meaningful contribution.
I will be doing part two of the awareness raising campaign on Sunday. The advertisements have already begun and are viewed as a success. We will go beyond that with the new carbon calculator that I will introduce on Sunday.
Does the Minister not think the 3% target is a con job on people? He set out in his carbon budget that the bulk of our reductions would be achieved by the purchase of carbon credits. We will buy pieces of paper to achieve our carbon reductions. The rest was achieved by forests that already exist. That is what the Minister set out for 2008-12 in his carbon report the day after the budget. The Minister is talking the talk but, in reality, there will be no significant reductions in emissions. If there were, the Minister would establish good public transport as fast as possible. It is all cosmetic but the Minister will have done nothing to reduce carbon emissions.
We will comply fully with our Kyoto Protocol commitments in the period 2008-12.
By buying carbon credits.
We will go beyond that. The Deputy knows that money was set aside. There is no indication that the €270 million will be used. I am confident we can do so domestically. The Marrakesh Declaration puts an onus on all states to reduce emissions domestically and not to rely on carbon credits. It is an obvious point to make but the Deputy is right in stating that if we are to make decreases we must get away from car dependency and invest in public transport significantly. Many of these changes will be brought about in any event because the price of oil is increasing all the time. The Government and the Opposition parties are in this together. This will affect all parties and individuals, whether in Government or in Opposition; these two issues will affect the country in a deep and dramatic way.
78 Deputy Pádraic McCormack asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if, in view of the recent public opinion poll commissioned by his Department to analyse the potential reception of carbon taxes, he is actively pursuing the introduction of carbon taxes with the Minister for Finance; the other measures his Department is taking to pursue the introduction of carbon taxes; the full cost of the opinion poll commissioned by his Department paid to the market research company; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14368/08]
In the context of taxation policy, the programme for Government committed to establish a new Commission on Taxation. The commission, which was established on 14 February 2008, is tasked in its terms of reference to look at the introduction of measures to further lower carbon emissions and to phase in, on a revenue neutral basis, appropriate fiscal measures including a carbon levy over the lifetime of the Government. In its work, the commission is required to have regard to the commitments on economic competitiveness and on taxation contained in the programme for Government.
The commission has invited my Department to make a submission to assist in its deliberations. I welcome that invitation and my Department will respond within the deadline set by the commission. I believe that the correct course of action is now to develop the carbon levy commitment in the programme for Government through the commission and I will not be pursuing any alternative approaches while the deliberations of the commission are in progress.
The public opinion poll was carried out by the market research company Behaviour and Attitudes as part of the current climate change awareness campaign at a cost of €20,580 exclusive of value added tax.
The Minister states he took the correct approach in this matter. Why was an opinion poll necessary in the first place? Was it insisted on by the major party in Government? Could the Minister not go ahead otherwise? The Minister did not indicate if he intended to introduce carbon taxes. What type of behaviour was identified by spending €20,580? What was the manner and process by which the poll was commissioned and carried out?
I welcome the fact that the company carried out the poll. There was no need to consult other members of Government. I am the Minister responsible. We set out to have an awareness raising campaign and, in order to raise awareness one must measure how quickly and by how much one can raise awareness. A baseline study is needed to find out where we are now. The poll findings were interesting and show that, in principle, 81% of people favoured the introduction of a carbon levy. It was a comprehensive questionnaire, conducted face to face. I gave the details of the poll in my speech in the Mansion House at a seminar organised by the EPA, which was attended by approximately 900 people. They showed that once one got beyond the principle of a carbon levy, when one got into specific items such as increasing the price of petrol by eight cent or whatever, there were slight problems and there was less enthusiasm. When we went into it in further detail we discovered that 50% of people still wanted to see action on the carbon levy. However, one could say there is a 50% element of resistance there as well.
I was very curious about that survey and I wrote to the Minister's Department a couple of weeks ago for a copy to see what questions were asked, the findings and so on. I find it difficult to believe that 81% of people are in favour of carbon taxes.
Some 81% of the Government is in favour.
There were recent news reports about rising food costs and that people are struggling with increased petrol costs and so on. Why should people want to pay more for their petrol or gas? I find this incredible. I notice the report stated that people were in favour of tough measures, such as carbon taxes. These are basically tough measures affecting individuals, which will add to inflation and so on. What about tough measures for the Government, such as better public transport? The Government should be faced with tough measures.
The Deputy asks why people will support carbon taxes. Believe it or not, some people are responsible——
Some 80% of the Government support carbon taxes.
——and understand they have a duty, as we all do, to tackle the biggest issue facing humanity. People want responsible action. I can check how many members of the Labour Party, perhaps, or what percentage of its supporters are in favour of these measures. I suspect it is more than the Deputy believes. Too often politicians run for cover when they hear of a carbon levy. If the Deputy talks it up in the way she is doing, she is not doing anyone a service. She is scaring people off. I come back to Deputy McCormack in this regard, there is a definite commitment in the programme for Government to introduce a carbon levy. I sincerely hope members of the Opposition will be as enthusiastic about the introduction of a carbon levy as I am.
We are aware of the Minister's commitment to a carbon levy. He said during the publication of his carbon budget that he would expect it to be introduced in 2009. What progress has been made and will there be an interim report from the Commission on Taxation before the next budget that will draw on that matter? When will the Minister put a price on carbon, as he promised? Were any other surveys carried out by his Department which were not published and of which we should be aware?
This is the only one I know about so far, but I shall check it out for the Deputy.
They would not tell the Minister about them all.
We shall see whether there are any further surveys. All politicians are interested in surveys to see how the people are thinking, but it is encouraging. The fact that the Green Party's poll ratings are going in the right direction is further evidence that people are interested in acting responsibly in tackling this very important issue. As regards the carbon levy and the deliberations of the Commission on Taxation, I do not know whether it will publish an interim report. I certainly hope it does. It has been tasked with the introduction of a carbon levy and asked to make this a priority, and I hope that happens. I am due to meet Professor Frank Convery in May. He is a member of the commission and I shall ask him in detail what progress has been made. From everyone's viewpoint I hope the carbon levy will be introduced.
Is Professor Hogan the Minister's man on the commission?
79 Deputy Charles Flanagan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the actions he has taken since the recently highlighted low and acceptable housing standards for private rental tenants in receipt of the rent supplement; the communication he has had with local authorities on the matter; the way he will ensure that such breaches of standards do not continue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14356/08]
116 Deputy Arthur Morgan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if his attention has been drawn to the many thousands of people who are living in sub-standard accommodation paid for by rent supplement; the date on which the new standards for rented accommodation will be completed; and if he has plans to ensure that these measures will be fast-tracked into law to provide effective safeguards for those who are already in serious need of adequate housing. [14498/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 79 and 116 together.
While responsibility for enforcement of the private rented accommodation standards, as prescribed in the Housing (Standards for Rented Houses) Regulations 1993, rests with the relevant local authority, I am committed to ensuring that a robust framework is in place to promote improved standards in this part of the residential sector. The significantly increased resources I am providing to support inspections by local authorities is one example of my commitment to addressing issues of sub-standard private rented accommodation and is translating into significantly increased enforcement activity on the ground. I have also taken a number of opportunities, when meeting local authorities, to emphasise the high priority that must be assigned to effective action in this area.
The revision of the standards regulations is an important element of An Action Programme to Promote Improvement in Standards, which was launched on foot of the Towards 2016 agreement. A general review of the regulations has been carried out, in consultation with relevant interests, and account has been taken of relevant recommendations in two reports recently published by the Centre for Housing Research on measures to promote improvement in private rented accommodation standards.
I am establishing a small working group comprising local authority and sectoral representatives to input into the final drafting of the revised regulations. Following a short further period of consultation, I intend to finalise the new regulations in July.
I thank the Minister of State for his response. This is a major issue, with 60,000 families in receipt of rent supplement. The vast majority of accommodation, particularly in Dublin, fails to meet the minimum legal standard, basically as regards water standards, heating and ventilation. There is mould growing on some walls and ceilings and only recently "Prime Time" broadcast a major special programme on just how bad conditions are.
According to the State-funded report published by the Centre for Housing Research, sub-standard accommodation is most prevalent in this rented sector. Basically, 78% of all private rented accommodation in Dublin failed the standard test, 49% in Clare and 56% in Louth. When will the Minister of State get real on this issue? I welcome the fact that he has issued a memo and that there is to be a working group. However, can we now have some action and impose heavy penalties on the landlords responsible for these properties.
The issues brought to light by the "Prime Time" programme were of great concern to all of us. However, it must be remembered that the issues the programme raised were on the basis of rent supplement, which is the remit of the Department of Social and Family Affairs and is operated by community welfare officers. Before the programme was broadcast I was very aware of people going into the rented accommodation scheme. We built in the region of 700,000 units in the past ten years and 100,000 were taken up by the rented sector. Therefore the standards under rented accommodation are excellent and obviously we are encouraging more and more. We want to take 32,000 people off the rent supplement and put them into rent accommodation by 2009, and we are progressing in that direction.
In relation to community welfare officers and rent supplement, I am concerned that people are engaged in a desktop activity in this regard. I met the director of community care six weeks ago and told him I was not happy with the standard of accommodation. I asked that there should be further discussions between the HSE and the Department on setting protocols which would review matters on the ground. If, for instance, a local authority examines a property with a view to bringing someone into rented accommodation after 18 months and if it is not up to scratch, this should be reported to the community welfare office. In the event, the community welfare office will then identify the property concerned as not being suitable for rent supplement purposes. We are making progress in this regard.
Given today's launch of the Green Paper on Local Government, one hopes the primary outcome of local government reform will be an improvement of standards at local level. If we consider the Minister of State's track record in this regard, we will realise it has been an abysmal failure. Is he aware that only one inspection took place in his own area of Cork, where over 9,000 houses were registered in 2006? Is this acceptable in his own bailiwick in Cork? In Cork city in my constituency, where approximately 6,000 houses were registered in 2006, 780 houses were inspected, half of which failed. The houses that failed, which were featured on a "Prime Time Investigates" programme, were not inspected at a later date.
When I raised this matter on 23 February prior to the "Prime Time Investigates" programme, the Minister gave a completely disingenuous answer in the House to the effect that inspection rates had actually increased. They have not. What the Minister of State did was focus on the narrow context of inspection rate increases from one year to another. However, the registration rate in the two years in question grew several-fold and the inspection rate collapsed to 7%. It is therefore a nonsense for the Minister of State to claim in this Chamber that the inspection rates are 33% and 44% when in fact they have collapsed.
As usual, the Deputy is misinformed.
I have the figures from the Minister of State's Department in front of me.
Allow the Minister of State to continue.
The fact of the matter is that, in 2004, there were 25,000 registrations. Since the setting up of the PRTB, 210,000 registrations took place. Figures for 2007 will show a 40% increase and that there has been an increase from 13,000 to almost 14,000.
On the houses that are not up to standard, I refer the Deputy to a report issued by the Centre for Housing Research last year. Of all the rented accommodation that was inspected, 1% was not up to standard.
It is not 1% of what was examined.
There was no follow-up inspection and in some areas there was no inspection carried out whatsoever.
I have taken action to ensure that local authorities do get involved in this.
The Deputy obviously forgot that I mentioned to him on the last occasion that I am giving money to local authorities on the basis of performance on inspection.
I want to allow one supplementary question.
If they want to get money out of the rental accommodation scheme, they will have to carry out inspections. That is the way forward as far as I am concerned.
I call Deputy Ó Snodaigh.
It will ensure that local authorities do carry them out.
On a point of order——
I will come back to the Deputy. I call Deputy Ó Snodaigh.
Does the Minister of State agree that the scheme is subsidising private landlords? As such, the State should insist on the best possible standards. Some 48,000 families are in homes that are not of the highest standard, yet the State is paying for the scheme. What action will the Minister of State take to prosecute landlords for ripping the State off, as is happening? What extra inspections will be carried out to ensure that the landlords of sub-standard dwellings will no longer be allowed to receive State subsidies?
Before I call the Minister of State, I will allow a brief supplementary question from Deputy Ciarán Lynch.
I have the Department's figures from 2004 to 2006. They show clearly that the number of registered dwellings increased from 22,000 in 2004 to 132,000 in 2006. The inspection rate to which the Minister of State is referring does not add up. Figures show that the inspection rate has dropped from 32% to 7.4%. For every house registered, the Exchequer receives €50 from the PRTB. Given that there is a revenue stream from the PRTB, it is not the Department that is ring-fencing the fund. The Minister of State should not therefore brag that he is providing money to allow for inspections because the money is actually coming from landlords themselves who want their properties inspected.
The important thing is that the Deputy understands the system. He obviously does not.
The important thing is that——
Allow the Minister of State to conclude his reply.
The fact is that if one refers to PRTB registrations alone, one will find that they increased by 44% between 2005 and 2006, and by 40% between 2006 and 2007. I have ensured that local authorities that carry out inspections are being rewarded. Those that are not——
If there was one inspection in Cork in 2006 and two in 2007, that would represent an increase of 100%.
The time allocated for questions has concluded.
——are not getting funding to carry out the inspections. On Deputy Ó Snodaigh's question——
That concludes Question Time for today.
——on rent supplement, I indicated that I will contact the HSE on this matter. I have indicated that——
Will the Minister of State kindly acknowledge the Chair?
——any supplement given is given to a property that meets the required standard.
That concludes Question Time for today.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
