Adjournment Debate.

Tenant Purchase Schemes.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

I want to raise the failure of the Government to introduce the tenant purchase scheme for flat owners in local authority areas throughout the country. As I understand it, the current tenant purchase scheme operates under regulations derived from section 26 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1992, which specifically excludes flats and self-contained units in flat complexes from the scheme. It is interesting to note that legislation to apply to flat owners has been promised since the early 1990s but some 16 years later that legislation has not been introduced to enable the residents of local authority flats to purchase the units in which they live and may have lived for many years.

This is fundamentally important to the future of Irish society — I do not mean this in any broad brush sense. It is crucial in terms of social innovation and social inclusion that people are afforded the opportunity to set their hopes and standards higher and ultimately to exercise the right to purchase their home in the same way as the tenants of council houses have been enabled to do so. It is a hugely important issue in terms of offering hope and opportunity to people who are resident in council flats throughout the country. In my constituency of Dublin South-East, this is major issue and is high on the agenda for many of the residents in council flat complexes.

To illustrate the feasibility of this, in researching and finding out more about how tenant purchase schemes operate and have operated, it is clear that a successful scheme operated in Cork City Council in the late 1980s and early 1990s before the new regulations came into force. That was a pretty successful scheme whereby tenants of council flats in the Cork City Council area were unable to purchase the flats they were living in during that period. The scheme was dropped on the basis that legislation was to be introduced by the Government in the early 1990s to cover not just tenants of council houses but also tenants of council flats. That never happened. The scheme was discontinued and no scheme was introduced to replace it. The Government is on record for more than a decade expressing its commitment to affording people the opportunity to purchase flats from local authorities. The Government policy paper in February 2007, entitled Delivering Homes, Sustaining Communities, contained a commitment to a tenant purchase scheme for current residents of council flats. Page 47 of that document stated that legislation to underpin a new scheme of tenant purchase was being drafted and that it would allow for the purchase of flats. In the same document the Government also promised an incremental purchase scheme that would apply to those allocated social housing at the time of that allocation.

In addition, the programme for Government of this Fianna Fáil, Green Party, Progressive Democrats and Independent alliance contains a promise to "expand the paths to home ownership to assist the maximum number of people in gaining a stake in their own home." I urge the Minister to honour those commitments in the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Michael P. Kitt)

I am taking this matter on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I thank the Deputy for giving me the opportunity to outline to the House the steps being taken towards extending the opportunity for home ownership to tenants of local authority apartments.

The Government announced its intention to introduce a scheme for the sale of local authority apartments under certain conditions in the Housing Policy Framework — Building Sustainable Communities, published in December 2005. This commitment was reiterated in Delivering Homes, Sustaining Communities, the Government statement on housing policy published in February 2007. Furthermore, the agreed programme for Government published in June 2007 indicated that the Government would "expand the paths to home ownership to assist the maximum number of people in gaining a stake in their own home."

Previous efforts to introduce tenant purchase for local authority apartments were thwarted by the difficulties associated with the scheme. Work is continuing on a model for the sale of apartments to tenants which addresses those difficulties. The model is based on the long-standing arrangements in the private sector for the ownership and management of multi-unit residential developments. Of course, the transition from a rented social housing complex to a mixed tenure of privately-owned and social-rented accommodation adds an extra dimension to the legal and practical problems that can arise.

Any model leading to a viable scheme for the tenant purchase of apartments must address the following issues: the need to establish fair, equitable and proportionate arrangements to give tenant purchasers and the local authority a voice in the management of the apartment complex; the role of a management company, representative of all apartment owners, including the local authority, in managing and maintaining the common areas and services in the complex; the need for tenant purchasers to contribute, through service charges, towards the ongoing maintenance of common areas and services; arrangements for sharing the costs of insurance covering the entire complex; and the need to create a reserve fund to pay for major improvement works required in the future.

It was not possible to resolve the complex issues involved in time for the publication of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2008 in July. Second Stage reading of the Bill has now begun. We are, however, determined to pursue an initiative in this area as quickly as possible but we must also get it right. Our aim is to establish a robust legislative framework that would stand the test of time for all stakeholders, namely, apartment buyers, apartment tenants who choose not to buy, and local authorities.

Planning Issues.

Deputy Mary Upton

Presentation Convent, Terenure, was sold to a developer in 2006 for approximately €15 million. Later that year it was proposed that the building should be considered by Dublin City Council as a protected structure. The process had commenced when the building was demolished without planning permission on Saturday, 4 November, starting at 7 a.m. Dublin City Council twice requested re-instatement of the building to its satisfaction. The building was not restored and Dublin City Council decided to prosecute the developer in the District Court. The case was heard last Thursday. The maximum fine allowable in the court under the Planning and Development Act 2000 is €1,900. The judge did have discretion to seek re-instatement of the building. The penalty imposed by the court was €1,000.

The scheme of the Planning and Development Act gives planning authorities the power to prosecute offences in either the District Court or the Circuit Court. The difference between both legal arenas is clear. The District Court is for minor offences and the prosecuted party faces a relatively light penalty. The Circuit Court is for more serious offences and the Act provides for much stiffer penalties. I am sure the Minister will agree that the offence in this case — destroying a landmark building in contravention of planning law — was a serious one that should have been prosecuted in the Circuit Court.

The situation called for Dublin City Council to avail of the section 160 planning injunction. The destruction of the Presentation Convent in Terenure had all the elements necessary for the planning authority to obtain an injunction. It had the element of a serious breach of planning law, namely, the destruction of a valuable building. It also had the element of a determined effort on the part of the developer to defy the law — the surreptitious Saturday morning demolition. The planning authority ought to have responded by seeking a planning injunction.

It is understating the response to this penalty to say the decision has given rise to much anger. Many people in Terenure and beyond have been in touch with me. They looked on this building as a landmark-type building. Many of the past pupils of the convent school were aggrieved at the demolition of the building. Many of them have also been in touch with me and the Minister will probably have seen the letters to the newspapers expressing their outrage at the penalty imposed.

In my initial response to the court decision, I called for a change in the law to allow more accessible recourse to a higher court and heavier penalties where a developer is in breach of a planning condition. The developer has now applied for planning permission to build houses on the site. Section 35 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 gives a planning authority the power not to grant permission where the applicant has been in significant breach of a planning permission in any planning authority area. Use of the power requires the planning authority to apply to the High Court. The Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006 made it easier for local authorities to exercise that power by removing the requirement for them to go first to the High Court. This provision could be widened to allow local authorities to refuse planning permission where a developer has been convicted or received an injunction for any breach of planning legislation, not just planning permission.

Local authorities are reluctant to prosecute in the Circuit Court or to avail of the planning injunction open to them under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act. The 2007 report of the Local Government Services Management Board assesses the performance of local authorities, including their responses to planning breaches. The prosecutions can be subdivided into prosecutions in District Courts and Circuit Courts, and injunctions. As service indicators, this might serve to improve performance. Dublin City Council is now in a position to seek a planning injunction so that the building can be restored on Terenure Road West. This remedy — in the civil courts — remains open despite the criminal prosecution.

I call on the Minister to issue guidelines to local authorities on the need to seek enforcement proceedings in the Circuit Court and to use section 160 planning injunctions in serious cases. The District Court must only be used for less serious matters. I intend to pursue the issue with Dublin City Council on behalf of my constituents. It seems to defy common sense that the same penalties can apply to an individual for exceeding the permitted floor area by 5 sq. m or 6 sq. m in an extension in a private house, for example, as applies to a developer who has illegally demolished a building worth millions and that might have been placed on the list of protected structures.

The message from the penalty imposed last week on this breach of the planning law will be very comforting to any developer who chooses to breach the planning law. That is not the way our planning regulations should be applied where local communities, our history and heritage are involved.

Deputy Michael P. Kitt

I thank Deputy Upton for raising this issue. I am responding on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley.

Under planning legislation, any development which requires permission and does not have that permission is an unauthorised development, as is a development which is proceeding in breach of conditions laid down in the planning permission. Enforcement of planning control is the responsibility of the planning authority.

Planning enforcement provisions were greatly strengthened in the Planning and Development Act 2000. The Act imposes several statutory obligations on planning authorities. The authority must issue a warning letter in respect of any genuine complaint it receives regarding unauthorised development or any unauthorised development of which it otherwise becomes aware. The authority must then carry out an investigation into the alleged unauthorised development. Following this investigation, the authority must make a decision, as expeditiously as possible, on whether to issue an enforcement notice. My Department's development management guidelines, published last year under section 28 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, recommend that enforcement notices should issue in all cases where an investigation has established that unauthorised development is being or has been carried out, unless there are compelling and defensible reasons for not doing so.

Following its decision on whether or not to issue an enforcement notice, the planning authority must inform any complainant regarding the decision and must enter the decision, including the reasons for it, in the planning register. My Department's development management guidelines urge that prosecutions should follow in the case of all enforcement notices not complied with. The maximum fines for unauthorised development were greatly increased in the 2000 Act, with the maximum penalty on conviction on indictment now €12.7 million and two years' imprisonment. In the case of a summary conviction, the maximum penalty is a fine not exceeding €1,905, imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or both.

In regard to the case to which the Deputy referred, I am informed by the planning authority that a warning letter was issued, an investigation carried out, an enforcement notice subsequently issued and a prosecution taken in the District Court against the company in question. The latter subsequently pleaded guilty to an offence and the court imposed a fine of €1,000. It is a matter for the planning authority to decide whether to bring proceedings in the District Court or High Court in any particular case and I have no role in the matter.

Enforcement powers were further strengthened in the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006 which allows planning authorities to refuse to grant planning permission, without recourse to the High Court, to any developer who has substantially failed to comply with a previous planning permission. If the applicant wishes to have this decision overturned, he or she must apply to the High Court.

The above provisions set out a strong legal framework for planning authorities to take enforcement action where necessary. While there are no specific proposals for review, the Minister continues to keep the legislation under scrutiny with a view to its operational effectiveness.

Water Supply Contamination.

Deputy Fergus O’Dowd

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me and Deputy Tuffy to raise this matter. It is a serious issue affecting not only County Louth but other areas throughout the State. We must have an immediate response from all local authorities. All houses and estates constructed before 1970 must be investigated for lead contamination of the water supply.

In regard to County Louth, we heard today that there are problems in regard to ten locations. The truth, however, is that 25 responses, from 20 separate locations, show an excessive level of lead in the water supply. I understand the local authority has been forced by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to examine the data from four years ago. The figures were there but no action was taken until now. The towns of Drogheda, Dundalk and Ardee and the villages of Clogherhead and Omeath are among the contaminated areas.

It is an extremely serious situation, with some of the figures indicating a remarkably high level of contamination. I understand the highest level identified is 99 units, which is four times the legal limit of 25. In the case of Galway, specific instructions were given to the local authority by the EPA, with the latter insisting on legal enforcements if they were not carried out. It is disgraceful and appalling that a local authority is being forced by the EPA to do the work it should have done in any case.

The key issue now is how to resolve the problem. There are two doing ways of doing so. The best way, and the final solution, is to replace all the lead pipes. The second way, the interim solution, is to use phosphate irrigation which would coat the pipes so that lead cannot enter the water supply. Whatever is done must be done immediately. Local authorities must act and be seen to act. Louth County Council must be given all necessary moneys to fund these important actions which must be taken to protect public health. Children and the unborn babies of pregnant women are particularly susceptible to the serious effects of chronic lead poisoning over a period of time. We must act now.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

I hope the Minister of State's response will deal with the general situation as well as the specific case of County Louth. What steps is the Department taking to deal with the problem of excessive lead levels in water supplies throughout the State? I understand 11 local authorities have reported problems to the EPA. The latter has indicated that the standards regarding acceptable levels will become stricter in the future, so the problem may get worse and affect even more local authorities.

I understand works are to be carried out in Galway and Mallow. Will similar works be undertaken in the other 11 local authority areas? What support is the Department providing to the local authorities? Do they have the necessary funding, staff and expertise? Reports indicate there was a delay in communicating some of the information from Galway City Council to the EPA. I am not familiar with the background to this. Is information being communicated quickly enough to the EPA? If not, is action being taken by the agency or is there a requirement for the legislation to be strengthened in this regard?

This is a nationwide problem which we must address over time. There is also the issue of householders in private homes. I presume local authorities may also have to replace the pipes in individual homes owned by them. The Department must oversee a national strategy for implementation by the EPA and the various local authorities.

Deputy Michael P. Kitt

I thank Deputies O'Dowd and Tuffy for raising this Adjournment matter. I am responding on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley.

I understand five water supplies in County Louth have been identified by the EPA as having elevated lead levels in the water distribution system and that the agency notified Louth County Council of this last Tuesday. The council advised the Health Service Executive of the situation yesterday and representatives of the two bodies are meeting today to discuss any follow-up actions required. I understand the council has already contacted affected households and commercial premises.

We have in place a rigorous supervisory framework to ensure good quality drinking water is a primary goal for county and city councils and that effective mechanisms are in place to deal quickly and effectively with problems where they arise. Local authority drinking water supplies are subject to supervision by the EPA, which has the necessary resources to follow through with its new enforcement powers. Each local authority is required to ensure that any failure to meet quality standards in its water supplies is investigated immediately, to inform the EPA promptly and to consult with the HSE. Where incidences arise, the EPA can issue appropriate directions to the local authority to prevent or remove any health risk. Failure to comply with a direction is an indictable offence and subject to heavy penalties.

Under the EPA's published guidance, where non-compliance is caused by the interaction of water with a local authority's pipe work and fittings, the authority is required to take action to secure restoration of water quality either by replacing the affected pipe work or providing additional treatment to prevent or remediate the adverse effect on water quality. Where non-compliance is caused or contributed to by a consumer's pipe work and fittings, the local authority is required to advise the consumer on action to be taken to reduce exposure. The HSE advises that, from a public health perspective, the risk to those affected from raised water lead levels depends on a number of factors, including the duration of exposure, the level of exposure, age and other characteristics which affect the individual's absorption of lead.

If a main water distribution pipe in an area is constructed of lead, the HSE's advice is that it is not safe to drink the water or use it for cooking until further notice. Boiling the water will not make it safe as it does not remove the lead. Residents, especially children under six, pregnant women and women planning a pregnancy, should use boiled water drawn from the water supply tanks provided by the local authority, or bottled water, for drinking. Infant formula should also be prepared with boiled water from the tanks in the area or suitable bottled water. Suitable bottled waters include brands with a sodium content of less than 20 mg per litre.

Where the main distribution pipe is not made of lead, and the problem relates to lead pipes connecting individual households to the mains pipe and internal lead plumbing, the advice is that if a home was built or modernised since 1970 it is unlikely that there are any lead pipes on the property. Pregnant women and carers of children under six who live or stay in houses built before 1970 should flush the pipes as a precaution. To do this, the cold water kitchen tap should be run to fill the sink, particularly first thing in the morning, or if the water has been unused in the pipes for longer than six hours. Tap water can be used until further notice. Tap water is safe for bathing, showering, brushing teeth, and washing dishes and clothes even if homes have lead service pipes.

In County Louth, arising from consultations with the HSE and the EPA, the local authorities' priorities will be to clarify fully what areas are affected, introduce additional water treatment that would eliminate the leaching effect from old lead pipes, and implement permanent pipe replacement measures, where appropriate, as quickly as possible.

Schools Building Projects.

Deputy James Bannon

I thank the a Cheann Comhairle for affording me time to discuss this important motion, namely the need for the Minister for Education and Science to provide an update on the new school building for Loughegar national school, County Westmeath. Loughegar school first opened in 1872 and additional accommodation was added in 1934. Given the unsuitable condition of the original building, a new school was opened in October 1964 to accommodate the then roll of 69 pupils. The school amalgamated with Turin national school and a new school wing was added in 1971, consisting of two classrooms and a general purpose room. The school at that time had 122 pupils and four teachers.

Subsequently, due to an increased enrolment roll figure of 158 pupils, a fifth teacher was appointed in 1980. In compliance with the appointment and retention figures, as per Department of Education and Science circulars, a sixth teacher was appointed in 2001. Due to lack of space as the school was awaiting approval for a new school building, the board of management decided to utilise the old 1872 building for this new class on the understanding that it was rented to the Department pending the opening of the new school and that it was a strictly temporary measure.

It appears, however, that an "understanding" means as little to the Government as its pre-election promises. It will come as no surprise to the Minister of State that the classroom, built in 1872, is still in use today. Children in the 21st century are being accommodated in a 136-year-old building, which was deemed completely unsuitable for the education of children 44 years ago. It may not shock the Minister of State, but the health and safety implications certainly horrify me, the teachers and parents involved. The Minister of State should visualise this unbearable workplace scenario. Would he and his Government colleagues be happy to work in accommodation that has deteriorated to such an extent? Problems with rats mean that rat poison is spread and pest control monitors are permanently stationed in several classrooms. In addition, there are droppings from bats in the attic. The removal of asbestos used in the construction of the 1964 building and the new wing in 1971, resulted in the installation of a temporary ceiling, which is still in place. On windy days the ceiling squares are continually displaced and are warped and prone to condensation. The septic tank and sewers are overflowing into playing areas and the system is totally inadequate to support the current number of teachers, teaching assistants and pupils. There is a dangerous crack in one of the walls.

With an enrolment figure for the new 2008-09 school year of 173, the need for a new school at Loughegar is now more urgent than ever. On the basis of pupil numbers, Loughegar national school is entitled to employ a new teacher in September 2009, which will require the provision of another new classroom. This brings the school full circle, back to the situation that pertained in 2001. Logic dictates that this school, which has reached the final stage of the process with a contract in hand, must be allowed to proceed to tender. I am quite sure even this uncaring Government would not suggest that these pupils should be housed in an attic with bats.

In 1998, the Department decided that given the cost of an extension, a new school building was required by Loughegar school and it sanctioned this work. Then what has been described as a "code of silence" ensued under the Minister's predecessor, with the Department refusing to answer letters or take phone calls from the school. I am aware that the Minister met with representatives of the school this summer, but this meeting was an empty exercise with no positive outcome for Loughegar and no commitment to proceed with the building work.

Ten years is a long time to wait. The indisputable facts of this case are that the go-ahead for the building of the new school at Loughegar was given ten years ago, but there has been no follow through. The school now finds itself once again the victim of its own success, with rising pupil numbers and the appointment of a new teacher next year requiring another classroom. I am asking for a firm commitment to allow Loughegar to proceed with the building of its new school without further delay. The is a huge public demand for the new facility. There will be public meetings over the coming months to obtain the facts from the Department. I plead with the Minister of State not to allow that situation to continue and to permit the new school project to proceed forthwith.

Deputy Michael P. Kitt

I thank Deputy Bannon for raising this matter as it provides me with the opportunity to outline to the House the current position concerning Loughegar national school, County Westmeath. I am doing so on behalf of the Minister for Education and Science. Loughegar is a co-educational primary school catering for boys and girls from junior infants to sixth class. The enrolment, as of 30 September 2007, was 161 pupils. The school has a current staffing of a principal, five mainstream assistants and two learning support teachers. The plan for Loughegar national school is to construct a new six-classroom primary school on the existing site.

The school authority submitted an application to the Department for large-scale capital funding for a new school project in November 1998. The building project is at an advanced stage of architectural planning and a tender report was submitted to the Department in November 2007. A letter was issued to the school authorities at that time advising the school not to proceed further until departmental approval was given. As Deputy Bannon stated, the Minister, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, had a meeting with a deputation from the school and local representatives in July this year, and he is acutely aware of the circumstances pertaining to this school.

The Minister explained to the House previously that all applications for large-scale capital funding are assessed in the Department against published prioritisation. Each project is assigned a band rating under these criteria, which reflects the type of works required and the urgency attaching to them. A band 2.2 rating has been assigned to the project for Loughegar national school, which reflects the fact that there is a deficit of mainstream accommodation.

On Monday last, 29 September, the Minister announced the next tranche of projects to progress through the school building programme, including five primary and two post-primary projects to prepare to go on site before the end of 2008, 12 primary and three post-primary projects to proceed to tender to go on site in the first half of 2009 and three primary schools to progress to application for planning permission and preparation of tender documents to allow the earliest possible date to site.

The Minister intends to make a further announcement in the first quarter of 2009 on major primary and post-primary school projects to proceed to construction. The school building project required for Loughegar will be considered in the context of the school building and modernisation programme for 2009. The Minister wishes me to assure you that the project will be progressed when the necessary resources are available to allow this to happen.

The Deputy will appreciate that the Minister must manage the Department's capital budget in a responsible manner and, in so doing, must ensure that funding is targeted at schools most in need. That is why the Department introduced prioritisation criteria for large-scale building projects, which were formulated following consultation with the education partners.

Thousands of building projects were carried out under the previous national development plan to provide new and modernised educational infrastructure and thousands more will be carried out under the new NDP, but there has to be an order as to how this happens and a realisation that not all building projects can proceed together.

The extent of the demand on the capital budget is enormous, providing accommodation for new communities together with accommodation for the unprecedented number of extra teachers which the Government has put into the system. We also must modernise much of the existing stock as a result of the historic under-investment in it. This cannot all be achieved over night. We have made huge inroads and we will continue to build on our success under the previous national development plan when we delivered 7,800 building projects.

As the Minister, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, has said, this must be done in an orderly and planned manner and on the basis of the most pressing need. Projects will be advanced incrementally through the system over time, consistent with the priority attaching to them. This approach is critical to ensuring that schools can know that their individual projects will be allowed to proceed, in order of priority, as and when funding allows.

The school building project at Loughegar national school is being considered in the context of the school building and modernisation programme. The Minister wishes me to assure Deputy Bannon that the project will be progressed when the necessary resources are available to allow this to happen.

The Dáil adjourned at 5.25 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 7 October 2008.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 2 Oct 2008