Vol. 715 No. 2
1 Deputy Phil Hogan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the reasons for the delay in processing a foreshore licence application for the Poolbeg waste to energy facility, Dublin; the date on which his Department received the application; if he is currently judging the application and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30802/10]
My Department assumed responsibility for a range of foreshore functions in the middle of January 2010. The foreshore application for the Poolbeg waste to energy project is one of 700 applications which now fall to be dealt with by my Department. The relevant file for the Poolbeg project was forwarded to my Department on 25 January 2010. The foreshore licence element of the Poolbeg project relates to the cooling water intake and discharge pipe. An application for the licence was originally made by Dublin City Council in December 2008. A preliminary assessment of the application for a foreshore licence has been carried out and a valuation of the site to be occupied by the applicant has been also completed.
As this is the first ever case under which the terms of both sections 226 and 227 of the Planning Acts were being used, which disapply certain provisions of the Foreshore Acts, the then consent authority, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, sought legal advice as to the relationship between planning legislation and the consent process under the Foreshore Acts. The initial advice has since been forwarded to my Department, and further advices have been more recently provided on this complex issue.
What is the average time for dealing with a foreshore licence application in the Department, given this application was lodged originally with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in 2008?
The Minister mentioned recently in an RTE interview that he had a quasi-judicial role in the foreshore licence application and stated, "The Poolbeg plant is entirely incompatible with my national waste policy". Is it compatible with Government policy? Does he think it is fair or appropriate that a Minister would exercise a quasi-judicial function in a fair manner when he has stated publicly that if he approved the project, it would undermine Government policy?
It is not compatible with Government policy. I cannot give the Deputy the average time, as only two applications have come in and been completed in my Department. This is unprecedented in that it is the first ever case we dealt with under which the terms of both sections 226 and 227 of the Planning Acts were used to disapply certain provisions of the Foreshore Acts and that is why the then consent authority, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, sought legal advice.
The Deputy referred to an interview I gave to RTE. This slick public relations campaign is regrettable. It has been conducted in public and references have been made to the American ambassador to Ireland, which he would find quite embarrassing. I do not believe this is about the foreshore licence, which is a red herring. This is about the change in Government policy and this is why it is not compatible with it.
The issues include my proposal to ensure we have new waste levies in place and the harshness of the McKechnie judgment, which is being appealed to the Supreme Court. That has severe implications for this project. Likewise, the fact that Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council pulled out of the waste market in Dublin has profound implications for this project.
I refer to the information that has been put in the public domain that somehow we will face fines. I will ensure that we comply with the landfill directive. That is a priority for me. It is interesting that people do not appear to have the same issue with fines when we are dealing with, for example, habitat and the protection of our raised bogs. That does not appear to be a problem. In this case, however, when there are vested interests involved, there appears to be a problem. As Deputy Hogan knows, my priority is to ensure we have a shift of policy towards mechanical biological treatment, MBT, and I will shortly open another MBT plant. I am also anxious to have a market develop in this country for solid recovered fuel, SRF.
Finally, it is astounding how the Deputy is playing it both ways. Deputies from his party are going around my constituency saying they are opposing this plant tooth and nail and making all sorts of allegations that I have not done enough and so forth on this matter. Yet, it is clear from the Deputy's stance tonight that he is absolutely in favour of the construction of a 600,000 tonne incinerator.
We are almost out of time for this question. I ask Deputy Hogan to be very brief.
I will be very brief. It will not take long to respond. First, Fine Gael is opposed to incineration and always has been. The question is about the Minister's centralised role as Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and how he has accepted a quasi-judicial function with regard to his responsibilities. He sees nothing wrong in his role as Minister in adjudicating in a quasi-judicial way on an application before him. Will he reflect on that and on whether it is appropriate in his role as Minister to adjudicate on this matter in view of his blatant conflict of interest?
Will the Minister again clarify Government waste policy? The Minister has his personal view, which I respect. However, what is Government policy? He said in his response that in his view what he stated is Government policy. There is no change in Government policy, and this project is based on Government policy. It has gone through all the processes. Will the Minister step aside from his position as Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to have this matter adjudicated by another Minister, in view of his clear and unambiguous statement in an RTE interview that he has a quasi-judicial function with regard to this foreshore licence application?
I assure the Deputy that this will be dealt with in a fair and transparent manner. I simply do not believe the Deputy's statement that Fine Gael is opposed to——
Nobody believes the Minister.
——incineration. Its councillors in Dublin City Council are making the opposite statements, as are its councillors in Dublin North.
When? Show them to me.
Yes.
The Minister is in the dock.
Allow the Minister to complete his reply. I protected the Deputy so I call on the Minister to continue.
It is on the public record. The Deputy has tried this repeatedly, where he says it is my policy. I have had to explain it is the programme for Government.
That is not policy.
I went to Cabinet with the programme for Government and a Cabinet decision was announced. It stated clearly that what is in the renewed programme for Government is Government policy. It is crystal clear. What is at stake here is that change in Government policy and moving towards MBT. This is the problem for the applicants because they are concerned by those changes and the problems they have caused themselves. The contract they have signed——
Can the Minister not turn it down?
There were two further issues which I did not mention. One is the complaint to the Competition Authority. I have put forward an authorised officer to look at the contract.
That has nothing to do with the foreshore licences.
Yes, they are very pertinent to the questions that have been raised. These are the most important issues and I ask Fine Gael——
The Minister is not stepping aside.
——to outline what its policy is on this. I am tired of listening to its hypocrisy on this issue.
He will breach the ministerial handbook on the code of conduct.
2 Deputy Ciarán Lynch asked the Minister for the Environment; Heritage and Local Government the number of houses leased from private landlords under the social housing leasing initiative to date in 2010; the average monthly cost and the full year cost of these leases; the number of properties which are to be refurbished and returned to the landlord at the end of the lease period with no option to buy the property from the landlord or to sell it to the sitting tenant; the reason the option to buy was not made mandatory in establishing the SHLI in view of the fact that this is considered to be the norm in lease agreements; the number of these properties that achieved the expected 20% rent reduction as compared to market costs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30895/10]
To the end of June 2010, my Department had approved over 2,330 units for use under the social housing leasing initiative. Of these, some 1,830 have been issued with funding approval, of which 175 are private lease units to be provided by either a local authority or an approved housing body, AHB. Of the private lease units approved under the initiative, 47 have lease agreements signed and commenced in 2010. The average monthly cost of these units is €612 per unit and the full year cost is €7,342 per unit.
The discount levels achieved in these agreements has varied; 40 units have achieved 20% below market value, two have achieved 18% below market and a further five have achieved 16% below market value. The variation in the levels of discount achieved arises because in some circumstances the property owner has retained responsibility for maintenance and management. In addition, a wider discount range may also apply in cases where the owner has retained responsibility for service charges.
With regard to the inclusion of an option to buy clause within the lease agreements, of the 47 units leased from private landlords this year 30 have an option to purchase clause included in the lease agreement. The provision of an option to purchase clause is a matter most appropriately dealt with by the authority or approved body on the basis of individual negotiations. It is considered that restricting the negotiating flexibility of authorities or approved bodies could lead to increased leasing costs and may in certain circumstances reduce otherwise available supply. To assist authorities in circumstances where it is appropriate to include an option to purchase my Department has provided template option to purchase clauses, as part of a suite of framework legal documents, which can be inserted into agreements as required.
I thought we would be doing this after "Oireachtas Report", not before it.
We can still make it.
It is interesting that when the Minister announced this programme in the Chamber two years ago, he said he would spend €20 million per annum and with that would acquire 2,000 properties in the private sector. The figures the Minister has given this evening are well off those targets. At that time he was also adamant that there would be no option to buy as part of the package. Why has he been unable to fulfil the target of 2,000? Leaving aside the fact that I consider this to be bad social housing policy, these were his targets and he does not appear to have reached them. Could he also explain the change in his position with regard to the option of a purchase being facilitated? Can he explain how that purchase is put aside? Is it the situation that pertains with most long-term leases, where there is what is called a peppercorn purchase, which is a very small sum of money at the end of the lease, or is it a more proportional sum?
The Deputy raised two questions, the first regarding the number of units leased from private landlords. The target I set for this year and last year was 2,000 units each year. We achieved our target. There were 1,993 units for 2009 and I am confident that we will reach our target this year. The reason for the private units being at that level is that local authorities obviously decided, and rightly so, that they would offload many of their unsold affordable units into the leasing area for the very good reason that they were costing them a great deal of money and were not being sold. It made sense to me and to them that they would deal with that area of their responsibility first. Indeed, in 2010 the swing is going the other way towards the private side.
With regard to the right to purchase, the Deputy asked that we insert a mandatory right to purchase. I do not agree with that. The property owner as part of the negotiation process may decide to put a value on account of the house not having such a clause. I am of the opinion that the charge for having this option being made available should be left as a negotiating opportunity by either the approved bodies or the local authority with the developer. An alternative to the inclusion of an option purchase clause could perhaps be the right to have a first refusal. I am not prepared to have a mandatory purchase but if a developer wants to have such a clause, we have set out a template for him or her to enter such an agreement with the local authority or the approved body.
As I have stated in the House previously, there is no long term security of tenure for a social housing applicant in this programme and neither is there an exit policy. The Minister of State is on record in this regard in reply to a parliamentary question. Even though he is shepherding local authorities into this approach by saying it is the only show in town, he is not giving them any direction as to how they will get out of the difficulty he is creating for them in ten to 20 years' time when these leases expire.
My final supplementary remark is that the Minister of State is being somewhat disingenuous when he states he has met the target of 2,000 last year as approximately three quarters of those were affordable homes and social housing. What he has done is to convert social housing and affordable programmes into a leasing programme and he did not meet his target in the private sector, which was 2,000.
Is the option to purchase only available on those social and affordable homes or is there an option to purchase on the private properties being leased? The sum of money which is an income for the local authority is based on the rent differential where a tenant pays a rent equivalent to a standard social housing house which would run to several hundred euro a month. Will the Minister of State confirm that this money is ring-fenced specifically for the maintenance of these properties leased from developers and cannot be spent by the local authority other than to reinstate these properties at the end of the lease?
Deputy Lynch asked about the options at the end of a lease period of ten or 20 years. There are a number of options for the local authorities to meet their social housing needs and these include renewing the lease, the purchase of the unit if the option to purchase clause has been included in the lease agreement, or if the owner is willing, or there is the other option of taking the house into the social housing stock, providing the householder has alternatives suitable to the needs of supporting households to purchase another dwelling under the incremental purchase scheme. The Deputy will be aware I introduced the incremental purchase scheme and I signed the ministerial order only last week and it is available now for people to buy houses from the social housing stock.
I have included the option of purchase with regard to private houses. Under the affordable scheme there is an option to buy and after five years they will revert back and it may be a different market. I am leaving the door open for people who wish to purchase a home for themselves, both in the private leasing and in the affordable sector.
3 Deputy Phil Hogan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the progress made in having the Comptroller and Auditor General investigate past decisions and actions of the executive and the board of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30803/10]
Arising from the comprehensive analysis and conclusions of the corporate governance reviews undertaken by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority and acknowledging, in particular, the view of the authority's board that it considers a further investigation would be required to deal with certain matters, the Government has decided to bring the authority within the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General. This will mean that the DDDA will become subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General and may also be subject to the preparation of specific reports by the Comptroller and Auditor General on the efficient use of resources and value for money.
The Attorney General has advised that the authority can be brought within the Comptroller and Auditor General's remit by means of an order to be made by the Minister for Finance. This will move the authority from the Second Schedule of the Comptroller and Auditor General Act 1993 to the First Schedule, alongside the other State bodies that are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I understand that this matter will shortly be addressed by the Minister for Finance.
Thereafter, the nature and timing of action or investigation by the Comptroller and Auditor General will clearly be a matter for the Comptroller and Auditor General himself to determine, having regard to his constitutionally independent role.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I am surprised the Minister for Finance has taken so long, in view of the fact it was a Government decision about six weeks ago to make the order to allow the Comptroller and Auditor General to investigate these matters. What additional powers does the Comptroller and Auditor General require to fully investigate all of the decisions that were made having the potential to lead to all of those decisions being responsible for a significant sum of money being borne by the taxpayer? When will the annual report for 2009 be available from the Dublin Docklands Development Authority for publication?
To answer the Deputy's last question, I hope the annual accounts will be available fairly shortly. I hope to have it signed off at Cabinet next week so that it will be available for inspection. This is the type of corporate governance we have come to expect now from the new chairperson, Professor Niamh Brennan and I believe she has done a very good job. It is important to remember that the authority's own analysis, the two independent reports by Brassil and King, were commissioned to assess all of those issues, the planning and financial procedures. I acknowledge that it was six weeks ago but it is a matter for the Minister for Finance. I understand he wants to act promptly and that it will then go to the committee. The committee can then decide on what it wants to do with that issue. I have always said that we want to ensure we have the very highest standards in the Dublin docklands. I know the people who are interested in developing the area and those who have benefited, want to see the Dublin docklands continue. It would be a mistake were we to go down the road of simply abolishing the Dublin docklands authority as has been proposed in some quarters. I want to ensure we get all the answers to the relevant questions.
I welcome the fact that the Minister changed his mind about bringing in the Comptroller and Auditor General to investigate these matters.
I never changed my mind.
The record of the House will show he voted down a Fine Gael motion to that effect last December. What were the reasons for his change of heart? What issues came to his notice that warranted a Government decision to have the Comptroller and Auditor General investigate these matters, in light of his decision to vote down a Fine Gael Bill on the same matter last December? What is the status and validity of all the planning decisions made, arising from the recent report he commissioned on planning in the Dublin Docklands Development Authority?
There have been no challenges to the legal standing of any of those planning decisions. In answer to the first charge that I changed my mind, I did not do so. The Deputy may recall during that debate on the Fine Gael Private Members' motion I said very clearly that I was keeping open the option——
What changed the Minister's mind?
I did. The Deputy should check the record of the House. I said I was keeping open the option of widening the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General. However, I felt it would have been premature to do it before I had received the reports which I had commissioned. I received those reports, the two independent consultants' reports, Brassil and King, and I acted on foot of those reports.
Deputy Hogan decided to leak the reports. He had copies of them.
In the public interest.
I waited until all of the outstanding legal issues were dealt with comprehensively. I then published the reports in full. As I predicted, they were not the sort of explosive reports that others had warned about. As a consequence I said I would widen the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General. It is as simple as that. I have always said I was open to widening the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
4 Deputy Phil Hogan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the progress made in the roll-out of domestic water meters; when he expects a nationwide meter installation campaign to be completed; and if will make a statement on the matter. [30804/10]
Following a decision by the Government, my Department is finalising proposals for the installation of water meters in households served by public water supplies. These proposals will give effect to the commitment in the renewed programme for Government to introduce charging for domestic water in a way that is fair, significantly reduces waste and is easily applied. I expect to bring these proposals to the Government in the coming weeks. The installation of water meters in households connected to public supplies will encourage householders to conserve water and will result in savings in the significant operational costs faced by local authorities in providing water and waste water services. This will complement the significant increases in investment on water conservation measures in the Water Services Investment Programme 2010-12 that I announced earlier this year.
The primary objectives of the proposed investment are to promote more sustainable water consumption by households, to reduce water loss in the distribution networks to an economic level and to address unacceptably high levels of unaccounted for water in some locations. I expect the metering programme to be under way next year. I will provide further detail on these matters following their consideration and approval by Government.
My losing my breath had nothing to do with Deputy Hogan's question. It was the environment.
I knew it was upsetting the Acting Chairman. How long does the Minister expect the roll-out of the domestic water metering programme to take? What will be the cost of providing water meters on behalf of the taxpayer through the local authority system? Is the Minister categorically stating there will be no flat charge for water introduced by this Government?
I am on record as stating there will be no flat charge and it will be based on metering. I can confirm that to the House, and I have said so on a number of occasions. Quite simply, a flat charge would defeat the purpose. Installing meters means people see it as fair. We can get greater political buy-in and if it is done on a free allocation basis, people will see it as a means of conserving water. It works and this is the whole point of it. We can quickly determine if there are leaks, many of which occur from the footpath to the household. We have discussed this matter at length.
The issue is that I have not yet gone to Government. It would be premature to provide timelines and costs. This can be done and will be labour-intensive. It can be done within two years. Having not gone to Government, I am not in a position to give further details.
5 Deputy Terence Flanagan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the status of all committed housing regeneration projects; the amount of funding promised in 2010; the way this compares to 2007, 2008 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30805/10]
Early in 2010, in response to Question No. 43 of 21 January, I set out details of the ambitious multi-annual housing regeneration programme I am pursuing and the status of housing regeneration projects under way in Ballymun, Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Dundalk, Sligo and Tralee. I have since announced a 2010 regeneration programme allocation of €126.795 million, compared to expenditure of €107.134 million in 2009, €126.479 million in 2008 and €94.129 million in 2007. The 2010 regeneration allocation represents an increase of almost €20 million on 2009.
Significant progress has since been made on a range of regeneration projects. In particular, the Government has launched the phase 1 implementation plan of the Limerick regeneration programme, involving the delivery of 26 new projects worth €337 million over the next four and a half years. I have committed to providing an additional €160 million for the housing projects alone, including an extra €10 million on top of the initial allocation of €25 million for works in 2010.
Approvals were issued for the acceptance of tenders for Shangan 5A, 5B and Coultry 6 projects in Ballymun, valued at €21 million, and for construction of the Glen, phase 2, in Cork city, valued at €15 million. In addition, pre-tender approvals have issued for the Mitchel's regeneration project in Tralee, valued at €10.6 million. Against a backdrop of pressure on public expenditure generally, these significant commitments demonstrate the Government's determination to proceed as rapidly as possible with the overall regeneration programme.
I thank the Minister of State for his response. On 25 May, the Irish Human Rights Commission and the media heard evidence from the residents of Dolphin House flats on the deplorable living conditions the residents must endure. Dr. Maurice Manning stated the rights of the residents under the UN Declaration of Human Rights, to which Ireland is a signatory, are infringed. What will the Minister of State do about Dolphin House to sort out the problems of the complex?
The Deputy did not submit a question on Dolphin House so I do not have further information. It is initially a matter for Dublin City Council but I will contact the council for an update on the situation at Dolphin House and I will provide it to Deputy Flanagan. If I had notice of this matter, I would have more information for him.
Has the Minister of State visited Dolphin House? The Minister of State did not mention the Limerick regeneration project. Can the Minister of State provide information on this?
I referred to the Limerick regeneration project. Two weeks ago, the Taoiseach and I attended the launch of the €337 million project. The event received widespread coverage. I also referred to the Glen in Cork. I have not visited Dolphin House. I have visited many of the regeneration project locations, including Ballymun, and I will visit Tralee next week.
Will the Minister of State given an undertaking to visit Dolphin House in light of the comments made by the Irish Human Rights Commission?
I will ask Dublin City Council for an update. This is the responsibility of Dublin City Council.
Is the Minister of State not funding Dublin City Council?
Yes, but at this point there may not be an application from Dublin City Council in respect of Dolphin House. I do not want to put something incorrect on the record. I will provide a report to Deputy Terence Flanagan without the need for a further question.
